On this day in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision in Roe V Wade making abortion a "fundamental right". One day this decision will be viewed with even more disgust and disbelief than we now view the Dredd Scott case. In Roe, the Burger Court simply created an entirely new "fundamental right" by relying on the "emanations of a penumbra*". Even prominent Leftist Constitutional scholars will admit that Roe is bad law. I personally believe that abortion is murder, and I also believe that our descendants will see it that way also, and will view the last forty years as a holocaust.
* I was disappointed to see that Merriam-Webster actually lists: a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution as a definition of penumbra. Can anyone cite me any other example in the history of mankind in which this excuse was used besides the Burger Court?
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Monday, August 18, 2008
Lame Lame Lame
Oh you lefties slay me. McCain cleans your guys clock, so now you all come scuttling out of the wood work to accuse McCain of cheating at the forum and lying about his prison camp story. Lame.
By the way, it's Obama who lied about the Born Alive bills in the Illinois Senate, and his only example for his bravery in "crossing the aisle", he actually punked out.
By the way, it's Obama who lied about the Born Alive bills in the Illinois Senate, and his only example for his bravery in "crossing the aisle", he actually punked out.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Giuliani, Abortion and the Soul of the Republican Party
Rudy Giuliani made a bold statement this week. He basically said , "Yes, I am pro-choice. Deal with it...if it is a deal breaker with you, so be it.". Kudos to him for his honesty.
The question now becomes, should it be a deal breaker? First a little history.
The Republican party was formed in 1854, almost exclusively because of the issue of slavery. The Whig Party and the Democratic Party had split into northern and southern factions over the issue of slavery. The northern branches of these parties joined together and a new party was formed. Thus from the very beginning, the soul of the Republican Party has been about freedom, dignity and the value of human life.
The issue of abortion is directly comparable. Those in favor of slavery argued that Blacks were not fully human; those in favor of abortion argue that the baby (or fetus if you prefer) is not fully human. Slavery advocates argued that the Constitution protected their right to own slaves (specifically the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment...and remember at one time the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with them); abortion advocates also rely on the Constitution to protect them (though in this case it is vested in the entirely invented penumbra of privacy). The two worst decisions the Supreme Court have ever handed down (followed quickly by the recent Kelo case) were attempts to protect these two institutions: slavery and the Dred Scott decision;
abortion and Roe v Wade.
Abortion politics comes down to a very basic issue. Is the baby (fetus) human? If it isn't (and honestly I don't see how you can logically make this arguement, but millions try) then abortion is just what abortion advocates say, a simple medical procedure. If the baby (fetus) is human, then the abortion industry is a human tragedy every bit as terrible as slavery and genocide. People see Giuliani's position as the moderate one. I don't. To me, the moderate position is to return to the pre-Roe status quo and allow the States to decide. The Republican Party currently supports letting the States decide. I personally would support an amendment to the Constitution that outlawed abortion except to save the life of the mother.
So yes, Rudy, it's a deal breaker for me. I can never vote for you for president. I hope it never comes to that, because I doubt I will be able to vote for the Democrat either, so I will have to throw my vote away on a write-in vote. I'd support you for U.N. ambassador in a second though.
I don't think Giuliani should be kicked out of the party. I do believe in a big tent. However, in order to remain true to the soul of the party, to the values of human life and human dignity, the Party must reject the pro-choice position.
The question now becomes, should it be a deal breaker? First a little history.
The Republican party was formed in 1854, almost exclusively because of the issue of slavery. The Whig Party and the Democratic Party had split into northern and southern factions over the issue of slavery. The northern branches of these parties joined together and a new party was formed. Thus from the very beginning, the soul of the Republican Party has been about freedom, dignity and the value of human life.
The issue of abortion is directly comparable. Those in favor of slavery argued that Blacks were not fully human; those in favor of abortion argue that the baby (or fetus if you prefer) is not fully human. Slavery advocates argued that the Constitution protected their right to own slaves (specifically the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment...and remember at one time the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with them); abortion advocates also rely on the Constitution to protect them (though in this case it is vested in the entirely invented penumbra of privacy). The two worst decisions the Supreme Court have ever handed down (followed quickly by the recent Kelo case) were attempts to protect these two institutions: slavery and the Dred Scott decision;
abortion and Roe v Wade.
