I have one question: why the fuck didn't the plaintiffs, especially Planned Parenthood, argue that the federal government was not authorized to pass this legislation under the interstate commerce clause? Their failure to argue that point basically gave Thomas a free pass to vote how he really wanted on this without having to worry about being inconsistent. Truely, it is a talent of judges in our system to vote however they want regardless of the law and their previously expressed opinions, but there is no reason to make it easy for them to do it.

What people need to understand--what they should have understood and what they need to keep in mind from here on out is that abortion rights are about limited government. While the the word "abortion" does not appear in the Constitution, the word "liberty" does, and the federal government has not been granted the power to legislate on abortion.

The pro-choice lobby needs to get their shit together, and this loss is just one more example of their incompetence.

Well, look at it this way. I am sure judges and politicians know much more about medical issues than doctors, so I'm sure this will all turn out fine.

I hope you're right, Ed, about finding some silver lining. Right now, I take no consolation in seeing Roberts and Alito as just "a little bit" anti-abortion, and not the full-out "strict constructionists" that Scalia and Thomas are.

The final score was still 5-4. The anti-choice side is now emboldened, and there will be more challenges and more anti-choice legislation.

This is not even about the horribleness of this particular procedure, but all about being one step closer to criminalizing abortion outright, and sending women once again to back alleys.

Elections may have consequences, but so does keeping your powder dry.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

"concocting a hypothetical where someone crosses a state border to get an abortion"

In some sparsely-populated states, abortions are made so problematic that going out of state may be the rule rather than the exception, and sometimes crossing a state border has other advantages.

No "concoction" necessary, in this case.

In his concurrance, Justice Thomas states that "in my view, the Court's abortion jurisprudence... has no basis in the Constitution."

Isn't that somewhat at odds with his Confirmation testimony before the Senate, where he essentially said that he had no views on abortion at all?

Just wondering, if a SC Justice writes opinions that make his Confirmation testimony appear to be patently false, is there a remedy?

-Dave Adams-

In a word: no.

Lying at confirmation hearings is just one of the many ways that conservatives have upended longstanding norms in how the government is supposed to work.

Isn't it interesting to view the work of Roberts and Alito, both of whom during their confirmation hearings swore on a stack of bibles taller than they were that they were True Believers in the judicial philosophy of "stare decisis" and that they would never ever revisit "settled law."

Like most "movement conservatives" (they may be a movement, but they're NOT "conservative"),they're willing to "do what's necessary" to achieve the goal, including lie to your face with a smile.

Anyone who trusts one of these scumballs farther than they can be seen with one's eyes closed deserves what they get. Every Democrat who voted to confirm these bastards should be forced to explain themselves.

And then there are the "progressive" halfwits who voted for Ralph Nader because "there's no difference at all between Democrats and Republicans." There's a special place in Hell reserved for these fools.

debcoop

You could not be more wrong about Roberts' "moderation".

The crucial part of the decision was when Kennedy said that this law should not have been facially challenged and therefore it should not have been enjoined in its entirety in 2003. In essence the law shuld have gone into effect in 2003 when it was passed.

Why is that crucial? Because it means that all others restrictive, but not facially total bans on abortion, will be allowed to go into effect and the legal challenges would only be after the fact of harm ensuing to a particular woman or class of women. This allows individual states, though thankfully not something this Democratic congress would do, to pass one seemingly innocuous restriction, after another and it goes into effect immediately and according to this ruling, should not be enjoined in its entirety.

Then it can be litigated in court only in individual as applied exceptions. This SCOTUS seems to be saying that this law should have gone into effect in 2003 and execptions should be only as applied

This is the formula that Roberts crafted in the New Hampshire parental notification ruling in Ayotte. Uphold the awful law and then come up with one or a few, individual
exceptions that deal with the pr problems .

As bad as Alito is and choosing him was , the real danger here is Roberts' intelligence, craftiness and seeming moderation as he crafts restrictions so there will be nothing left to the right to choice and I suspet many other areas of law we care about.

It will be hard to find direct and easily mobilized against rulings by the Roberts court.

He didn't join the Scalia opiniion beause it would have telelgraphed his hand and there is no need to unduly alarm the American public. He is going to be more successful at overturning deades of progressive jurisprudence by upholding awful laws, carving out one narrow exception after another and having folks like you say that this wasn't so bad after all.

The other worst thing in light of the politicization of US Attorneys is the the enforcement mechanism is through the discretion of US Attorneys. So it might be regional,but I would assume that the US Attorneys will be under pressure to bring cases...and the question will be how far afoul of the actual language and the theroretical restriction to just this procedure will they be willing to go or be pushed to go by DOJ.

This is bad and saying it's not doesn't make it not so.

Not enough votes. GOP filibuster.

J. McCutchen

The anti-abortion vote has been a mobilizer for the religious right and a very effective one. Until today, there has never been a real threat to Roe.

Now there is. If the pro-choice movement cannot mobilize on these facts, then they might as well give it up

IANAL, either, so I can’t argue the judicial merits or DEmerits of this case.

I AM a woman, though, already through my childbearing years when Roe v. Wade was decided. My babies were wanted, planned for and safely delivered, but I saw women die because of problems that developed during their pregnancies, and I saw a lot of so-called “Thalidomide babies” born because mothers who’d been prescribed this drug for morning sickness couldn’t afford to go abroad for abortions. (A woman named Sherri Finkbine, who obtained a legal abortion in Sweden, was the lone exception, as far as I can recall — and she was excoriated by the righteous and some in the press for her “immorality.”)

It absolutely infuriates me that not only can half the people in this country cavalierly contemplate turning back the hard-won progress we’ve made toward equality for women, but the final decision should be in the hands of a group of largely male, well-to-do, people professing to be Christians who somehow missed out on learning compassion and the ability to think through a variety of situations!

I really really really dislike this opinion and think it's a horrible thing. But yes, I think it is a fake win for the pro-lifers. This really isn't about 'life' at all (as I discussed here).  They made a big point about how it wasn't really going to lessen the number of abortions because so many other procedures that they explicitly say are not included in the ban ARE available.  And it perversly actually reinforces the point that a fetus in a womb is part of the mother and a distinct state of being from a baby outside of the womb- for true pro-lifers, the denial of this distinction is at the heart of their philosophy.

I'm wondering about the as-applied challenge comment by Kennedy myself.  I've guessed several things- maybe it's a signal to stop granting injunctions.  Maybe it's a signal that, given the right as-applied challenge, he'd 'swing the other way,' so to speak.  Maybe it was thrown in as a sop to Thomas or Scalia, who can get on their high horses about these things.  Maybe it was a signal that the Plaintiffs didn't do a good job explaining the circumstances under which an intact D&E would be preferable, instead focusing too much on the vagueness prong.  Maybe they're getting antsy about all the as-applied challenges- after all, they really are supposed to be a very high standard.  Of course, all this uncertainty is the perfect reason why a rambling paragraph is never a good idea in a SCOTUS opinion- and maybe it was just judicial rambling from a relatively new clerk (when the case was argued) who felt the need to expound on the proof needed for a facial challenge to an unnecessary degree. 

debcoop

From my decades of activism on this issue I know that to make abortion unavailable to the vast majority of women in this country, overturning Roe is not necessary. This Pandora's box that the court has opened, will unleash enough legislation to make overturning Roe almost moot. And if they are smart this may be enough for them to do. And Roberts is smart.

Please go read Jack Balkin's interpretation at his Balkinization blog. He lays out the some of the dangers in the Roberts tack on this decision.

