I'm not really sure where you got the 'i'm after punishing sex' line. For me it's more about trying to craft legislation that recognizes both some necessity to abortion as well as the difficult moral calculations involved.
I don't see how the moral judgment of the mothers or their sexual status is what the law is aimed at (in either direction).
I think the constitutionality argument is a product (in part) of the way in which Roe was handled. I think the constitution is very much the wrong context to be dealing with this debate. That's why I don't support a (so-called) pro-life amendment nor the manner in which Roe was decided.
You may well be right that the kinda view I hold doesn't have any political legs. The only evidence we have to go on is the fairly consistent responses of majorities favoring some middle position for years now. If those people are actually being truthful if it came to a vote, I think, (like Mark) it would go according to what people have indicated. A continuum moving from less to more restriction generally indexed to length of pregnancy with obvious exceptions in serious medical scenarios or cases of rape and so forth.
If it were handled by states then of course some would be more and some less restrictive. But you are right at this point it's all "if" and I don't see any real way that doesn't continue.
2009-01-30 23:07:17
iow, I think it just muddles along as is and has a corrosive effect on civil society. Whatever else one thinks about the morality or not of the choices and what it does to individual and family lives. that's a whole other other topic.
2009-01-30 23:05:12
Freddie,
An issue (I wouldn't say the) might be that if Mark's analysis has some validity then it is not just the who has the more votes to make the laws they want (or not), but the rather sad state of affairs that has resulted from the decision in the first place.
If we had a discussion on the political proceduralism, I don't really find much connection with my views on the subject. I don't support a constitutional life amendment--never gonna pass anyway. Though the Supreme Court makeup could shift and Roe could be overturned though I'm skeptical this will occur, but who knows.
My general sense is that the Constitutional procedures on this point are flawed in that amendments are the way for the Legislature to re-check the Judiciary. But that's a whole other topic I suppose.
2009-01-30 20:31:55
well at least we are getting to the central issue then. matoko your view assumes abortion is in the same category as segregation, racial discrimination, and anti-miscengenation. obviously if one were to assume it was that kind of issue, then your point on the judiciary protecting rights against a mob rule is valid. But can you see that the entire disagreement roughly comes back to this point: is abortion in that category?
in fact both sides could argue themselves into the side of the defense of rights on their side--in fact they do. Women's reproductive rights (women as the racial victims parallel) or infant/fetus rights (same thing in reverse).
2009-01-30 20:19:09
The relevant question is not whether the GOP are useless morons (they are). Or that more people (esp. younger) generally subscribe to a set of political views more consonant with the Democrat Party. Again no argument there.
The specific issue is abortion. And that one continues to show in the US a majority favoring both legalization AND restrictions of various kinds. Linker's point is that our laws actually should in this case reflect our beliefs. They sorta almost do but only through layers of layers of judicial fights that are really poor channels (imo) for this type of public political debate.
2009-01-30 18:28:17
last thought on metaphysically neutral. seems to me better to say that the issue of abortion was not one that could have been thought of or envisioned by the document itself. There are various elements of the Constitution that can be deployed to support either view--I think legitimately. So it's not perhaps the Constitution is neutral so much as pre-differentiated on this point. Which is probably why it's such a divisive one.
Which again leads me back to the idea that it probably isn't the proper context in which to be having the debate.
2009-01-30 18:24:28
Actually I should have fisked that part of the argument, thanks for flagging it. Because I don't by the metaphysically neutral part either. I don't think his argument rests on the point. Or at least has to. To me all one has to say is that it was a matter for legislatures not courts. I think his sub-point about how compromise works makes sense from there.
I'm not sure that automatically makes him an opponent of abortion--he might be i don't know either way--as much as it might make him someone in that ambivalent (i.e. pulled in both directions) middle.
Also, I'm not sure the content/procedural distinction while in theory very separate i don't see how in practice (at least in this case) they get so easily separated. If someone believes that the courts weren't in the position to be making a decision on the matter in the first place, they may or may not agree with the content or even the logic behind the content-conclusions, but basically it's full stop before that point. That content train doesn't even leave the procedural station.
I'm also not sure there is automatically inoculation at work. I see what you mean and that does happen, but I can think of counterexamples. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind who says flatly he thinks abortion is wrong but also thinks we live in a plural civil society and therefore something along the lines of the non-restricted abortion in the first three months is something he thinks is a fair compromise with that order.