Abortion politics comes down to a very basic issue. Is the baby (fetus) human? If it isn't (and honestly I don't see how you can logically make this arguement, but millions try) then abortion is just what abortion advocates say, a simple medical procedure. If the baby (fetus) is human, then the abortion industry is a human tragedy every bit as terrible as slavery and genocide. People see Giuliani's position as the moderate one. I don't. To me, the moderate position is to return to the pre-Roe status quo and allow the States to decide. The Republican Party currently supports letting the States decide. I personally would support an amendment to the Constitution that outlawed abortion except to save the life of the mother.
So yes, Rudy, it's a deal breaker for me. I can never vote for you for president. I hope it never comes to that, because I doubt I will be able to vote for the Democrat either, so I will have to throw my vote away on a write-in vote. I'd support you for U.N. ambassador in a second though.
I don't think Giuliani should be kicked out of the party. I do believe in a big tent. However, in order to remain true to the soul of the party, to the values of human life and human dignity, the Party must reject the pro-choice position.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Gonzales v. Carhart
I agree with the outcome of yesterday's decision. I think partial birth abortion should be outlawed. I think under current law, and current understanding of the Constitution, it was the right decision.
However, if like me, you believe that abortion is ultimately a political issue, that should be decided by the individual states, then you have to align yourself with Justice Thomas's opinion rather than Justice Kennedy's.
Justice Thomas all but said: "Come up with a case challenging this law based on the Commerce clause, and I'll vote to strike it."
As has been noted elsewhere, this particular case places the parties in an unusual position. Pro choicers are usually people who believe in an expansive understanding of the Commerce Clause, and pro lifers are usually people who support a restrictive understanding of the Commerce Clause. However an expansive understanding of the Commerce Clause supports this case, and a restrictive understanding undermines this case.
However, if like me, you believe that abortion is ultimately a political issue, that should be decided by the individual states, then you have to align yourself with Justice Thomas's opinion rather than Justice Kennedy's.
Justice Thomas all but said: "Come up with a case challenging this law based on the Commerce clause, and I'll vote to strike it."
As has been noted elsewhere, this particular case places the parties in an unusual position. Pro choicers are usually people who believe in an expansive understanding of the Commerce Clause, and pro lifers are usually people who support a restrictive understanding of the Commerce Clause. However an expansive understanding of the Commerce Clause supports this case, and a restrictive understanding undermines this case.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
House 4/3/07
Oh My God!
That was the most pro-life scene I have ever seen on TV outside of a documentary!
Update 4/5/07: Here's the clip!
That was the most pro-life scene I have ever seen on TV outside of a documentary!
Update 4/5/07: Here's the clip!
Update 6/2/07: Apparently this episode was partially based on a true story. Picture and article here.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Roe V Wade For Men
The issue of Reproductive rights, especially as they concern men, has recently been a hot topic because of a court case filed in Michigan by the National Center for Men. It has cropped up all over the blogosphere, and I have been engaged in a debate about it with a blogger named Darleen on her blog. I have decided to revise and extend my remarks in a longer post here on my blog.
The first issue to dispense with is the rights of the child. I believe the child has the right to life, and a moral claim to support from both parents. I believe fathers and mothers should both be involved in raising a child emotionally and financially. But a moral claim is not the same thing as a legal right. I oppose abortion, and enthusiastically support adoption and even orphanages.
The core issue is reproductive rights and responsibilities. They differ vastly depending on a person's gender.
Let's begin with reproductive rights. These rights begin with the right to consent to sexual relations.
