My idea to depoliticize and prevent abortions.

[Anti-Manicheist]

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

You need to read more carefully. A proposed legal change would have to get a 75% majority in favor of the change. I.e., there may be some who believe in their heart of hearts that we become human beings at conception, but who may likely vote to have legal personhood changed to 16 weeks, since they are unlikely to persuade the rest of the population to take on their view.

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.

Yeah.

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

The BIG simplifies the tax-code in a progressive manner that reduces poverty without mucking up pecuniary incentives to work too much. Its a plan that merits far more debate and investigation.

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



Thanks

thankyou.

dlw

 

[Pah]

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.

There is no requirement for a woman to carry a fetus to term. The burdens are of the type of how a woman executes her decision. The decision is recognized as her's alone and the "burdens" come afterward. It is state interest that she be fully informed and the burdens are the delays and requirements of informed consent. There is no hinderence to abortion itself but only in the "signing up" for the procedure. I have to repeat again, the fetus, in any stage of development, has not been "protected" by Roe v Wade.

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

I initially said that only a person in the minority brought a case before the Supreme Court. That was wrong, a mistake on my part. I went on to correct that error by saying a party that suffers from a supposed unconstitutional law is the one to bring a case.

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.

Legal change is of two varities. The first being a law the Legislature passes; the second, the Supreme Court declaring a law is unconstitutional. (I suppose a third might be the inattention paid to a law) The Constitution itself specifies that it may only be changed by amendment. No national referendum may change the US Constitution. or even make federal law.

Precedent, which is used to decide cases, is only a previously written analysis of what the basic document, as amended, says. Precedent may only be overturned when a re-analysis of case law is performed and the precedent is found faulty.

Bob

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

There is no requirement for a woman to carry a fetus to term. The burdens are of the type of how a woman executes her decision. The decision is recognized as her's alone and the "burdens" come afterward. It is state interest that she be fully informed and the burdens are the delays and requirements of informed consent. There is no hinderence to abortion itself but only in the "signing up" for the procedure. I have to repeat again, the fetus, in any stage of development, has not been "protected" by Roe v Wade.

If a woman only has the right to elect an abortion in "defined" circumstances that implies that there are other defined circumstances where she does not have the right to elect an abortion and thereby would have the duty to carry a fetus to term under normal circumstances. Rights and duties are obverses of each other. The denial of any right is an imposition of a duty.

My point was that Roe-V-Wade leaves open the definition of circumstances when elective abortion can be forbidden. This permits us to protect the fetuses at some stages of development.

I initially said that only a person in the minority brought a case before the Supreme Court. That was wrong, a mistake on my part. I went on to correct that error by saying a party that suffers from a supposed unconstitutional law is the one to bring a case.

What they can't have proxies do it on their behalf? I imagine that is what is always the case for the legal persons of corporations.

Legal change is of two varities. The first being a law the Legislature passes; the second, the Supreme Court declaring a law is unconstitutional. (I suppose a third might be the inattention paid to a law) The Constitution itself specifies that it may only be changed by amendment. No national referendum may change the US Constitution. or even make federal law.

The Constitution has been changed in practice by variation in the interpretation of the many loosely-defined words within it. The def'ns of property that prevail today were nowhere near what was prevalent when the Constitution was written.

A nat'l referendum can be added by amendment as the means by which we nat'ly determine the defined circumstances where women may no longer elect an abortion.

Precedent, which is used to decide cases, is only a previously written analysis of what the basic document, as amended, says. Precedent may only be overturned when a re-analysis of case law is performed and the precedent is found faulty.
Bob

It is part of our culture to appeal to precedents in arguing our cases, but precedent never determines laws definitively due to the evolving nature of our societal/economical/political relationships that foster conflicts that need to be adjudicated.

We are by no means hamstrung to the failures of the past that have let this issue become a black hole for human capital and are full within our rights to innovate in finding ways to compromise on this most divisive issue. As I stated before, it has been the most ideologically-divisive issue in the US since slavery and it would behoove us to settle it without continuing to cause further acrimony and potentially violence.
dlw

 

[monogodo]

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.

It's comments like this that really **** me off. You don't want any male input with regards to whether or not you can have an abortion, but I'd be willing to bet that you're a strong supporter of making sure that men pay child support. If I impregnate a woman, and she decides to have the child, without consulting me, why should I be liable for the upkeep of that child? She made the choice to have it. It's her body, her choice, I had no say in the matter. It also works the other way, if she becomes pregnant, and I want the child, yet she wants an abortion, there's nothing I can do to force her to have the child, even if I want to raise the child on my own, with no help from the mother. To me, that's wrong. If you want complete control over the potential child's life, with no input from the father as to the status of the potential birth, then you should relieve the father of all rights and responsibilities toward that potential child, if the father so desires.

That being said, know that I agree, that it is a women's issue, which is why I'm pro-choice. Since I will never have to make the decision to have an abortion (or not to have one), I will make it possible for all women to have that decision available to them. I've never fathered a child, and I never will, because I've taken responsibility for my reproductive system, unlike some people in this world.

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

Monogodo,

The issue I'm raising though is how we may collectively determine the defined circumstances wherein a woman may elect an abortion.