But having been an activist in the this movement for decades, and intimately involved for a long time with policy about this... let me say that I think the anti choice folks are ready with lots of legislation that will be introduced in many different states of the union. Remember the inability to facially challenge means this laws will go into effect. Then either individual women or a small class of women then get to challege in their particular circumstance. The logistical and financial challenge on the prochoice side is enormous. And the gain is relaltively small.

And frankly it has always been acknowleldged by our side that the most mobilizing thing that could happen for our side would be to overturn Roe directly and frontally. The effect on races for the White House and Congress would be enormous, though given what Roberts has wrought, undoing it would mean replacing one of the 5 who voted to uphold this ban.

I quote Jack Balkin

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

"If the Court applied the Salerno (my interjection...Salerno says laws are challenged as applied not enjoined in their entirety) rule to abortion cases, it would mean that plaintiffs could not directly challenge new abortion regulations as soon as they were passed. Instead, a series of plaintiffs would have to go to court and prove that the law was unconstitutional as applied to their individual circumstances. This process would be time consuming and expensive, and it would take years to produce a jurisprudence limiting the statute's unconstitutional reach. Thus, the effect of applying Salerno (as opposed to what the Court actually did in Casey) would be to allow states to pass significant restrictions on abortion and keep them in force for long periods of time until a series of time consuming and expensive cases gradually eliminated their unconstitutional features. Indeed, precisely because creating an appropriate factual record for an individual as-applied challenge by a pregnant woman may be time consuming and expensive, the series of suits may never be brought, with the result that a whole host of abortion limitations that are actually invalid under the undue burden test will remain in force and will be applied to limit women's right to abortion. Applying Salerno to abortion litigation, in short, would drain much of Roe's and Casey's practical applicability to the real world. And because this will be achieved through an abstruse and technical doctrine of court procedure, many members of the public will not even realize that Roe and Casey have been effectively gutted."

That is the danger... the right to an abortion ends not with a mobilizing bang, but with a whimper that too many moderate minded people are lead into believing is not an immediate danger.

The crucial vote in the Senate was confirming Roberts...because this method he has chosen will be applied subtly and cleverly by him to many other classes of cases other than Roe. We are in for a brave new world. Every moderate thought Roberts would be okay. He's the most dangerous one, because he is so persuasive.

They won't care. Ever see the movie (or read the book) "The Cardinal"? In it the priest has to make the decision as to whether or not to allow his sister, pregnant out of wedlock, to die or crush the baby's head and allow his sister to live and the baby to die. Of course he makes the decision to allow his sister to die, considered to be quite the noble sacrifice by the priest, even though he's not the one who's dead. Naturally, this scene accomplishes two admonishments to women - first, that if you get pregnant without being married, you'll probably die, and secondly, even a celibate priest living in the Vatican can make better decisions than any woman.

the above rhetoric is designed to make you forget that there is such a procedure nowadays as a Cesarean Section for those situations when a pregnant woman's health or life is in danger, at such a late stage as would fall under the rubric of this banned procedure, intact dilation and extraction if you prefer.

(also, some cesareans are even performed based on *gasp* the health or life of the baby.)

The reason I say they lied is because they testified under oath during their vetting hearings that, to offer their thoughts on a subject such as Roe would prevent them from having an open mind if a case came to them on the Supreme Court.

 Now they are saying,  specifically about Roe, )which is NOT the case they recently decided) how they would act if it comes to the Supreme Court. 

What has changed?  The only change is that NOW they have the very same life-time jobs that they were trying to get.  They lied and said that they would not do what they just did to GET those jobs. 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg also refused to answer, but she has not since declared what her decision would be if such a case came to the Supreme Court.  There is a difference.

Jan

I can't quote Digby's entire essay on this subject,, but here is a portion:

Update: For those of you who've been reading this blog a while, you know that I've been convinced that the Democrats are poised and desperate to throw in the towel on choice, just as they threw in the towel on gun control and the death penalty when the right proved to be relentless and obnoxious enough to wear them down.

Here's how ABC news reports today's news:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took no position on two of the hottest social issues in America today -- guns and abortion -- in a week when those subjects were brought before the public in quite compelling ways.

Asked about this morning's historic and unprecedented decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a state ban on an abortion procedure, Pelosi -- longtime backer of abortion rights -- said, "This is an issue I need to review." Reid immediately changed the subject to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. "That's what it brings to my mind," Reid said.

You should read the rest if you can bear to get through it.

sPh

A possible beneficial effect will be to give a jolt to feminism by opening the eyes of those who have regarded it as passe because its battles had been won.

I don't usually get into the abortion debates because it's not a strong issue for me. I see points on both sides of the debate and believe middle ground is available far more often than either side is willing to admit.

That said, I'm as annoyed by pro-choicers calling the other side anti-choice as I am by pro-lifers calling the other side anti-life. Clearly those who identify themselves as "pro-life" are not against choice per se. They are against a specific choice - the choice to have an abortion. As such, anti-abortion is a perfectly legitimate term if you feel you must label them anti-something.

In short, I believe that using the term "anti-choice" (or "anti-life") is antithetical to having a productive conversation about the issues surrounding abortion and, as such, should be discouraged.

This decision means women will experience injury, illness, infertility, and death. No one can argue with that.

Being anti-choice is about being against a woman's right to determine her destiny and/or believing that this destiny has already been set in stone and should be controlled by others. Having a child is a life-changing event, and can even be a life-ending event in some instances.

That's how you are defining another group, and that's not productive. I'm not arguing against your position, merely how you choose to define another group's beliefs. Why label them "anti-choice"? How is that not inflammatory? How is that productive? Couldn't you be labeled "anti-choice" if you are against someone's ability to choose to kill another individual? Why does their position on this one choice (we are all for the ability to make choices on some matters and to restrict choices on other matters) make the term "anti-choice" accurate?

The law, and now the opinion, are all about limiting choice.

The law, and now the opinion, are about limiting choice as that choice involves abortion. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your position on the issue. I'm disagreeing with the language that some people use to frame the issue because I feel that language to be counter-productive. It polarizes and does not help the debate. For those not already "in the choir" it makes you seem unwilling to even consider the other side's opinion.

No one wants to eliminate your ability to choose which shoes to wear this morning (and, no, this is not meant to trivialize the choice to have an abortion). No one wants to grant you the ability to choose to rob a liquor store. The term "pro-choice" is about the ability to choose an abortion if that choice is right for you. If you identify with that label, then that's fine. The term "pro-life" is about protecting the life of the fetus (many pro-lifers are fine with other lives ending, and many are not). That's the label they choose to identify with. Using the term "anti-choice" to label this group is inaccurate (of course, no succinct label will be entirely accurate) and, more importantly, counter-productive.

i disagree with the second paragraph above.

it seems that a cesarean section is the emergency procedure of choice when the life of the mother is at risk -after viability.

and speaking of major abdominal surgery...pregnancy is no walk in the park. birth is no walk in the park. DNC is not the answer to Cesarean problems, but Cesarean procedures are the appropriate and medical answer to health and risk issues during a pregnancy.

Intact dilation and extraction is wholly elective. prove otherwise.

I would just suggest that the new restrictions on the commerce clause power announced in Lopez and Morrison are not broad enough to encompass this legislation. Thomas wrote in one of those two cases, I forget which, that "commerce" under the constitution meant the transport of goods for sale. Commerce among the states meant the transport of goods from one state to another. Thus, regulation of anything other than that sort of transportation is beyond the power of Congress.

But he is just the most egregious example. If they are serious about their doctrines, we can use those doctrines to help ourselves.