A woman has the right to consent or decline to engage in sex. If a man has sex with a woman without her consent, this is the crime of rape, and it carries severe moral and legal sanctions. A man also has the right to consent or decline to have sex. However if a woman has sex with a man without his consent there is rarely a prosecution or any moral sanctions. In one case of apparent rape of a male by a female (S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., ) the courts actually forced the male rape victim to pay child support. Note also that it is possible for a man who believes he is engaging in consentual sex to be found guity of rape because it is determined later that even though the woman consented at the time, her ability to give consent was in some way hindered. (I.E. she was drunk at the time)
It is illustrative to examine the differences in how statutory rape is handled by gender. Men who rape underage girls are "perverts", and usually receive severe jail sentences. Women who rape underage boys are "troubled" and often receive probation. (Quite often we are told that the boys involved got lucky, but we are never told that the girls got lucky) It must also be noted that male victims of statutory rape can be forced to pay child support. (San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J. is just one example) In the one known case involving a female victim (Cf. Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L) the courts ruled that the mother was not responsible for child support.
Once the decision to have sex is made, the issue of birth control comes up. The courts have ruled that even if the women commits fraud by lying about her fertility, or use of birth control, the man can be forced to pay child support. One of the main arguments supporting this is a 14th Amendment argument stating that it would create two unequal classes of children, those entitled to paternal support, and those not. The woman can also lie about her intention to have an abortion. Often a man is presented with a child he knows nothing about years after the birth, and is forced to not only begin making child support payments, but to make retroactive payments back to the date of birth. A man can also be forced to pay child support for a child that is not biologically his, say in the case of adultry during marriage. (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1133517916151 as one example)
Once conception occurs, the man no longer has any reproductive rights. (with one exception noted later) The courts have consistently ruled that a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, or prevent her from obtaining one. Obviously under current law, a woman can choose at any point prior to birth to have an abortion. A woman can also choose to give her child up for adoption after birth. (at this point a man's only post conception right comes into play. In most cases, {but not all} he has the right to assume custody rather than allow an adoption) If a woman keeps the child she can force the man to become financially liable, with or without his consent. She usually has the right to go to court and place severe limitations on the father's parental rights. Rarely is a man able to dictate a woman's parental rights.
It must also be noted that a woman can impregnate herself with a man's sperm without his consent, and the man is still forced to pay child support. This includes cases in which a woman preserves sperm from oral sex and impregnates herself. (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050309.html) There are cases in which the man and woman make a contract in which he agrees to provide her with sperm, and she agrees to free him from all parental responsibility including support. (Estes v. Albers and Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd) The courts have ruled that in these cases the father is still liable for child support.
It is simply undeniable that current reproductive and parental laws treat the genders inequitably. Women are given Rights with few responsibilities while men are given responsibilities with few Rights. I believe that the best solution would include limiting some of the woman's rights, and limiting some of the man's responsibilities.
Update 3/16/06: There is also a Supreme Court case (International Union, United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc) that says an employer may not discriminate against pregnant women (even to protect their fetus). However there are laws and cases all over the country that allow employers to give pregnant women preferential treatment (such as extended sick leave, allowing them to change jobs if they wish, and protecting their jobs while they are out).
The first issue to dispense with is the rights of the child. I believe the child has the right to life, and a moral claim to support from both parents. I believe fathers and mothers should both be involved in raising a child emotionally and financially. But a moral claim is not the same thing as a legal right. I oppose abortion, and enthusiastically support adoption and even orphanages.
The core issue is reproductive rights and responsibilities. They differ vastly depending on a person's gender.
Let's begin with reproductive rights. These rights begin with the right to consent to sexual relations.
A woman has the right to consent or decline to engage in sex. If a man has sex with a woman without her consent, this is the crime of rape, and it carries severe moral and legal sanctions. A man also has the right to consent or decline to have sex. However if a woman has sex with a man without his consent there is rarely a prosecution or any moral sanctions. In one case of apparent rape of a male by a female (S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., ) the courts actually forced the male rape victim to pay child support. Note also that it is possible for a man who believes he is engaging in consentual sex to be found guity of rape because it is determined later that even though the woman consented at the time, her ability to give consent was in some way hindered. (I.E. she was drunk at the time)
It is illustrative to examine the differences in how statutory rape is handled by gender. Men who rape underage girls are "perverts", and usually receive severe jail sentences. Women who rape underage boys are "troubled" and often receive probation. (Quite often we are told that the boys involved got lucky, but we are never told that the girls got lucky) It must also be noted that male victims of statutory rape can be forced to pay child support. (San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J. is just one example) In the one known case involving a female victim (Cf. Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L) the courts ruled that the mother was not responsible for child support.
