My idea to depoliticize and prevent abortions.

[Anti-Manicheist]

The below is something I posted at my blog. I also recommend a recent post of a letter my grandfather wrote within three months of when he died from liver cancer eleven years ago.

I've encapsulated three steps for depoliticizing and preventing abortion. I was hoping to get some feedback from y'all.

dlw


First stepresidential candidates could facilitate compromise at the nat'l level as to when legally human personhood begins by promising to pass a constitutional amendment that makes it so we as a nation redefine when legal personhood begins by a national referendum requiring a 75% majority. This would remove the decision away from the politicians so that their personal view wouldn't matter in elections. The 75% majority requirement would guarantee that a women's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances will be protected since a female is guaranteed to be the decisive voter.

It can be argued that given that abortion has been the most ideologically divisive issue in US history since slavery, there is mandate for us to innovate in how we resolve politically the issue. This would include committing to make advertising expenditures to ensure a high turn out for a given referendum.

What the referendum idea does is ensure that compromise at the nat'l level is possible and that the change will not be so dramatic. It makes a commitment to pro-choicers that not all elective abortions are going to be made illegal again.

There will also be a need to clarify the meaning of what is an elective vs a non-elective abortion. I believe the criterion of health given in Doe-V-Bolton is somewhat vague, since I doubt it is possible to carry a fetus to term without it impacting one's "health". This is something that should be worked out with heavy consultation with experts. I believe Amy Sullivan did some work towards this end when she worked for Tom Daschle. Though, I can't find her article where she describes her experiences right now. I also think enforcement should strongly rely on the professionalism of doctors. If more than 75% of US citizens believe a human fetus at a certain point should be treated as a legal person then Doctors should hold themselves to their hypocratic oath and weigh the fetus' life more so in dealing with potential pregnancy complications.

It should also be pointed out that the moral objections made to embryonic stem cell research does weigh very heavily on the view that the newly-conceived zygote is a full human being. The evangelical outpost gives a good summary of the facts about embryonic stem cell research. They show that the stem cells are collected from pre-implantation 150-to-200-cell early human embryos. As such, it is unlikely that the early human embryo will ever be granted legal personhood and so there should be no legal basis for not federally funding stem-cell research. I for one have and have had loved ones that suffer from Alzheimers or Parkinsons and am very much in favor of stem-cell research to combat these ailments.

Second step:It needs to be touted how anti-poverty measures prevent abortions. As such, fighting poverty ought to be a pro-life plank.

One of the best ideas out there today for fighting poverty is the Basic Income Guarantee idea. This is a reform of the US tax-system that is championed by USBIG. The basic idea is that everyone gets an income transfer and then whatever income they earn above that is taxed
at a flat marginal tax-rate.

There are many advantages over the existing system of such a system. It would vastly simplify the morass of US tax-code that helps people evade their taxes. It is geared towards helping the poorest, while also encouraging them to work. It would require much less money to administer than the current welfare system. The transfer of money can be tied to people voting or doing some public service work. And, of course, the economist in me wants to point out how the flat marginal tax-rates would not muck with higher income-earners incentives to produce.

A theological justification for the system would be that everyone deserves to be blessed with some income, regardless of their earnings ability. A more secular justification would be that nowadays a good deal of the value produced stems from advances in basic science that end up getting imputed one way or the other to someone. Not all income received is persay earned and since some of our wealth is due to public support of the sciences, it can be commandeered to help support our fellow citizens, as well.

Third step: There are a host of additional policy measures that will help prevent abortions. Lets reform the US adoption system. Lets provide free counseling to unwed pregnant women and subsidize the cost of giving birth. Lets be sure to teach about both abstinence and contraception in schools. We could also emphasize that no contraception can protect against the emotional hazards of premarital sex. We could make high-schoolers watch depressing french films like The Story of Adele H that deal realistically, albeit in an extreme example, with the emotional/psychological consequences of premarital sex. There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence, but there is something wrong with presuming that there will not still be teens who will be sexually active and those teens need to be aware of contraceptive technologies.

dlw

 

[Pah]

I've encapsulated three steps for depoliticizing and preventing abortion. I was hoping to get some feedback from y'all.

dlw

I'd be happy to do that.

