More importantly the view you hold has no legs culturally.
Evolutionary Theory of Culture 101-- culture doesnt shape society as much as society shapes culture according to its collective needs.
Own it....prolife issues are just a whip that the stealthy philosopher kings of the right side use to beat the low information electorate with.

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.

There's one important thing that seems to be missing from this argument: whether a majority of Americans want to see Roe overturned is (or at least ought to be) fundamentally irrelevant. There are precious few Americans who actually know what Roe held (meaning they've actually read the decision and understand the legal theories upon which it was based). The issue, fundamentally, is whether Roe was legally and Constitutionally correct; on that point, you would be surprised the number of legal scholars who have criticized its reasoning.

Importantly, Roe did not define personhood as beginning only at birth for purposes of abortions; nor, obviously, did it define personhood as beginning at conception. Instead, it sought to draw a line between personhood and non-personhood that was inherently arbitrary in a way that defining it as beginning at birth or at conception would not have been. Of course, had the court chosen to do either of those two things, Roe would be even MORE controversial today, as for the vast majority of Americans personhood begins at some undefined point between conception and birth (you will not find many people who are supportive of third trimester abortions for example).

But this, to me, is the great problem with Roe - Courts should not put themselves in the position of drawing fundamentally arbitrary lines, which is the province of the legislature. Indeed, as Linker says, if Roe did not exist, it is unlikely that abortion rights would be much changed in the vast majority of the country, because the vast majority of the country (myself absolutely included) fits within the mushy middle, being increasingly pro-life the further along the pregnancy, and increasingly pro-choice the closer to conception.

(N/B: I edited this comment to cut it into paragraphs instead of being one giant block of text)

infant/fetus rights (same thing in reverse).

Incompletely differentiated cell clumps do not have citizen rights.
The very first thing the right must abandon is personhood/life at conception.
Simply a moronic argument.
And the citizen (mother) 's rights trump the rights of the fetus.
In a free society the state simply cannot force women to be wombs.
The first right of a free people is autonomy over ones own body.

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).

matoko: I'm a card carrying Republican. I used to be a precinct captain. I guarantee you that I have not thrown my lot in with what you characterize. It is true that at the moment the only public Republican figures are Southern but that will not, can not continue. I consider myself a Cascadian conservative, very different from your conception. Take a look at Tom McCall, a past Republican Oregon Governor. Are you advocating a one party State? I can tell you, living in the NW, it doesn't work very well.

Gentlemen: What language can I do quotes and what not with here? HTML?

Chris--agreed. And am in general agreement regarding the post at large, as I am grudginlgy pro-choice but do see more room for restrictions and regulations etc.

matako--first off, I'm not a republican though I do believe in the Republic, and not all Conservatives are anti-any-of-those-things you describe though certainly some are, perhaps even most. And I agree too that the GOP is a bunch of morons in large part, but that is not the same thing WHATSOEVER as the culture war which goes much deeper than politics.

Just remember, nothing is so changeable as the human heart, save perhaps the human mob. Tidal might be the word I'd use to describe it.

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.

Maybe, but the GOP and the culture wars are two entirely different things. And if you haven't noticed, politics, culture--it all moves in circles. What happened two years after Clinton got elected? Or 12 years after Reagan? Who won in 2000? In 2008? Nothing is over. I haven't heard one damn fat lady singing...

Nope.
Its ovah. And I'm not arrogant......I'm mathic.
Frum.

Gallup’s latest polling reveals the continuing collapse of the Republican party's base vote. The news is so very bad that there will be only one possible response from GOP party leadership and our radio talkers: Ignore it.

Overall: 36% of Americans now identify as Democrats and only 28% as Republicans. That 8% advantage for the Dems is the biggest since 1983, before the Reagan boom and triumph in the Cold War created a “Reagan generation” of young conservatives.

George Bush may get much of the blame. But Republicans in Congress are even less popular than Bush, with a 25% approval rating in December 2008.

State by state, the numbers look even worse. In only 7 states do more Americans identify as Republicans than as Democrats:
Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska, and Kansas, and Alabama.

The two parties are tied in Arizona and South Carolina.

In all the other 41 states, including every one of the large population states, Democrats outnumber Republicans. In 29 states, including every Northeastern state and every Midwestern state save Indiana, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 10 points or more.

The GOP is like a chicken with its head cut off.
The body will run around for a while.....but the ending is pertty certain.