As far as the actual argument/content of Roe v. Wade if you one were going to argue for it as right in the Constitution, seems to me it would be much better argued from the equal treatment clause than right to privacy.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Dave,
I'm not really sure where you got the 'i'm after punishing sex' line. For me it's more about trying to craft legislation that recognizes both some necessity to abortion as well as the difficult moral calculations involved.
I don't see how the moral judgment of the mothers or their sexual status is what the law is aimed at (in either direction).
I think the constitutionality argument is a product (in part) of the way in which Roe was handled. I think the constitution is very much the wrong context to be dealing with this debate. That's why I don't support a (so-called) pro-life amendment nor the manner in which Roe was decided.
You may well be right that the kinda view I hold doesn't have any political legs. The only evidence we have to go on is the fairly consistent responses of majorities favoring some middle position for years now. If those people are actually being truthful if it came to a vote, I think, (like Mark) it would go according to what people have indicated. A continuum moving from less to more restriction generally indexed to length of pregnancy with obvious exceptions in serious medical scenarios or cases of rape and so forth.
If it were handled by states then of course some would be more and some less restrictive. But you are right at this point it's all "if" and I don't see any real way that doesn't continue.
iow, I think it just muddles along as is and has a corrosive effect on civil society. Whatever else one thinks about the morality or not of the choices and what it does to individual and family lives. that's a whole other other topic.
Freddie,
An issue (I wouldn't say the) might be that if Mark's analysis has some validity then it is not just the who has the more votes to make the laws they want (or not), but the rather sad state of affairs that has resulted from the decision in the first place.
If we had a discussion on the political proceduralism, I don't really find much connection with my views on the subject. I don't support a constitutional life amendment--never gonna pass anyway. Though the Supreme Court makeup could shift and Roe could be overturned though I'm skeptical this will occur, but who knows.
My general sense is that the Constitutional procedures on this point are flawed in that amendments are the way for the Legislature to re-check the Judiciary. But that's a whole other topic I suppose.
well at least we are getting to the central issue then. matoko your view assumes abortion is in the same category as segregation, racial discrimination, and anti-miscengenation. obviously if one were to assume it was that kind of issue, then your point on the judiciary protecting rights against a mob rule is valid. But can you see that the entire disagreement roughly comes back to this point: is abortion in that category?
in fact both sides could argue themselves into the side of the defense of rights on their side--in fact they do. Women's reproductive rights (women as the racial victims parallel) or infant/fetus rights (same thing in reverse).
The relevant question is not whether the GOP are useless morons (they are). Or that more people (esp. younger) generally subscribe to a set of political views more consonant with the Democrat Party. Again no argument there.
The specific issue is abortion. And that one continues to show in the US a majority favoring both legalization AND restrictions of various kinds. Linker's point is that our laws actually should in this case reflect our beliefs. They sorta almost do but only through layers of layers of judicial fights that are really poor channels (imo) for this type of public political debate.
last thought on metaphysically neutral. seems to me better to say that the issue of abortion was not one that could have been thought of or envisioned by the document itself. There are various elements of the Constitution that can be deployed to support either view--I think legitimately. So it's not perhaps the Constitution is neutral so much as pre-differentiated on this point. Which is probably why it's such a divisive one.
Which again leads me back to the idea that it probably isn't the proper context in which to be having the debate.
Actually I should have fisked that part of the argument, thanks for flagging it. Because I don't by the metaphysically neutral part either. I don't think his argument rests on the point. Or at least has to. To me all one has to say is that it was a matter for legislatures not courts. I think his sub-point about how compromise works makes sense from there.
I'm not sure that automatically makes him an opponent of abortion--he might be i don't know either way--as much as it might make him someone in that ambivalent (i.e. pulled in both directions) middle.
Also, I'm not sure the content/procedural distinction while in theory very separate i don't see how in practice (at least in this case) they get so easily separated. If someone believes that the courts weren't in the position to be making a decision on the matter in the first place, they may or may not agree with the content or even the logic behind the content-conclusions, but basically it's full stop before that point. That content train doesn't even leave the procedural station.
I'm also not sure there is automatically inoculation at work. I see what you mean and that does happen, but I can think of counterexamples. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind who says flatly he thinks abortion is wrong but also thinks we live in a plural civil society and therefore something along the lines of the non-restricted abortion in the first three months is something he thinks is a fair compromise with that order.
As far as the actual argument/content of Roe v. Wade if you one were going to argue for it as right in the Constitution, seems to me it would be much better argued from the equal treatment clause than right to privacy.