First stepresidential candidates could facilitate compromise at the nat'l level as to when legally human personhood begins by promising to pass a constitutional amendment that makes it so we as a nation redefine when legal personhood begins by a national referendum requiring a 75% majority. This would remove the decision away from the politicians so that their personal view wouldn't matter in elections. The 75% majority requirement would guarantee that a women's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances will be protected since a female is guaranteed to be the decisive voter.

I'm afraid politics would not be eliminated nor even reduced from the ratification process And the must be an amendment to change the Constitution. A referendum, either national or my state, simply isn't proper. . States are free to determine how the ratification vote is to be taken. Most have chosen that the vote be conducted in the legislature.

There are also many who view citizenship as a definition of someone having personhood. Rights are recognized for an individual who is a citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v Wade does not recognize constitutionally a fetus as a person but only acknowledges the power of the state to have some interest in the fetus.

It can be argued that given that abortion has been the most ideologically divisive issue in US history since slavery, there is mandate for us to innovate in how we resolve politically the issue. This would include committing to make advertising expenditures to ensure a high turn out for a given referendum.

This suggestion of financial support for expressive speech for an issue, however worthy, will probally run into First Amendemnt trouble. The government does provide matching funds to candidates who qualify but it is "soft money" that does issue advertising

What the referendum idea does is ensure that compromise at the nat'l level is possible and that the change will not be so dramatic. It makes a commitment to pro-choicers that not all elective abortions are going to be made illegal again.

I really don't see it possible for a majority to decide the question of when in natal developement there is now a person present. let alone a 75% majority. At best it would be a plurality of one choice amongst many "milestones".

There will also be a need to clarify the meaning of what is an elective vs a non-elective abortion. I believe the criterion of health given in Doe-V-Bolton is somewhat vague, since I doubt it is possible to carry a fetus to term without it impacting one's "health". This is something that should be worked out with heavy consultation with experts. I believe Amy Sullivan did some work towards this end when she worked for Tom Daschle. Though, I can't find her article where she describes her experiences right now. I also think enforcement should strongly rely on the professionalism of doctors. If more than 75% of US citizens believe a human fetus at a certain point should be treated as a legal person then Doctors should hold themselves to their hypocratic oath and weigh the fetus' life more so in dealing with potential pregnancy complications.

It seems to be getting more and more complicated. A vote should have to have a single question posed. An admendment to the US Constitution would have language that should cover everything - hopefully.

I beleive doctors already weigh the life and health of both patients - the mother and the fetus - and decide largely on professional morality.

Bob

 

[Lintu]

First stepresidential candidates could facilitate compromise at the nat'l level as to when legally human personhood begins by promising to pass a constitutional amendment that makes it so we as a nation redefine when legal personhood begins by a national referendum requiring a 75% majority. This would remove the decision away from the politicians so that their personal view wouldn't matter in elections. The 75% majority requirement would guarantee that a women's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances will be protected since a female is guaranteed to be the decisive voter.

Men should have no vote on this. It has never been and will never be any of a man's business, until one can give birth.

 

[Scott1]

Men should have no vote on this. It has never been and will never be any of a man's business, until one can give birth.

Untill you can find away to reproduce without male sperm.... I do believe it is our business.

Scott

 

[Lintu]

Untill you can find away to reproduce without male sperm.... I do believe it is our business.

Scott

Until giving out sperm makes you go through immense physical changes, I still have to disagree

 

[Jaymes]

Untill you can find away to reproduce without male sperm.... I do believe it is our business.

Scott

Well, they've already done it with mice.

 

[painted wolf]

tecnically they have done it with humans as well...to produce stem cells. Unfetilized eggs that think they are fertilized and start deviding. Needs more reserch though. Lots of animals can reproduce with a female only population.

part of me is always a bit squemish when human rights are brought up to a popular vote. People are easily swayed by smooth talk and sound-bytes. Popular vote gave us Jim Crow and segrigation for example.

wa:do

 

[jewscout]

Men should have no vote on this. It has never been and will never be any of a man's business, until one can give birth.

I'm reminded of Chris Rock when i read this. He was talking about a man's options on things to say to a woman when he finds out that she's pregnant and he says there are only 2 acceptable answers:
1)To be overjoyed and happy at the thought of having a child with this woman or..
2)"So, wacha gonna do?":areyoucra

 

[Feathers in Hair]

As for the article, I would say that having the majority vote on anything is not an ideal way to go. Even if those voting were all women, the ruling might not be that of the individual who is facing the abortion. (Even if this is coming from someone who would never have an abortion in any concievable (hah!) circumstance, and feels that the child in question is a life.)