That's the point, Ben. It's not an argument--the issues are intractable and cannot be resolved by argument. We're not trying to convince the people on the other side of the debate. Both sides are trying to convince everyone else in the country. If you're undecided, you need to know that "pro-lifers" are anti-choice. We have to make sure that the undecided people in this country understand what the other side stands for. And the other side is doing the same to us.

You're assuming that people who are undecided have the time and energy to extensively research both positions and become fully informed judges of the arguments. That's not how it works. People are busy, and they're not going to read everything just to make this sort of decision. There is nothing wrong with using effective short-hand descriptions to describe your opponents. In any case, as you have admitted in your first post above, anti-abortion activists are in fact anti-choice becuase they are against this particular choice. You can accept that resolution of the problem if you want, or you can accept that we're fighting a battle for the minds of the undecided and we ought to do our best to convince them through acceptable means. This is an acceptable means. We're not trying to reach across our divisions and come to some general consensus. We're trying to win.

For the past 20 years, the right has been using terms equivalent to "anti-choice" to misdescribe our positions, and that is a big part of why we have been losing so many elections. George Lackoff doesn't deserve all the credit he gets, but he is right about framing issues. Yes, we want to describe the other side in the terms that makes it as easy as possible for us to defeat them.

And no, "pro-lifers" are more "anti-choice" than I am. They do not want to stop this particular choice. What they want is to stop you from controlling all your own reproductive choices. To pro-lifers, sex is bad, STDs and pregnancy are punishments for those choices. Let me ask you this:

Do you believe that the state should be able to prohibit a parent from teaching their child a foreign language?

Do you believe that parents should be able to choose whether to send their children to a private school?

Do you believe that a state may forcibly sterilize criminal convicts?

Do you believe that a state may restrict the sale of or the use of condoms?

Abortion is at the center of these rights. It is about what the government can and cannot regulate. It is about whether the government can tell you to have a child and how to raise that child. It is a fundamental freedom. People who are against abortion are against choice.

If I have to label people in an "inflammatory" manner so that I can make that point without having to argue it every single time, then I'll use those labels. And so should you.

Well, it's come to the blockquotes. Ok.

Only in the same way that you're "anti-life" because you're against preserving the life of a fetus over preserving a woman's choice to abort that fetus. That doesn't seem very accurate to you, does it? Your "anti-choice" label seems similarly inaccurate to those of us who are not firmly in one camp or the either.

So, is there nothing wrong with them labeling you as anti-life? If that's how you feel, then at least your position is consistent. I'll still disagree (with both statements), but I'll find no problems in your consistency and will happily respect your difference in opinion.

Ben, this isn't about fairness. It isn't about being nice or treating the other side with respect. In fact, I have absolutely no respect for more anti-choice advocates. And they don't have any respect for us. Start looking at the right wing sites around the internet. Pro-choice people will be repeatedly called "pro-abortion" and "pro-death". The fact that you are apparently unaware of these things is exactly why we need to use these labels: people as political citizens do not operate with complete information. The way you sell your message is equally important to what your message is.

Actually, it is about fairness in one specific way. The other side fights dirty by using labels that misdescribe us. They do it because the misdecriptions carry moral weight and connotations that make our positions appear unpalatable. I want the fight to be level to be equal. In order for the fight to be fair, we need to be operating on the same rules as the other side. The rules include using specific frames that make their positions look bad, because their positions are bad. Thus, I refuse to make the fight unfair--to unbalance it in favor of our opponents just so that you or I can feel better about the terms we're using.

Ben, I can only conclude that you're a wingnut in disguise, pretending to be moderate in order to argue with lefties, or you are incredibly naive. Using the term "anti-choice" is making precisely the argument I want it to make. If people had the time to analyze the accuracy of labels, George Bush would not be president right now. We also wouldn't have terms like "tax relief" and "up or down vote" ingrained in our consciousness. It's not a question of emotional arguments. It's just a question of language. The language we use to describe an issue carry with them assumptions that will determine whether a particular resolution of the issue is acceptable.

If you want us to stop using the term "anti-choice" then the people on the other side need to stop using the term "pro-life." The issue is whether someone should be allowed to destroy a fetus in order to terminate a pregnancy. When you say "pro-life" the implication is that the other side is in favor of destroying life. If the other side is in favor destroying life, then the fetus must be alive. And if the fetus is alive, then it must have a right to life. If it has a right to life, then you ought to be pro-life. It's circular, but that's the way it works. People use terms that reinforce their positions, because that is how you convince others that you are correct.

I wouldn't put too much stock in internet questionaires that determine your personality type.

Perhaps I'm guilty of being too idealistic, but I firmly believe in not sinking to the level of one's protagonists.

You must love losing.

I tell you what, ben. I, for one, am tired of hearing Frank Luntz GOP-funded language frame the terms of every single debate in this country. Especially so-called moral/cultural issues.

So I am going to continue to use language that I feel works for me, and works to more accurately describe the other side of this debate. (I don't accept your premise that "anti-choice" is too broad -- everyone knows exactly what choice we're talking about here, clearly, it's abortion.)

So, you're basically saying, the two choices I have to describe my political opponents in this specific area are:

- Pro-life, or

- Anti-abortion

Frank Luntz would love you.  

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Language is key in this discussion. I get frustrated with what I regard as "have you quit beating your wife" phrasing about an "unborn child." Jerry Falwell, a person I am amazed to have said something sensible, once summed up the abortion controversy rather nicely. He suggested that neither side wanted to kill humans, but that the group in favor of permitting abortions did not believe a fetus was human, and he would pray that they be guided otherwise.

I cannot answer a question about an unborn child, because my medical and ethical experience leads me to believe that a child exists only after birth. Before that, a fetus is an assemblage of cells, no more human than a skin cell that contains the genetic information to create a complete human, if only we knew how to convince its genome to express in the appropriate manner.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I agree completely about language being important - as is civility, if you want to have any chance of having any positive impact in a conversation. For that reason, I try to avoid the phrase "unborn child" as I know to some it is a very loaded phrase. Fetus is perfectly accurate and is actually more precise, IMO. (I'll sometimes use the phrase "unborn child", however, to refer to a child that is never born as opposed to a child that is yet to be born and never in the context of an abortion debate if I can help it.)

I cannot answer a question about an unborn child, because my medical and ethical experience leads me to believe that a child exists only after birth. Before that, a fetus is an assemblage of cells, no more human than a skin cell that contains the genetic information to create a complete human, if only we knew how to convince its genome to express in the appropriate manner.

A zygote and a blastocyte definitely qualify as "an assemblage of cells", but I'm not certain that this is necessarily true of a fetus. It might be, but I'm quite certain that this is not a question that medical science is close to answering. It does seem quite clear that there is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that makes a fetus "human". Unfortunately, there is no clean line that can be found anywhere in the development from zygote to fetus to child other than passing through the birth canal. The best that medical science can do, IMO, is to describe when neurons begin to form in the fetal brain. IIRC, that's at about 21-22 weeks.

"anti-choice" is unnecessarily inflammatory.

I don't think you have any evidence of this. I would love to see you produce some.

Since you are obsessed with semantics, let me reject the word "moderate" on the issue of abortion. This is an issue about life and it is an issue about choice. I agree that "choice" doesn't adequately describe the issue but it is not an entirely dishonest word either. It acknowledges that decision is unavoidable. "Moderate" is dishonest. You are never a little bit pregnant and the fetus is either born or it is not.

What "moderate" tends to mean in practice is that middle class "moderate" suburbanites get to have abortions but young, poor, vulnerable and rural women do not. There is nothing moderate about that kind of policy choice.