Once the decision to have sex is made, the issue of birth control comes up. The courts have ruled that even if the women commits fraud by lying about her fertility, or use of birth control, the man can be forced to pay child support. One of the main arguments supporting this is a 14th Amendment argument stating that it would create two unequal classes of children, those entitled to paternal support, and those not. The woman can also lie about her intention to have an abortion. Often a man is presented with a child he knows nothing about years after the birth, and is forced to not only begin making child support payments, but to make retroactive payments back to the date of birth. A man can also be forced to pay child support for a child that is not biologically his, say in the case of adultry during marriage. (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1133517916151 as one example)
Once conception occurs, the man no longer has any reproductive rights. (with one exception noted later) The courts have consistently ruled that a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, or prevent her from obtaining one. Obviously under current law, a woman can choose at any point prior to birth to have an abortion. A woman can also choose to give her child up for adoption after birth. (at this point a man's only post conception right comes into play. In most cases, {but not all} he has the right to assume custody rather than allow an adoption) If a woman keeps the child she can force the man to become financially liable, with or without his consent. She usually has the right to go to court and place severe limitations on the father's parental rights. Rarely is a man able to dictate a woman's parental rights.
It must also be noted that a woman can impregnate herself with a man's sperm without his consent, and the man is still forced to pay child support. This includes cases in which a woman preserves sperm from oral sex and impregnates herself. (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050309.html) There are cases in which the man and woman make a contract in which he agrees to provide her with sperm, and she agrees to free him from all parental responsibility including support. (Estes v. Albers and Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd) The courts have ruled that in these cases the father is still liable for child support.
It is simply undeniable that current reproductive and parental laws treat the genders inequitably. Women are given Rights with few responsibilities while men are given responsibilities with few Rights. I believe that the best solution would include limiting some of the woman's rights, and limiting some of the man's responsibilities.
Update 3/16/06: There is also a Supreme Court case (International Union, United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc) that says an employer may not discriminate against pregnant women (even to protect their fetus). However there are laws and cases all over the country that allow employers to give pregnant women preferential treatment (such as extended sick leave, allowing them to change jobs if they wish, and protecting their jobs while they are out).
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Questions for the Pro-Choicers
OK, based on the debate I've been having, we know that over 97% of abortions in the US are for reasons other than the mother's health, and 87% of them are for reasons other than the mother's health, rape or incest, or the fetus's health. (and just how does an abortion solve a fetal health problem better than birth would?) We also know that the latest mantra of the Pro-Choice movement lately (since they have seen their support slipping in both public opinion and the courts) is abortion should be safe, legal and rare. We now know that there are about 1 million abortions a year (not including over the counter "morning after" pills). Low estimates put the number at 800,000 and high estimates put it at around 1,400,000. Most sources put live birth rates at around 4 million. So if you take the best case scenario, 1 out of 6 pregnacies result in abortion, use the worst case and it is about 1 in 3. (The CDC says that there were 246 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2001, which puts the number at 1 in 5)
So to you Pro-Choicers: Is this rare enough for you? If not, what are you doing to make it rarer? How rare should they be? Are you OK with over 700,000 abortions a year for reasons of convenience? (87% of 800,000, the low estimate)
We know that while you are willing to support laws that say you need parental permission for a teeneager to get aspirin form their schools (but prophalayctics are handed out like candy no questions asked), or a tattoo or their belly pierced but for some reason you think it is perfectly acceptable for them to get an abortion without even parental notification. Why? Don't say incest, all parental notification laws have work arounds in cases of abusive parents. We don't give children the right to choose to drive, use legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) or vote, but we do give them the right to kill their baby.