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I'd be happy to do that.


I'm afraid politics would not be eliminated nor even reduced from the ratification process And the must be an amendment to change the Constitution. A referendum, either national or my state, simply isn't proper. . States are free to determine how the ratification vote is to be taken. Most have chosen that the vote be conducted in the legislature.

I agree that there would be some politics involved in the ratification process, but it is important to bear in mind that my proposal only sets out the manner in which we define the circumstances within which a woman may elect an abortion.

Yes, but a vote in the legislature isn't proper, since what a legislator believes, or say they believe, as to when legal personhood begins should not be an issue in their election. Our laws should reflect the views of the vast majority of citizens.

There are also many who view citizenship as a definition of someone having personhood. Rights are recognized for an individual who is a citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v Wade does not recognize constitutionally a fetus as a person but only acknowledges the power of the state to have some interest in the fetus

.

Aye, the fetus is not recognized constitutionally, or as of yet, as a citizen or legal person. However, remember that the same could be said for blacks and females. We have the right to change the precise def'n of what is a legal person.

This suggestion of financial support for expressive speech for an issue, however worthy, will probally run into First Amendemnt trouble. The government does provide matching funds to candidates who qualify but it is "soft money" that does issue advertising

We're not talking about issue advertising, but ensuring a high turnout in a referendum, not unlike the sorts of advertisements done to ensure a high turnout for the censuses.

I really don't see it possible for a majority to decide the question of when in natal developement there is now a person present. let alone a 75% majority. At best it would be a plurality of one choice amongst many "milestones".

It is possible. If you read what I write more carefully, I propose that the referendums propose a change in the legal def'n of when human personhood begins and so the voters would simply have to vote in favor or against a proposed referendum. It would be up to the legislature to make a given referendum. This allows changes to take place gradually over time and it guarantees that future drastic changes will be unlikely to pass.

It seems to be getting more and more complicated. A vote should have to have a single question posed. An admendment to the US Constitution would have language that should cover everything - hopefully.

No, its still simple. We've just separated the issues of when legal personhood begins and how we define what is an elective and non-elective abortion. The latter issue is by far more esoteric and should not be posed in a popular referendum.

I beleive doctors already weigh the life and health of both patients - the mother and the fetus - and decide largely on professional morality.

Bob

I've no doubt some do, but a law change will make that part of our official law.

dlw

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

Men should have no vote on this. It has never been and will never be any of a man's business, until one can give birth.

Lintu, I'm sorry you're angry. I agree that it is a sensitive issue and that the right to elect an abortion under defined circumstances is a constitutional right of females and one that they should protect.

My post is about how we go about collectively defining the circumstances when elective abortion are legal, or when the personhood of the fetus requires a more serious reason for an abortion. As I understand it, at issue here is our ability to recognize ourselves in the unborn through a careful deliberation of the facts of the fetal developmental process. There is no reason why men cannot deliberate on this matter as womean can and there is no reason to believe that men may not even give more weight to the deliberations of the females in their lives due to their perspective of being, or having been, capable of giving birth.

The 75% criterion guarantees that the decisive voter will be female. This practically guarantees that women's rights will be protected by far more than judicial fiat.

dlw

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I'm reminded of Chris Rock when i read this. He was talking about a man's options on things to say to a woman when he finds out that she's pregnant and he says there are only 2 acceptable answers:
1)To be overjoyed and happy at the thought of having a child with this woman or..
2)"So, wacha gonna do?":areyoucra

Those still are the only two options. At issue is how all of us citizens agree that we will determine under what defined circumstances a woman has the right to elect an abortion.

Check your constitution, that is what is guaranteed by Roe-V-Wade.

dlw

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

As for the article, I would say that having the majority vote on anything is not an ideal way to go. Even if those voting were all women, the ruling might not be that of the individual who is facing the abortion. (Even if this is coming from someone who would never have an abortion in any concievable (hah!) circumstance, and feels that the child in question is a life.)

As stated before, what is at issue is when we legally define the beginning of human personhood. One does not need to be an individual facing, or potentially facing, an abortion to be able to deliberate on the facts. And I don't think it's fair to suggest that women who are past the menopausal stage or infertile are incapable of deliberating on the issue.