I think there is a continuum of increasing personhood from conception to newborn. The abortion debate it seems to me is whether the value of that personhood ever reaches the point where it overrides a woman’s desire not to give birth.

Those who argue that a fetus just before birth is no more valuable than a bunch of cancer cells and suddenly valuable enough to be protected by sever criminal sanctions right after birth, undermine their position. Better to argue that even the value of the life of a newborn does not override the desire of a woman not to give birth.

There certainly is a moderate position on abortion. How about unrestricted abortion on demand during the first trimester only. That is somewhere between no abortion after conception and unrestricted abortion of a fully formed fetus just before birth.

Women have an adequate opportunity to make a choice and those who think a fully formed fetus is the equivalent of a baby can prevent its killing.

I have to agree with Ben on this.

As soon as I hear "anti-choice" I know I am dealing with a zealot that cannot be reasoned with and I tune them out.

I must point out that being of the opinion that there is not a right to an abortion guaranteed in the constitution does not necessarily mean that one is opposed to legal abortions.

Is Thomas really opposed to “choice” or is he merely being true to his interpretation of the constitution or both?

If you think ignorance is a strong position from which to wage this war, then those arguments will be incredibly helpful.

I'm really amazed at the number of people posting in this thread who don't seem to realize that they're allowing the actions of a minority to dictate how they perceive the majority. You're allowing them to win the war by persisting in such falsehoods.

And I would love to see you produce any evidence that it helps even one iota. It makes you feel better to say it, but you're helping the other side more then your hurting them when you make such an argument, as you encourage those who are undecided to ignore whatever insightful arguments you do have to make.

Here's one piece of evidence, however: I'm a "moderate", and I find that it turns me off from your argument. Being in the sciences, I also know many other moderates who feel likewise.

Liberals exist only to the same degree that ideal gases exist. They are prototypes, not real people. If you toe the entire "liberal" line (whatever that might be) to the absolute level, then you're probably not doing much thinking for yourself. (And all of this is true for "conservatives" as well.) That said, I am predominantly liberal.

Your simple way of describing the world glosses over entire regions of nuance, and these nuances are important to a lot of people.

"Pro-life" is not any more accurate than "anti-choice", but it is a label that people apply to themselves. One could argue that certain derogatory terms for race are no less "accurate" than more polite terms. However, they are offensive and should therefore not be used. Communication is not just about the accuracy of ones terms - communication is also about convincing people of the validity of your ideas. Offending people is typically (but not always) ineffective.

"Pro-choice" is also no less accurate than "anti-life". Just as with the "pro-life"/"anti-choice" labels, it is generally understood that the choice in question is the choice to have an abortion and the life in question is the life of the fetus. Some people value the life of the fetus over the choice of the woman and others value the choice of the woman over the life of the fetus. Just as you would rightly argue (presumably) that you do value the life of the fetus, but you value the choice of the woman more, I think it's quite rational for you to believe that at least some people who identify as "pro-life" do value the choice of the woman but value the life of the fetus more.

I hope that makes sense and that you actually care, because I'm beginning to suspect that I'm greatly wasting my time here.

What part of "unrestricted" did you not understand? Robert said that one moderate position is that "unrestricted abortion" should only be allowed during the first trimester. That suggests that "restricted abortion" (as in considering the life or health of the mother) could be allowed afterwards.

Trying to paint us as upper class is humorous, at best. There are days I wish I were upper class, that's for sure. There are also days when I'm glad that I'm grounded.

The whole "upper class" argument seems to suggest that you're flailing your arms. If you have nothing productive to add, don't start name calling. Please?

I did not deride anyone. I derided an argument as ignorant. You won't find me calling others "upper class" because they don't see the world as black and white. ;)

The government has no business dictating to women on religious grounds. It is particularly repugnant to have decisions on abortion made on the basis of funding.

I have not seen anyone in this debate suggesting otherwise. Why are you bringing it up?

What lies do you think I am perpetrating? Just say it. Then we can discuss it.

Well, first of all, you seem to imply that those of us arguing that things aren't black and white are "upper class" and "religious". I am neither.

Secondly, you claim (via "fact not fiction") that all pro-lifers believe that sex is bad. That's a lie.

Thirdly, you claim that all pro-lifers believe that STDs are a punishment. That's a lie.

Fourthly, you claim that all pro-lifers believe pregnancy is a punishment. That's a lie.

Finally, you claim that "my side" is "slavery". That's a lie. At least take some time to read what I've written and you'll see that "my side" is not the side that was served by this SCOTUS ruling. My "side" is the side of reason, and the SCOTUS ruling goes against that, IMO. I assume you'd agree with that.

I quote heberkowitz who I was referring to:

…ethical experience leads me to believe that a child exists only after birth. Before that, a fetus is an assemblage of cells, no more human than a skin cell

No need to pull out strawmen.

Isn’t the outrage here all about restrictions on late term abortions?

Let's try this again: "unrestricted abortions during first trimester" implies that during later trimesters restricted abortions could be allowed. These restrictions could include the extreme cases that your argument is referring to.

You bemoan the insults, but keep in mind that you were the one who called us "upper class" and suggested nefarious motives behind our suggestions that things aren't always black and white. I'm really trying to keep this civil, and was hoping you'd take my comment in the humorous way it was intended. I apologize for insulting you.

 Some people value the life of the fetus over the choice of the woman and others value the choice of the woman over the life of the fetus. Just as you would rightly.

I disagree that this is what it means to be pro-choice or anti-choice. It is much bigger.

When a person says they are pro-choice they are speaking about the choice of the individual to exercise a constitutional right. When someone says another is anti-choice it means that individual does not beleive in the rights of  individual granted by the  constitutional to choose. The individual gets to determine when they exercise their right with regard to their body not the state. That is what pro-choice is.  The constitutional right to choose to execise your rights. 

That the choice is abortion is not the issue. The issue is the constitutional right to chose as an individual what to do with your own body. That is the choice here.

Are you for the right of the individual to choose what do with their own body, Ben or not?

Or do you beleive that the state has the right to limit your constituitional right by determining you cannot exercise that choice and right as granted by the constitution to determine what  an individual can do with their own body?

That is what this is about.

Pro-life is nothing but a misnomer use to obfuscate the true issue of individual rights granted under the Constitution. Life is not the issue, when it begins, when a fetus is human etc are emotionally-laden terms used as tangents to obscure that the individual is agreeing to give up their rights granted under the Constitution.. This is an issue about individual rights. The right to choose. It is not about a fetus.

As a moderate/independent..where do you fall? Are you for the individuals right to choose what happens to their own body or not? Are you for the constituitional right to choose or not?

I do not need to determine if I am pro-life to know that I am for the individual rights granted under the constitution to choose.

To be anti-choice is simply unAmerican. I am pro-choice because I believe in the Constitution and our system of governance under the rule of law and that is the only thing essential to this issue.

Or do you beleive that the state has the right to limit your constituitional right by determining you cannot exercise that choice and right as granted by the constitution to determine what an individual can do with their own body?

I believe there are limits to such rights. Your right to swing your fist (part of your body) stops at my face. As I said in my previous post, there are two entities in consideration here. Do you place no value on the fetus? If so, then I suppose you are to the pro-choice movement what those who place no value on the choice of the woman are to the pro-life movement. Both types of people do exist, and both types of people are difficult for me to relate to.

Do you believe in the constitutional right to free speech? Is there ever a time to limit free speech? Am I constitutionally allowed to phone in a bomb threat? If you feel that I am not allowed to phone in a bomb threat, does that make you "anti-speech"?