So to you Pro-Choicers: Is this rare enough for you? If not, what are you doing to make it rarer? How rare should they be? Are you OK with over 700,000 abortions a year for reasons of convenience? (87% of 800,000, the low estimate)
We know that while you are willing to support laws that say you need parental permission for a teeneager to get aspirin form their schools (but prophalayctics are handed out like candy no questions asked), or a tattoo or their belly pierced but for some reason you think it is perfectly acceptable for them to get an abortion without even parental notification. Why? Don't say incest, all parental notification laws have work arounds in cases of abusive parents. We don't give children the right to choose to drive, use legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) or vote, but we do give them the right to kill their baby.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Abortion
I am currently involved in an online discourse on abortion with a fellow blogger named GS. In one of my posts I characterized abortion as routine. He challenged my assertion, and wrote a post on his blog laying out his argument.
My first response was to challenge his statistics, using the example of partial-birth abortion. It is now established fact that abortion providers, and the pro-choice movement have lied about the number of partial-birth abortions performed each year. One of the doctors who was responsible has in fact admitted on television that he lied.
I decided however to accept his numbers for the sake of argument, and respond to his assertions. I have posted the following on the comments section of GS's blog, but I felt the points were valuable enough to reprint here.
Now on to some substance if we accept your numbers for the sake of argument.
1) You cite the number of abortions as approximately 1.37 million a year, (not quite the millions I postulated, but close) and the number of live births as somewhere between 3.8 and 4 millions a year. So even if we use your numbers, nearly a third of US pregnancies result in the purposeful killing of the baby. I think it is fair to say that something that happens between 1/4 and 1/3 of the time can be said to be routine.
2) If 47% of abortions are done on women who have already had an abortion, that is almost 1/2 of them. Again, something that happens 1/2 the time is fairly routine.
3)I said abortion was used as a form of birth control, not the primary form, so this is a bit of a strawman argument. Still almost half the women did not use any form of contraception during the month they became pregnant, a number I certainly find troubling.
4) "3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health" Please. My baby's health is at risk, so let's kill it. Surely that doesn't make any sense to you?
5) "3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health. 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health. (Add on to that 6.1% the number of abortions performed due to rape/incest." These numbers come up to 12.2%. So using your numbers 87.8% of abortions are done for convenience, not medical necessity or rape. That sounds pretty routine to me.
Add to this the fact that most abortions are done on an outpatient basis, I stand by my characterization of abortion as routine.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines routine as "1 : of a commonplace or repetitious character"
Update 1/26/06: GS has responded to this post on his blog. He still insists on quibbling about my use of the word routine. But he, like others of his ideology, is missing the forest for the trees. Let's look at his numbers again.
1) 1 out of three pregnancies today results in an abortion. How can anyone read that number and not be absolutely appalled? Even if you don't believe in the humanity of the fetus, surely the number shows an incredible lack of responsibility and a rend in the social fabric? And for those of us who do recognize the humanity of the fetus, this is a holocaust beyond belief. The pro choice crowd likes to crow that they want abortion to be rare...just how rare is it, and what are they doing to make it rarer?
2) The pro choice crowd uses a strawman argument that abortion is needed to protect the health of women. Yet these numbers show that only 2.8% of abortions are done for maternal health reasons. In other words, over 97% of abortions are not done to protect the health of the woman. When you weigh that number against the small but definite chance of dying from having an abortion, the risk of infertility, the possible increased risk (unproven as yet, but ancedotal evidence) of cervical and breast cancer, and the observed dangerous changes in behavior (such as begining to smoke), it is entirely possible that abortion produces as many health risks for women as it prevents.
My first response was to challenge his statistics, using the example of partial-birth abortion. It is now established fact that abortion providers, and the pro-choice movement have lied about the number of partial-birth abortions performed each year. One of the doctors who was responsible has in fact admitted on television that he lied.
I decided however to accept his numbers for the sake of argument, and respond to his assertions. I have posted the following on the comments section of GS's blog, but I felt the points were valuable enough to reprint here.
Now on to some substance if we accept your numbers for the sake of argument.