I am not advocating repealing Roe-V-Wade in my advocacy of us making this constitutional reform and so technically a woman's right to elect an abortion during the first trimester would not be under consideration.

dlw

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

Bob, one more thought. You said that there would be politics in the ratification process, but think how changed the dialogue would be if most pro-choicers supported my idea.

The difference would be between letting a minority capture and impose their views on the gov't over the rest of the population by virtue of their strategic voting and alliances versus only permitting changes that are believed to be right by the vast majority of the population.

The latter argument could claim the sanction of ensuring the separation of Church and State, and acquire the support of the vast majority of USAmericans who are in the middle and believe that there should be some legal restrictions on later-term abortions.

I mean several states have already done this. There really shouldn't be a good reason for letting the legal def'n of when human personhood begins vary a lot at the state level. It comes too close to permitting slavery in some states and not others.

dlw

 

[Pah]

Bob, one more thought. You said that there would be politics in the ratification process, but think how changed the dialogue would be if most pro-choicers supported my idea.

The difference would be between letting a minority capture and impose their views on the gov't over the rest of the population by virtue of their strategic voting and alliances versus only permitting changes that are believed to be right by the vast majority of the population.

The latter argument could claim the sanction of ensuring the separation of Church and State, and acquire the support of the vast majority of USAmericans who are in the middle and believe that there should be some legal restrictions on later-term abortions.

I mean several states have already done this. There really shouldn't be a good reason for letting the legal def'n of when human personhood begins vary a lot at the state level. It comes too close to permitting slavery in some states and not others.

dlw

I'm afraid the only dialogue that counts is the one before the Supreme Court and the one in chambers. It is that majority that can change the law. Unless of course, there is an amendment passed and that requires a ratification process. The Supreme Court is not beholden to any popular vote. All law created by a majority is subject to a contitutional check and brought forth, I might add, by a member of a minority that did not vote for the law.

What the states have done, if there is existing law recognizing a fetus as a person, is pass a law that has not been reviewed by the US Supreme Court. It's constitutional status is questionable.

A great tenet of this counrty is that no majority can impose it's will on a minority when the law that implements an injustice is not based on the rights and freedoms found in constitutional law and balanced against competing rights and freedoms. Roe v Wade does not even consider the rights of the fetus and is a decion that balances the rights of an individual woman against the interest (read that as an interest in the rights of the fetus) of the state. The question has already been decided and following case law has confirmed the limits of state interest. The dialogue is moot until it reaches the political stages of ratification of a new amendment.

Bob

 

[Feathers in Hair]

As stated before, what is at issue is when we legally define the beginning of human personhood. One does not need to be an individual facing, or potentially facing, an abortion to be able to deliberate on the facts. And I don't think it's fair to suggest that women who are past the menopausal stage or infertile are incapable of deliberating on the issue.

I do apologize. If I suggested that women who are not able to have babies should not have a choice in the matter, that was never my intent. And I completely agree that one need not be either facing of potentially facing an abortion to be able to deliberate on this, and never meant to imply that. Some of the greatest thinkers we have are not capable of physically giving birth. My confusion (and I apologize that I did not clarify that I am extremely lacking, mentally) was in presupposing that you were thinking of repealing Roe-V-Wade, which I see now that you weren't. Again, I apologize.

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I'm afraid the only dialogue that counts is the one before the Supreme Court and the one in chambers. It is that majority that can change the law. Unless of course, there is an amendment passed and that requires a ratification process. The Supreme Court is not beholden to any popular vote. All law created by a majority is subject to a contitutional check and brought forth, I might add, by a member of a minority that did not vote for the law.

I didn't really get your last sentence. I agree it would require another constitutional amendment for what I am advocating. However, the supreme court has left open our ability to determine somewhat the defined circumstances when a woman can elect an abortion.

What the states have done, if there is existing law recognizing a fetus as a person, is pass a law that has not been reviewed by the US Supreme Court. It's constitutional status is questionable.

A great tenet of this counrty is that no majority can impose it's will on a minority when the law that implements an injustice is not based on the rights and freedoms found in constitutional law and balanced against competing rights and freedoms. Roe v Wade does not even consider the rights of the fetus and is a decion that balances the rights of an individual woman against the interest (read that as an interest in the rights of the fetus) of the state. The question has already been decided and following case law has confirmed the limits of state interest. The dialogue is moot until it reaches the political stages of ratification of a new amendment.