So the answer is yes? You support unrestricted abortions up until birth? Are you one of cscs's strawpersons?

I do not believe people are rationally choosing to abandon these principles for the sake of ensuring fundamental rights but that they are being emotionally blinded by the "other" side into making the disastrous choice to abandon these principles.

No, dude, it is rational. The fact that you can't see that it is rational is your failing and not ours. We don't owe anything to the other side in this struggle. We just don't. They don't owe anything to us. We live in an organized society that is not dependent on civility or politeness. If we had to be civil in order to keep this whole country running, I might agree with you, but we don't. It's going to keep on going regardless of how civil we are.

Look, here's the situation you imagine in a slightly different form:

1. The Republicans initiate slanderous attacks on a Democratic presidential candidate.
2. In the interest of appearing civil and polite, the Democratic candidate refuses to respond to the attacks.
3. In pursuing that same interest, the Democrat calls on the Republican candidate to reign in his party and stop making the attacks.
4. The Republican refuses to do so, and the Democrat attacks him for his lack of civility and politeness.

Now, who wins that election? That is exactly what happened in 2004 with Bush, Kerry, and the Swift Boaters. I see you joined this site just 14 weeks ago, and may be you haven't thought this through. Here's the story: when a voter is trying to decide between two candidates civility and politeness are secondary to every other issue. Pretending to be or actually being the "civil" candidate does not help you when the other side is willing to attack you in the most crucial ways.

Again, this is about winning, not winning clean or winning nice--because it is the winning that really matters. If you lose, you lose everything. No one cares if you're a nice loser. Everyone cares if you have the power that comes with winning. The winners get to decide the policy, the losers get to sit at home and congratulate themselves on how nice they are.

I know there are a lot of people who attribute this to Kerry's loss. However, in speaking to moderate conservatives I respect who, nevertheless, voted for Bush in 2004 (something I still have a hard time wrapping my head around), a common response is that they agree Bush was not a good candidate, but they felt Kerry was worse. Why? Well, largely because they felt Kerry was disingenuous and insincere. Unfortunately, I have to agree with them. I still feel he was a 100x the candidate that Bush was, but that's like saying your IQ is 100x the IQ of someone with an IQ of 0.8 (yes, I know no such people exist).

As I said in my previous post, there are two entities in consideration here. Do you place no value on the fetus?

As I said in the previous post, the fetus is a red herring...

That sounds an awful lot like a "no", but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. The fetus is an integral part of the "pro-life" position. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that, then you need to read up a little on the works of Sun Tzu.

Do keep in mind the distinction between a strawman and a Wicker Man. We now return you to your regular programming on the neodruidic network.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Why? Well, largely because they felt Kerry was disingenuous and insincere.

Think this through a level. Why did they not believe he was sincere?

Because, maybe, he was attacked by the Swifties and never responded, for weeks? Because he took a high road that gained him nothing.

That plays right into the perceptions (GOP-sponsered perceptions...) of Kerry not being genuine, not being "real."

It's all connected. 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

I think it's quite rational for you to believe that at least some people who identify as "pro-life" do value the choice of the woman but value the life of the fetus more.

I'm sorry, I still don't see why me saying "anti-choice" is wrong, but the right calling themselves "anti-abortion" is acceptable.

(Again, everyone is "anti-abortion," in that everyone wants to see abortion minimized.)

Every time we allow the right to say "anti-abortion" without contest, we lose.

And basically, what you're saying is, "moderates" will only respond to conventionally created terms and language around abortion, and there is no point to changing the frames and changing the debate here through the use of language.

The terms of the debate have been setup by the Right, and why should anyone try and change that...

Perhaps we are wasting each other's time...

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

I am pretty sure Howard's intention was not to imply an abortion can or should happen "right before birth."

He said "fetus," without any parameters around how advanced. Your strawman was reading into what he said...

And, since apparently you're not aware, the outrage about the latest SCOTUS ruling is more specific than your wording. It's not simply "restriction," but the lack of an exception for a woman's medical condition. 

This is about Congress deciding which medical procedures are OK, and when they can be used, instead of doctors making that decision. 

Have you read the dissent?

More important, Congress claimed there was a medical consensus that the banned procedure is never necessary. ...But the evidence "very clearly demonstrate[d] the opposite." ...("[T]here was no evident consensus in the record that Congress compiled. There was, however, a substantial body of medical opinion presented to Congress in opposition. If anything ... the congressional record establishes that there was a 'consensus' in favor of the banned procedure.")

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

This will be my final comment on this, and then you may have the last word if you'd like...

Not true. Most pro-choicer advocates feel this way (i.e., want to see abortion minimized), but not all...that abortion is "the responsible decision" (actual quote) and that it is a useful form of "population control". Extreme positions, yes, but they do exist.

Really, Ben. Isn't this a strawman? If there are such people, do they at all represent mainstream Democratic or even liberal thinking? Are they at all relevant to the debate?

It's easy to construct an argument around the fringe of an issue, and pretend like it matters. But it doesn't.

Change the frames and change the debates in a helpful way, not a harmful way. Use language like a scalpel and not a chainsaw.

Any suggestions, beyond what you aleady said, that we should continue to call them "anti-abortion" even though it cedes the use of language over to them?

The terms of the debate have been setup by the Right, and why should anyone try and change that...

Because we are better than that.

Now, this, I don't at all understand. We're better than the Right, so we shouldn't try and frame the debate, a debate that's been completely constructed and paid for by skilled, focus-grouped language manipulation?

Maybe you misspoke.

My final comment -- I can see why you're concerned about the use of language, but, in the scope of things, me or anyone using the term "anti-choice" to describe the pro-life side is going to do more good than harm.

Some people might be offended. Others may be enlightened.

I think there's more in the latter camp, and you disagree.

I don't see either of us convincing the other anytime soon...

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

What is the process of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices? I tried looking in the Constitution, but I can't find it. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough. I did find where there was some talk during Ford's time of impeaching Justice Douglas, so presumably there is such a process.

My best guess is that it falls under Article II, section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

That sounds an awful lot like a "no", but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

What it sounds like is your issue is the fetus. I do not believe that my constitutional right under the law to choose what to do with my body is dependent upon a fetus. That is my right, as a citizen to exercise. I choose not to relinquish that right because you want to focus on a fetus and twist the issue to being about something other than my individual rights under the constitution.

Perhaps, I misunderstand you. Are you attempting to assert that a fetus will determine whether individuals  will have their consitutional right to choose limited and that all individuals without a fetus will have no such limitation on their constitutional right to choose under the law?. Which is untrue when it comes to the limits on free speech. All citizens, not just some. are subject to the same limitations when it comes to the rights of free speech.  

It seems to me that unless and untill all citizens can have their constitutional rights limited by the presence or absence of a fetus that no citizens or individuals should have such a restriction place on their constitutional right under the law as an individual. That would be inequitable. We must have equal justice under the law when it comes to exercise our consitutional rights as individuals and citizens.

The fetus is an integral part of the "pro-life" position.

No, the fetus is an integral part of an argument that focuses on life and when it begins  rather than the rights of the individual under the constitution. You are attempting to make an individual constitutional right  a pro-life issue. Which goes back to the language you took issue with early on. This is called a choice issue because it is about  about individual rights under the constitution. It is about constitutional autonomy when it comes to what the individual chooses to do with their body. 

The pro-life position is subterfuge. The pro-life position never addresses the rights of the individual under the constitution...just as you have failed to. The pro-life position is unAmerican as it shifts the focus from the rights granted to citizens under the Constitution to an entity which lacks citizenship so as to incite with emotional and inflammatory language to restrict constitutional rights of the individual as being contingent a group of functioning cells without citizenship or life's breath. Which even the bible concedes was necessary for life to begin subsequent to Adam being formed out of dirt.