1) You cite the number of abortions as approximately 1.37 million a year, (not quite the millions I postulated, but close) and the number of live births as somewhere between 3.8 and 4 millions a year. So even if we use your numbers, nearly a third of US pregnancies result in the purposeful killing of the baby. I think it is fair to say that something that happens between 1/4 and 1/3 of the time can be said to be routine.
2) If 47% of abortions are done on women who have already had an abortion, that is almost 1/2 of them. Again, something that happens 1/2 the time is fairly routine.
3)I said abortion was used as a form of birth control, not the primary form, so this is a bit of a strawman argument. Still almost half the women did not use any form of contraception during the month they became pregnant, a number I certainly find troubling.
4) "3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health" Please. My baby's health is at risk, so let's kill it. Surely that doesn't make any sense to you?
5) "3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health. 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health. (Add on to that 6.1% the number of abortions performed due to rape/incest." These numbers come up to 12.2%. So using your numbers 87.8% of abortions are done for convenience, not medical necessity or rape. That sounds pretty routine to me.
Add to this the fact that most abortions are done on an outpatient basis, I stand by my characterization of abortion as routine.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines routine as "1 : of a commonplace or repetitious character"
Update 1/26/06: GS has responded to this post on his blog. He still insists on quibbling about my use of the word routine. But he, like others of his ideology, is missing the forest for the trees. Let's look at his numbers again.
1) 1 out of three pregnancies today results in an abortion. How can anyone read that number and not be absolutely appalled? Even if you don't believe in the humanity of the fetus, surely the number shows an incredible lack of responsibility and a rend in the social fabric? And for those of us who do recognize the humanity of the fetus, this is a holocaust beyond belief. The pro choice crowd likes to crow that they want abortion to be rare...just how rare is it, and what are they doing to make it rarer?
2) The pro choice crowd uses a strawman argument that abortion is needed to protect the health of women. Yet these numbers show that only 2.8% of abortions are done for maternal health reasons. In other words, over 97% of abortions are not done to protect the health of the woman. When you weigh that number against the small but definite chance of dying from having an abortion, the risk of infertility, the possible increased risk (unproven as yet, but ancedotal evidence) of cervical and breast cancer, and the observed dangerous changes in behavior (such as begining to smoke), it is entirely possible that abortion produces as many health risks for women as it prevents.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2006
President Bush has proclaimed today the National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2006 . In a saner world, this would not even be controversial. One of the foundations of our republic is the inalienable right to life. Proctecting the unborn and the helpless should be a basic function of our government. The advancement of science is only going to make issues dealing with the sanctity of life more difficult the longer we put them off. The most valuable and unique resource in the universe is each individual life, even more so for those of us who do not believe in reincarnation or an afterlife.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Monday, August 08, 2005
Gender Selection
I have written several times about the problem of gender selection, but up to now I have been concerned with China and India. It is commonly believed that there are over 100 million missing women because of gender selective abortion. There are millions more men in those countries than women, because of the common practice of aborting female babies. I can't see how these millions of extra men won't lead to armed conflict in the future. The best result would be the conflict occuring between the two. Unfortunately I see them instead attacking Russia and Pakistan respectively. Or the two could collude and attack Australia. If the depopulation of Africa continues I predict both of them will claim lands in Africa.
Now, the practice is coming to America. While I don't expect the same degree of selective abortion, even one is morally repugnant. The only bright side is the prospect of watching the feminists argue in favor of a woman's right to abort their daughter simply because she is female.
Now, the practice is coming to America. While I don't expect the same degree of selective abortion, even one is morally repugnant. The only bright side is the prospect of watching the feminists argue in favor of a woman's right to abort their daughter simply because she is female.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Roe V Wade
Today was the 32nd anniversary of Roe V Wade. For 32 years now we have been putting up with one of the worst US Supreme Court decisions ever. And to top it off, it doesn't even do what the Pro-Choicers think it does. Roe does not grant an absolute right to abortion.
1) The decision relies on a right to privacy supposedly guaranteed by the US Constitution. The word privacy doesn't even appear in the constitution. The idea of a constitutional right to privacy never even appears until a Supreme Court case in 1965. ( or in other words it was invented by the same Court that decided Roe) Roe was a bad decision built upon a bad decision.