Clearly, the right to elect an abortion at all stages of pregnancy is not as important for women's rights as their right to elect it at the initial stages of pregnancy, when most abortions take place and preferably should take place for the sake of the health of the woman.

The point is that the abortion debate is too often framed as all or nothing and that is not necessary. The issue of the potential legal redefinition of when human personhood begins is far more subject to compromise.

dlw

 

[Jaymes]

It's comments like this that really **** me off. You don't want any male input with regards to whether or not you can have an abortion, but I'd be willing to bet that you're a strong supporter of making sure that men pay child support.

Circumstance. If the woman gets pregnant and the guy decides to ditch her, he should have to pay child support. If the woman gets pregnant and dumps the kid on the guy, she should have to pay child support.

However, a man should never have a say in the subject of abortion, given that the most a man contributes to making a baby is an orgasm, whereas the woman has to deal with the whole shebang that goes with pregnancy.

If I impregnate a woman, and she decides to have the child, without consulting me, why should I be liable for the upkeep of that child?

Because it takes two to tango. You knew the risk when you jumped in the bed with her.

It also works the other way, if she becomes pregnant, and I want the child, yet she wants an abortion, there's nothing I can do to force her to have the child, even if I want to raise the child on my own, with no help from the mother. To me, that's wrong.

You can find someone else to pop you out a baby. Or, here's an idea: adopt.

If you want complete control over the potential child's life, with no input from the father as to the status of the potential birth, then you should relieve the father of all rights and responsibilities toward that potential child, if the father so desires.

That is the worst idea I've ever heard. The father has an obligation to both allow the woman to choose what to do with her body, and to help support WHAT HE HELPED CREATE when/if it is born.

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I agree that the decision to elect an abortion, if legal, is the woman's.

But initially the way the statement was framed, it had to do with the use of a referendum vote of all citizens to determine when legally human personhood begins.

dlw

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I'm a little disappointed in the lack of critical interaction on this issue from the board.


I'm sure people are burned out on it, but there is novelty in identifying the issue as being primarily about the potential legal redefinition of when human personhood begins. That is a definition that both sides can presumably agree to, which does not presume what the right answer is in advance.

It also is innovative in that it presumes that we will never completely agree as to when legally human personhood begins, but denies that that should prohibit political change and that we could make it so that political change can only take place in a manner that would be deemed acceptable by the vast majority of females. This provides de facto guarantees that a woman's right to choose will be defended regardless of whether Roe-V-Wade remains in law or not.

Dems need to get creative on this issue so that it doesn't remain an issue.
dlw

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I summarized the idea in the OP with more concise, readable language. You can find it here.
dlw

 

[jamaesi]

It also works the other way, if she becomes pregnant, and I want the child, yet she wants an abortion, there's nothing I can do to force her to have the child, even if I want to raise the child on my own, with no help from the mother. To me, that's wrong.

Perhaps that's something that should have been talked over before doing the hanky-panky, eh? To force someone to do something with their own body is called slavery and it's illegal.

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.

If you're trying to depoliticize abortion, then why is the first step political? Why not, instead of using easily swayed emotional people, use unbiased science?

 

[Pah]

I summarized the idea in the OP with more concise, readable language. You can find it here.
dlw

I made a reply to the referenced blog that recaps what I've discussed here in more detail

 

[johnnys4life]

Roe VS. Wade is not based on a law created in 1973, as some tend to think, but is an interpretation of a law that was already existing at that time. One single judge had the power to change the entire United States' understanding of a law because of a single decision, brought on by pressure in part by a relatively small sect of lawyers and feminist groups who advocated abortion "rights". Before 1973, the law was interpreted quite differently. Because of a growing political movement brought on by a sect of feminism which believes that a woman is the ultimate authority over her child's life before birth, and becaue of the land mark case Roe VS. Wade, it is now interpreted very differently.
The majority of people do not feel as you do. They favor legalized abortion before viability but not after. It is impossible to take the politics out of abortion because the two major political parties have taken thier stances on it already, and there will be and is pressure from many organizations to keep it that way. If the parties (particularly the democratic party) become more moderate concerning the issue the dynamic will change a little, but not enough. Clinton's sect of the democratic party is all but gone in favor of the far left sect, and abortion has become an issue to which there is a litmus test within the Democratic party. Actually the Republican party is quite moderate concerning the issue considering that many of the high up politicians favor only a few restrictions, even the president favors allowing abortion in the case of rape, and Condoleeza Rice is "pro-choice".

What is proposed here would change very little, and I doubt you'd ever get a majority of voters to agree that a child's life begins at birth. Most people in the U.S. right now do not favor allowing late-term abortions at all, and I hope they never will.

And I also think your view on what is moral and non-political would be rejected by a huge sect of society, as you define morals very differently than many other people, and most people consider law and the interpretation of it to be extremely political.

 

[Melody]

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.

Put yourself in the father's position. He has to sit by and watch as his child is murdered and he gets no say in it. It took two people to make that baby and it should take two to make the decision. As far as I'm concerned, if you're old enough to make the decision to engage in activity that could result in pregnancy, then you're old enough to deal with the consequences.

There's a certain hypocrisy (is that the word I'm looking for) in a world where the woman gets to decide whether she keeps the baby and the father gets no input but if she decides to have it and keep it (again without the father's input), she can go after him for child support and he has no say in that either.