I notice that you have failed to answer the question which is the crux of this issue.

Do you believe that you as an individual have the right to decide what happens to your body or do you believe that the state has that right?

Let’s parse herberkowitz’s statement together. I added some highlights to aid your comprehension:

“I cannot answer a question about an unborn child, because my medical and ethical experience leads me to believe that a child exists only after birth . Before that, a fetus is an assemblage of cells, no more human than a skin cell that contains the genetic information to create a complete human, if only we knew how to convince its genome to express in the appropriate manner.

I think any reasonable person other than a supreme court justice would assume that the person who wrote this did not consider a fetus to have any value up to the moment of birth. herberkowitz may revise and extend his remarks if he misstated his position, but you must know that many pro-choicers hold these views.

I don’t know what herberkowitz’s position would be on removing that tissue mass just before birth and putting it into the medical waste stream, but I can’t imagine he would have any objection.

My larger point is that ardent pro-choice people would be better off admitting that a fetus has some value just before birth, but that that value does not override the woman’s constitutional right to abort it if she chooses. To do otherwise drives those with more moderate views into the arms of those who want to ban abortion from conception.

So would you support restrictions on abortion during the third trimester except if that is the only option to protect the physical health of the mother or it the fetus has no hope of survival after birth?

“Drug use is not unconstitutional“
This is one of my pet peeves: The constitution does not restrict the people, it restricts the government. Are there no courses in civics in the schools today?

But, I generally need someone else to supply my drugs, just as a woman requires a doctor to perform an abortion should only self administered abortions be constitutional?

So a promiscuous person has a constitutional right to endanger public health because there was no payment for sex and a prostitute does not have that same right?

So would you support restrictions on abortion during the third trimester except if that is the only option to protect the physical health of the mother or it the fetus has no hope of survival after birth?

I could imagine that you have the right to limit the rights of others.

Let me address the real issues and then maybe you or one of your cohorts will answer the real question.

The issue is framed this way by yourself and others:

Do you favor crushing the heads of little babies before birth

How about this way:

Are you in favor of dragging a dying woman unwillingly in great pain into the delivery room for a caesarean that led to more pain and misery?

That happened under court order during the Reagan Administration to the cheers of the Moral Majority. The baby died a day or two later.

Will you finally address the issues of your desire to hand the government ultimate power of life and death over others for no other reason than your misguided morality and ideology?

Best, Terry

Maybe we just define "everyone" differently. :)

1 -- You can call it murder, but if there are instances when a doctor says this is the best alternative for a woman, shouldn't it be allowed?

2 -- It shows they're smart. Not "not as bad." They know they don't have to overturn RvW (in fact, politically, that would embolden the other side) to get what they want.

Good to see you around these parts, by the way....

Even though you're always wrong. (heh heh) 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

c

Then you're not reading very carefully what I've written. There are two issues: the choice of the woman and the life of the fetus. To say that either one is a "red herring" is to be an extremist, IMO. It's not black or white, right or left, up or down. There are degrees involved here. Nuance.

No. I read what you wrote. I disagree with how you are attempting to frame the issue. You are insisting that the issue is about the fetus. I disagree. I am asserting that the it is the individuals constitutional right to choose what to do with their body that is the issue. You want to interject a fetus as an exception to their constitutional right. I am disagreeing that a fetus has ANY bearing on the individual's constitutional right to choose as the state does not place that limitation on ALL citizens.  There is no nuance. It is black and right. Either ALL individuals have a constitutional right to choose what will happen to their bodies or they do not. What there cannot be is some inequity under the law where only certain individuals who have a fetus must relingquish their constitutional rights to a NON-CITIZEN.

 In most cases, the individual has the right to decide what happens to his/her body.

Name the cases where the individual will not have a right to decide   what happens to their body, where it will apply to ALL citizens. For each case tell why the government has the right to exercise state interest over that individual's rights of liberty and privacy as granted under the constitutional. What possible reason could there ever be for the state to trample the individual rights of ALL citizens to have self-determination regarding what happens to their body?. Citizens are not the property of the government. That is the entire point of the constitution.

The unanswerable question is: when does an individual become an individual? Does passing through the birth canal confer that status? (Stereotypical pro-choice position) Does fertilization confer that status? (Sterotypical pro-life position)

None of this is relevant nor has any bearing with regard to the constitutional  rights  granted and guaranteed as a US citizen. This is simply what you wish the focus to be. The constitutional  law is clear with regard to the individuals rights as a citizen. We have the right to privacy and the right to choose. We have the right as citizens to determine what will happen to our bodies. What you are attempting to advocate is that we give up that right and that other citizens get to determine what other individuals can do with their bodies such that  some citizens can be stripped of that rights based on the presence of an alien. Two tiered citizenship is what you advocate or second-class citizenship for some based on the capricious whim of others. There is no logical justification for this.

While is your right to give up your indiviual rights under the constitution; it is not your right to assert that other's must relinquish their constitutional right because you believe so. You only get to decide what to do with your own constitutional rights not mine or any other individuals'.

My point is merely this: it's complicated, and misrepresenting the position of others who disagree with you (often by dividing people using the Bush mantra of "your either with us or against us") is not helpful.

My point is merely this: you are complicating the issue by focusing on life and when it begins and misrepresnting that the choice is whether certain individuals are being asked to give up their constitutional right to choose what happens to their own body.  You are misrepesenting the issue and being divisive by shifting the focus to what you would like it to be, which is not helpful.

Either you beleive that you have a constitutional right to decide what happens to your own body or you do not.  Either you beleive some people should have the right to determine what happens to some individuals bodies or you do not. There is no some cases, that can be applied to ALL citizens as with the examples you gave for free speech, where ALL citizens rights to free speech would be limited. That does not apply when it comes to an individuals body. That individual only has one body and no limitation should ever be place on what they can do with their body as it would require them losing their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Either you believe in the Bill of Rights and the right to choose or you are unAmerican.

Unfortunately, my position isn't completely binary. It is modified by medical and societal factors.

First, I do believe that it is solely the mother's decision whether a fetus will be delivered as a living child, child status starting after all of the following:

1. after vaginal or surgical delivery
2. 
   
3. after the initiation of essential infant metabolic functions (i.e., breathing, circulation)


4. once a determination is made that the infant's status is consistent with continued life. For example, if an anencephalic fetus is discovered, it is ethical not to attempt to start breathing. It is also ethical do have a do-not-attempt-resuscitation order on such a fetus once delivered and having started breathing, with medical certainty that will soon stop.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

This is one of my pet peeves: The constitution does not restrict the people, it restricts the government. Are there no courses in civics in the schools today?

Were you forgetting your civics course from yesteryear when you framed the question as to whether there should be constitutional limits on drug use? If not then you know that the government already has significant control over the publics' use of drugs via the FDA, DEA and ATF regulatory bodies. Now,  I presumed that you were addressing an individuals constitutional right to self administer drugs. Were you?  If so, it is correct to say that there are no constitutional limits  that allow the government to restrict' such use. The governments right to restrict the individuals use of drugs begins and end with possession, not use.The distinction between possesion and use of drugs, is one of my pet peeves. Further, I would like to say that you can look at the constitution as  limiting the rights of government or as guaranteeing individual rights and freedoms under the constitution in the Bill of Rights.

But, I generally need someone else to supply my drugs, just as a woman requires a doctor to perform an abortion should only self administered abortions be constitutional?