2) The Court claimed that there is a penumbra (or shadowy outline) around the Bill of Rights that some how bestows a right to privacy. However this right seems to be very limited in scope. In fact it seems to deal almost exclusively with sexual matters. It grants rights to contraception, abortion, sodomy, homosexuality and sex toys, but apparently nothing else. As far as I can tell the right to privacy has never been cited in a case dealing with anything but sex.
3) The Founding Fathers literally spent months parsing and arguing about the exact wording of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. For instance the word "slave" never appears in the Constitution. They deliberately used the term "other peoples" so that no one could argue later that the Constitution institutionalized slavery. Surely if they intended for there to be a right to privacy they would have said so.
4) Abortion was illegal, and considered to be murder when the Constitution was written. Surely if the Founders had intended to create a right to abortion they would have done so explicitly, instead of waiting for someone nearly 200 years later to "discover" it.
5) After creating this right to privacy, the Justices immediately limit it. The decision divides pregnancy into the three trimesters. In the first trimester they said that there is an almost unlimited right to an abortion. In the second trimester they acknowledge the fact that some fetuses will be viable, and says that there are competing interests (the woman's right to privacy and the government's interest in protecting innocent life) that must be weighed. However it is clear that some limitations on the right to abortion can be made in the second trimester. In the third trimester, Roe acknowledges that the government has significant interests that might out weigh those of the mother.
6) Further decisions after Roe have expanded the right to abortion so much that the governmental interests in Roe are all but extinct. The worst of these is the "health and welfare" clause. This is used to justify all abortions, including those of nine month fetuses. Every limitation of abortion passed by a legislature, including parental notification, has been overturned based on this clause.
7) As medical science has improved, making fetuses viable earlier and earlier in pregnancy, the justifications in Roe look more and more flimsy.
8) Despite what you hear from the radical left, even when Roe is finally overturned, it will not make abortion illegal. It will simply return the issue to the States. Each State will then be allowed to make abortion legal or illegal, just like they did for almost 200 years.
One day we will wake up to the horror of what we have done. Abortion as birth control is monstrous and inhumane. Our descendents will look back at us with the same shame and condemnation that we look back with at our ancestors and their institutions of slavery and discrimination. The first step is to appoint to the Court Justices that interpret the Constitution rather than re-write it. Here's hoping that our current president does a better job of this than his father did.
1) The decision relies on a right to privacy supposedly guaranteed by the US Constitution. The word privacy doesn't even appear in the constitution. The idea of a constitutional right to privacy never even appears until a Supreme Court case in 1965. ( or in other words it was invented by the same Court that decided Roe) Roe was a bad decision built upon a bad decision.
2) The Court claimed that there is a penumbra (or shadowy outline) around the Bill of Rights that some how bestows a right to privacy. However this right seems to be very limited in scope. In fact it seems to deal almost exclusively with sexual matters. It grants rights to contraception, abortion, sodomy, homosexuality and sex toys, but apparently nothing else. As far as I can tell the right to privacy has never been cited in a case dealing with anything but sex.
3) The Founding Fathers literally spent months parsing and arguing about the exact wording of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. For instance the word "slave" never appears in the Constitution. They deliberately used the term "other peoples" so that no one could argue later that the Constitution institutionalized slavery. Surely if they intended for there to be a right to privacy they would have said so.
4) Abortion was illegal, and considered to be murder when the Constitution was written. Surely if the Founders had intended to create a right to abortion they would have done so explicitly, instead of waiting for someone nearly 200 years later to "discover" it.
5) After creating this right to privacy, the Justices immediately limit it. The decision divides pregnancy into the three trimesters. In the first trimester they said that there is an almost unlimited right to an abortion. In the second trimester they acknowledge the fact that some fetuses will be viable, and says that there are competing interests (the woman's right to privacy and the government's interest in protecting innocent life) that must be weighed. However it is clear that some limitations on the right to abortion can be made in the second trimester. In the third trimester, Roe acknowledges that the government has significant interests that might out weigh those of the mother.
