The issue, fundamentally, is whether Roe was legally and Constitutionally correct
No. That was the issue while the decision was being decided. Now the issue is that abortion foes don't have the popular support to pass a constitutional amendment to change the law.
2009-01-30 18:05:30
I'm sorry, but I simply can't take seriously an argument, like Linker's, that rests on the assumption that the Constitution was "metaphysically neutral" prior to Roe v. Wade. No document that discusses fundamental citizenship rights could ever be "metaphysically neutral" in any meaningful sense.
Linker is yet another abortion foe who is trying to take his disagreement about the content of the Roe decision and craft it into some sort of disqualifying procedural disagreement with it, in order to perform an end run around the basic fact that we have a country that is deeply conflicted on this issue. It's a constant tactic of those who oppose abortion, to try to wriggle into some philosophical corridor that they think inoculates them from the simple fact that they don't like abortion. Every discussion becomes about process as a way to deflect attention from what is in fact a simple substantive disagreement about morality and policy.
But I need to give this the attention it deserves in a post.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
The issue, fundamentally, is whether Roe was legally and Constitutionally correct
No. That was the issue while the decision was being decided. Now the issue is that abortion foes don't have the popular support to pass a constitutional amendment to change the law.
I'm sorry, but I simply can't take seriously an argument, like Linker's, that rests on the assumption that the Constitution was "metaphysically neutral" prior to Roe v. Wade. No document that discusses fundamental citizenship rights could ever be "metaphysically neutral" in any meaningful sense.
Linker is yet another abortion foe who is trying to take his disagreement about the content of the Roe decision and craft it into some sort of disqualifying procedural disagreement with it, in order to perform an end run around the basic fact that we have a country that is deeply conflicted on this issue. It's a constant tactic of those who oppose abortion, to try to wriggle into some philosophical corridor that they think inoculates them from the simple fact that they don't like abortion. Every discussion becomes about process as a way to deflect attention from what is in fact a simple substantive disagreement about morality and policy.
But I need to give this the attention it deserves in a post.