Well, this is patently false. Individuals consume all types of drugs without someone else supplying them, analgesics, antibiotics, suppositories, vitamins, anti-inflammatories,laxatives, antireflux, sinus meds, steroids,  herbs, etc.  With regard to abortion the issue is whether the individual has the right to exercise their constitutional right to determine what happens to their own body. Or are you focused on regulating what procedures the physician can provide?  Only the individual can give permission or decline to accept medical services for their body, as no person other than them bears the self-harm, disability or risk of death. Do you disagree with that?

So a promiscuous person has a constitutional right to endanger public health because there was no payment for sex and a prostitute does not have that same right?

All individuals have the right to be promiscuous. Just like free speech. What they do not have the right to do is endanger the public when using free speech or spreading a communicable disease. Public health laws do not restrict the right of the individual to be promiscuous. The law limits the spread of the disease by having medical person tack and treat infected persons identified by the person who is a carrier.

The law limits prostitution as a trade. It does not limit whoring for free indiscriminately.

Ben

this spot is too narrow for me to reply. I have replied at the bottom of the thread to you.

Ben regarding: nuance

 During the 1980s, there was a court case in Ohio. Two brothers had become estranged over the years. One of them was stricken with a kidney failure and required ongoing dialysis in order to survive until a donor match could be found. It was determined that his estranged brother was an excellent match, but the brother refused to offer one of his kidneys. The ailing brother sued the healthy brother in court, claiming that Mr. Healthy did not need two kidneys to live, and had no right to deny Mr. Sick -- a living fully-endowed human person -- the "right to life."

 Needless to say, the courts held that Mr. Healthy had the right to control his own body and could not be forced to have his body used to keep Mr. Sick alive if he did not agree. It would be a beautiful CHOICE if he were to voluntarily offer the gift of life, but as a legal matter it could not be FORCED.

Similarly, even if the embryo is human, it still would not have the right to force the mother to use her body to gestate against her will. If the decision to give birth is what she wants, then "life" is a "beautiful choice." But it is her choice; she cannot legally be forced into it.

Likewise, if a person with a rare genetic type needs a blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant and finally finds that rare, perfect match, but the owner of the organs doesn't want to donate, no reasonable person would say that the one who wants the organ has the right to demand that a specific person donate his/her organ, even to save the life of an ACTUAL living  human.

Last nuance:  suppose  a one week old infant is diagnosed with Leukemia and the infant needs a bone marrow transplant. After checking available donors it is determined that only the child's FATHER has a good match. The father says "NO!" ... Should the state be able to compel the Father of the baby (with threats of fines and prison) to submit and have some of his bone marrow extracted to save his baby's life?" Should a male parent be subject to the same demand that he be forced to use his body to keep his child alive? What if he didn't want the pregnancy in the first place? What if he is estranged from the mother (and the baby, too)? What if he has religious objections to any kind of transfusion? Should the state hold the father to the same standard as the mother? Should any exception be allowed?

From my point of view this makes you no different than the religious fanatics who also believe there is no nuance.

 From my point of view this makes you no different than the religious zealots who believe they have some right to determine what another individuals rights are based on their religious views. Actually, you are worse as you have not espoused religious faith as the excuse for your lack of reasoning Your cognitive scope appears to be solely limited to an errant belief that somehow you are omnipotent and omnisciently able to determine that  individual should be forced to relinquish their constitutional rights to the state about what happens to their own body..

You appear to be deliberately trying to not understand what I'm saying,

I feel that you have deliberately not addressed the issue and continue to inject emotional 'nuances' to inflame passions around the inciteful phrase 'right to life' It is presumptuous to believe that you can limit the rights of individuals under the constitution to choose what happens to their own body based on some religious concept of when 'life' begins. You have no factual basis for your assertions; it is simply your belief. To paraphrase you with regard to free speech: Your belief to limit my constitutional right to choose ends with my belief that you have no such right nor does the government based on the constitution.

I sincerely hope you are merely pretending to feel this way, as this argument is a disgrace to the pro-choice movement.

I sincerely hope that you are merely emotionally befuddled, as your argument about life is a disgrace to the pro-life movement and all living humankind.

 You have attempted to frame an argument on an unknown. To assert that American citizens should give up their constitutional rights on the basis of some conjecture and speculation on your part about when life begins. That is the disgrace and tomfoolery.

You'moderately' pander to emotional uncertainty in hopes that the less incisive will find themselves in an emotional quandary about the meaning of their constitutional right to choose. I have no such emotional confusion and am totally unpersuaded by your emotional and philosophical quandary of when life begins having any bearing on my constitutional right as an individual to choose what happens to my own body, over the right of the state to usurp that right and force me to subject my body to your irrational beliefs.

You make some valid comparisons, and I genuinely appreciate that. I will try to ignore those points you make that seem irrelevant and/or offensive to me, so if I ignore something that you think is genuinely important, let me know.

First of all, I'm not certain what the correct decision was in all of the cases you mention, but I will say that if a man suddenly became pregnant, it would in no way alter my opinion. If I suddenly found myself pregnant, the issue would be black and white, but that's only because it would be my choice to keep the fetus. (I suspect you won't believe that, but, oh well.)

Similarly, even if the embryo is human, it still would not have the right to force the mother to use her body to keep it alive against her will. If the decision to give birth is what she wants, then "life" is a "beautiful choice." But it is her choice; she cannot legally be forced into it.

This is an excellent point, but what if the mother's body is no longer necessary to keep the fetus alive? What if the fetus could be extracted alive and placed on life support? Consider how such a comparable option might have changed the end result of the analogous cases you mentioned.

Your cognitive scope appears to be solely limited to an errant belief that somehow you are omnipotent and omnisciently able to determine that individual should be forced to relinquish their constitutional rights to the state about what happens to their own body..

Although offensive (and I admit to not being completely inoffensive myself), I will address this issue. I have argued completely in hypotheticals for the very reason that I am not omniscient and am quite aware of that. I have made no definitive comments about my political views on this matter, but yet you somehow seem omniscient enough to have divined them. I do not know what the solution is, nor do I know what the proper laws should be, if any. All I know is that this is not a simple black and white issue, and I resent any attempts to turn it into one. If that makes me omniscient, then so be it. However, from my perspective, you seem to be the one who claims to have all the answers.

"As soon as I hear "anti-choice" I know I am dealing with a zealot that cannot be reasoned with and I tune them out."

Do you have the same response towards individuals who use the term 'pro-abortion'?

However, from my perspective, you seem to be the one who claims to have all the answers.

Oh c'mon now. You have been arguing at least as vigorously as anyone else here, and you haven't budged on your position. 

We all think we have all the answers, don't we?

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

It is the mother's decision if that group of cells will, in the future, have the opportunity to become a child. A mother's decision alone, of course, cannot guarantee that a given product of conception is viable, but a mother can decide to stop the result of the process begun with conception.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Then don't call it murder. Call it theft from the mother, which is probably a better term.

Perhaps I am wrong, but you seem to be zeroing on that one point, out of many that I made, trying to get me to agree that a fetus is human. I will repeat: I do not believe a fetus is any more human than an adenocarcinoma has independent rights. Are we clear? If you insist that the criminalization of assault on a pregnancy is a special case, just deal with assault and leave it at that.

Perhaps your words "I don't know" are more precise than you intend.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Robert Brown re:

My question is whether the universal right to privacy found in the constitution prevents the government from making drug use illegal, just as it makes laws against abortion unconstitutional. An important difference from what you said.