6) Further decisions after Roe have expanded the right to abortion so much that the governmental interests in Roe are all but extinct. The worst of these is the "health and welfare" clause. This is used to justify all abortions, including those of nine month fetuses. Every limitation of abortion passed by a legislature, including parental notification, has been overturned based on this clause.
7) As medical science has improved, making fetuses viable earlier and earlier in pregnancy, the justifications in Roe look more and more flimsy.
8) Despite what you hear from the radical left, even when Roe is finally overturned, it will not make abortion illegal. It will simply return the issue to the States. Each State will then be allowed to make abortion legal or illegal, just like they did for almost 200 years.
One day we will wake up to the horror of what we have done. Abortion as birth control is monstrous and inhumane. Our descendents will look back at us with the same shame and condemnation that we look back with at our ancestors and their institutions of slavery and discrimination. The first step is to appoint to the Court Justices that interpret the Constitution rather than re-write it. Here's hoping that our current president does a better job of this than his father did.
Sunday, January 02, 2005
California Liberals Run Amok
Because the California legislature is dominated by leftwing liberal wackos we have the worst State government in the country.
Take this newest example. Children between the ages of 14 and 18 now need parental permission to use a tanning booth. (link) But you can get an abortion without your parent's knowledge, let alone permission.
If I ever have children, the first thing I'm doing is moving out of the State.
Take this newest example. Children between the ages of 14 and 18 now need parental permission to use a tanning booth. (link) But you can get an abortion without your parent's knowledge, let alone permission.
If I ever have children, the first thing I'm doing is moving out of the State.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Man booked in death of fetus
How can this be? Haven't we been told by the left that the fetus is not a human being? The fetus involved was only 18 weeks old (link) That's 4 & 1/2 months. Again we are faced with a hypocrisy. The mother involved could have chosen to kill her fetus without repercussions, but since a father did it, he is charged with murder. We now have a system in which the legal status of a fetus ( human being, or unwanted clump of cells) is entirely dependent on the personal preferences of the mother. If this fetus was a human, and thus it's death a homicide, then all fetus are human and should be granted the same protection, regardless of whether their mother is killing them, or someone else is.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Abortion / Peterson Case
OK...Peterson just got convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, for killing his unborn child Connor. However, if Laci had walked into an abortion clinic that same day and had Connor killed she would be guilty of no crime, and the death wouldn't even be considered a homicide.
Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
By the way I believe that Peterson should have been found guilty, although I believe the death penalty was innappropriate given the lack of direct evidence in the case.
Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
By the way I believe that Peterson should have been found guilty, although I believe the death penalty was innappropriate given the lack of direct evidence in the case.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Abortion
In his column today Thomas Sowell (link) says:
"A couple of readers in Michigan ask: Since death is defined by the
cessation of brain waves, why shouldn't life be defined by the beginning of
brain waves?"
I first made this argument in a paper I wrote for a political science course in college in the late 1980's, and no one has yet come up with a good argument based on science, law or morality against this standard. I also argued that the old standard for death, the lack of a heartbeat would work also, i.e. life begins when the heart first beats, but no one liked that either. However again no one could come up with a rational argument based on science, law or morality against it. (except the brainwave standard)
This sounds like such an obvious standard, it is puzzling that it has not been adopted by the courts, or pro-choice lobby. Until you realize that a baby's heart begins to beat, and brainwaves begin, in the first trimester.
"A couple of readers in Michigan ask: Since death is defined by the
cessation of brain waves, why shouldn't life be defined by the beginning of
brain waves?"
I first made this argument in a paper I wrote for a political science course in college in the late 1980's, and no one has yet come up with a good argument based on science, law or morality against this standard. I also argued that the old standard for death, the lack of a heartbeat would work also, i.e. life begins when the heart first beats, but no one liked that either. However again no one could come up with a rational argument based on science, law or morality against it. (except the brainwave standard)
This sounds like such an obvious standard, it is puzzling that it has not been adopted by the courts, or pro-choice lobby. Until you realize that a baby's heart begins to beat, and brainwaves begin, in the first trimester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)