Bob

*twipping of lips* If the state can define its interests as including the protection of fetuses then that provides defacto rights to the fetuses. We're talking about just making formal what is already tending to happen in the first place.

The wisdom of the constitution is that we need rules to govern us and that those rules need to be able to change over time.

How we go about potentially legally redefining when human personhood begins is an important matter since our inability to find common ground or to foster effective inter-cultural communication in the past has done serious harm to our democracy and will continue to do so in the future.

dlw

 

[Pah]

What the Supreme Court has left open is the power to impose burdens, but not undue burdens, on the woman seeking abortion. The fetus has not been granted rights even in the third trimester when viability is acheived. There is no protection granted the fetus. The only recourse to the state is to mandate a proper consideration of the woman's choice with absoultely no power to change a decision.

You are right to question my statement about minorities bringing cases to the court. It may be the general pattern, but is actually defined as a person "injured" which can be in either majority or minority. Sorry I misspoke.

If we were to considered a fetus "injured" it would have no "standing" in which to bring a case to court. There is a large body of law that places a child under the custodial care of parents. The parents of the child, thus have standing. If you apply those principles to a fetus, it would have to have the mother's permission and inititive to bring a case. Note that the father of the fetus has not been accorded rights in this instance and that is from the cases that revolved around "parental notification" which was established on the legal thought that the state can not provide "legal power" when it does not have it to begin with.

I hope I answered all your comments without having to break up the post with quotes.

Bob

 

[linwood]

First stepresidential candidates could facilitate compromise at the nat'l level as to when legally human personhood begins by promising to pass a constitutional amendment that makes it so we as a nation redefine when legal personhood begins by a national referendum requiring a 75% majority. This would remove the decision away from the politicians so that their personal view wouldn't matter in elections. The 75% majority requirement would guarantee that a women's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances will be protected since a female is guaranteed to be the decisive voter.

I don`t believe you could get a 75% majority on any time span for human life.

It should also be pointed out that the moral objections made to embryonic stem cell research does weigh very heavily on the view that the newly-conceived zygote is a full human being.

The moral objections to embryonic stem cell research are a sham to begin with.
If those who oppose it truly felt it was the death of human life they would going after the invitro clinics and not the stem cell researchers.

One of the best ideas out there today for fighting poverty is the Basic Income Guarantee idea. This is a reform of the US tax-system that is championed by USBIG. The basic idea is that everyone gets an income transfer and then whatever income they earn above that is taxed
at a flat marginal tax-rate.

I`m unsure about a flat tax.
I don`t disagree, I`m just too ignorant of the subject matter to make a conclusion.



Nice post all in all.
It`s good to see some people are actually thinking.



Thanks

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

What the Supreme Court has left open is the power to impose burdens, but not undue burdens, on the woman seeking abortion. The fetus has not been granted rights even in the third trimester when viability is acheived. There is no protection granted the fetus. The only recourse to the state is to mandate a proper consideration of the woman's choice with absoultely no power to change a decision.

Pah, everytime you assign rights to someone, you impose burdens on others. As such, the act of burdening a female with carrying a fetus to term under normal circumstances after it has passed a certain stage is the equivalent to giving rights, legal personhood, to the fetus. You can call it other things, but they are equivalent.

You are right to question my statement about minorities bringing cases to the court. It may be the general pattern, but is actually defined as a person "injured" which can be in either majority or minority. Sorry I misspoke.

Okay, I didn't understand one bit of that. :bonk:

If we were to considered a fetus "injured" it would have no "standing" in which to bring a case to court. There is a large body of law that places a child under the custodial care of parents. The parents of the child, thus have standing. If you apply those principles to a fetus, it would have to have the mother's permission and inititive to bring a case. Note that the father of the fetus has not been accorded rights in this instance and that is from the cases that revolved around "parental notification" which was established on the legal thought that the state can not provide "legal power" when it does not have it to begin with.

I hope I answered all your comments without having to break up the post with quotes.

Bob

Sorry Bob, your legalese once more escapes me, particularly in reference to my point that concerned the potential for legal change which the Supreme Court allows.

dlw