I would have to say that yes, the universal right to privacy does prevent the government from making drug use illegal, as there are no laws prohibiting drug use. All laws pertaining to the use of drugs make the possession/distribution of drugs illegal not the use.

Apples and oranges as we say. The constitutional right to privacy would have nothing to do with regulation of the safety and efficacy of the commercial drug supply.

It is apples to apples It was again pointing out that the laws regulate  safety, possession and distribution of drugs not  their use as illegal.  Again, there are no laws that allow the government to restrict the individual's use of drugs.

And my question is why is this not unconstitutional given the right to privacy in the constitution. Do you have an answer?

The right to privacy restricts the government from enfringing on the right of the individual to do as they choose with their body. It does not restrict the government from regulating the distribution and possesion of a substance deemed illegal.

Again a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. The constitution does not give me the right to speak, I already have it. It prevents the government from taking it away.

Flawed reading again on your part? I asserted that the constitution guaranteed the rights of the individual as granted under the law which can not be usurped by the state. The Bill of Rights grants unalienable rights not abilities.

 No some one had to manufacture those drugs and sell them to me.

Yes, and those laws regulate trade and distribute of a substance/product not what you , as an individual can personally do with the drug. Use and possession are two different things. The right to privacy when it comes to drug use is about your right to consume/imbibe or inhale any substance you choose. Possession is illegal.

How are laws preventing someone from selling me cocaine any more constitutional than laws preventing a doctor from performing an abortion on a woman under the universal right to privacy.

Selling cocaine is about commerce and trade. A substance does not have personal liberty or rights  under the constitution. The medical procedures a women chooses are private health decisions about her body and are covered under the right of personal liberty in the constitution. It is not a commerce issue.The state can restrict the terms of the abortion procedure which the physician can provide legally, subsequent to the first trimester for viability of the fetus. The state has the right to regulate medical procedures.  Procedures are subject to commerce/trade laws. In the case of abortion there can be no restrictions during the first trimester which restrict  the constitutional right of the individual to exercise their right to choose an abortion in the first trimester. The individuals constitutional rights trumps the power of the state to regulate trade/procedure.  Subsequently the state may restrict abortion to the health of the mother until the sixth month and may ban abortion after six months in the interest of the fetus.

 Again my question was why does the right to privacy in the constitution not make such laws against prostitution unconstitutional? There is just as much health risk from promiscuous people as prostitutes.

Again selling your body is about commerce and trade, it generates revenues which the state cannot tax. The state restroct any commerce/ revenue generating activity without infringing on the right of the individual and particularly if the state has a compelling interest which involves public safety and the risk of communicable disease. Just as it places limits on the right of free speech when it impacts public safety.

Let me stipulate that you may do anything necessary to get rid of the baby if the woman’s physical health is at risk

Then you disagree with the Supreme Court and other extreme right-to-lifers. What are you fighting about? Do you think a deformed fetus that has at most a few days of life of pain must be delivered too?

and that no dying woman will be dragged into a delivery room to give birth.

You are denying a celebrated case because it upsets your claims and views?

Best, Terry

Why don’t you just answer my question?

I am proposing a ban on abortions during the third trimester except to protect the physical health of the mother. Assume that we will make exceptions for all the horror stories you can imagine. Would you support that? Yes of no please.

I’m just going to cut to the chase here.

I think the supreme court wanted abortion to be legal but they don’t want to make prostitutions and drugs legal. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to rationalize the difference, but I think that the supreme court could find laws outlawing drugs and prostitution unconstitutional in a heartbeat if they wanted to based on the same right to privacy principle that they used to strike down antiabortion laws.

In short they are behaving like a mini-legislature.

Since you didn’t ask, the reason that I think you would be better off stipulating that a nine month old fetus is as much a human as a newborn is that most people won’t believe you when you say you believe the fetus is a worthless collections of cells, but are really talking about a legal construct. Since your audience will understand that you are really arguing that the value of a life equivalent to a newborn does not override a woman’s desire not to give birth, you might as well make that argument and not look disingenuous to your audience.

!

That is wrong, Robert. You need to read the cases. The right that protects abortion does not extend to drugs or prostitution. Sorry.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 315 U.S. 535 (1942)

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

See also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

Most slopes aren't as slippery as we want them to be.

Secondly, you claim (via "fact not fiction") that all pro-lifers believe that sex is bad. That's a lie.

Thirdly, you claim that all pro-lifers believe that STDs are a punishment. That's a lie.

Fourthly, you claim that all pro-lifers believe pregnancy is a punishment. That's a lie.

Finally, you claim that "my side" is "slavery". That's a lie.

Let us examine your misstatements after you get rid of the "all" and lose your unbridled hostility.

In plain fact the Catholic Church, which is a primary opponent of abortion, is opposed to all mechanical and pharmaceutical contraception and only grudgingly accepts the rhythm method. It labels abortion murder.

If you wish to make a logical argument without reference to morality or religious doctrine for opposing abortion, do so. I have seen none ever.

"Slavery" is obviously hyperbole but putting women in an inferior position with men, who last I heard will never get pregnant, being more inclined to take an anti-abortion position says pretty much all that needs to be said.

Best, Terry

Finally.

I will put you in the “abortion on demand until birth” camp. I guess that makes you a person of straw that cscs wants to keep in the closet.

By the way pregnancies resulting from the incest could easily be gotten rid of during the first two trimesters of unrestricted abortion.

Robert, you're just wrong. It doesn't work like that. Read the other cases, especially Palko and Duncan. I don't have the time to argue everything.

In any case, the important opinion in Griswold is Justice Harlan's concurrence, not the opinion of the court written by Justice Douglas. Goldberg had a few important bits as well. Notably, Goldberg wrote:

In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and collective conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted there as to be ranked as fundamental." The entire fabric of the Constitution and the purpose that clearly underlie its specific guarantees demonstrate that the rights to marital privacy and to marry and raise a family are of a similar order and magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected.

I do not support such a ban under any circumstances whatsoever. I do not support any societal interest in providing the continued existence of a fetus. Clear enough?
--
Howard

cscs was very upset with me for suggesting the there were pro-choice people who hold your views and accused me of creating straw men, that's all.

I would appreciate you dealing with me directly about my views, rather than using them in other arguments in which I have not been participating. I have not asked cscs for clarification.

But now that you have clear evidence that some pro-choice person has these views, what are you going to do about it, as opposed to arguing with cscs?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

O.K. that is logically consistent.

I understand your reasoning for not wanting to concede that a fetus has any value at any time before birth. The problem I see with that strategy is that very few people will agree with you.

I think they will recognize there is very little difference between the fetus just before birth an a new born baby, and come to the conclusion that you are denying that fact as they see it simply because you want the mother to have the right to abort it, which you are. Politically I think one could make the case that you would come out ahead by being honest about your views about the value of a new born baby v.s. a woman’s right to abort it since people are going to infer those value anyway and you would avoid leaving the impression that you are disingenuous.

But, that’s just me and I am not a politician.

O.K. I am not going to belabor the legal issues since I am not a constitutional lawyer.

As a layman reading your block quote, Goldberg seems to be saying that the right doesn’t exist unless "traditions and collective conscience of our people" support it, which I think was my point.

Again as a layman I have difficulty understanding why a promiscuous woman has a constitutional right to her sex life and a prostitute doesn’t, simply because money changes hands.

Would you force fhe father to give up bone marrow, to sustain another human life? would you?

I would consider it (and I do know that bone marrow transplants can be quite painful). I don't know. Despite your earlier claim that I believe I'm omniscient, I make no such claim. Yes, it's a good thing I'm not a judge. All I'm saying is it's not an easy legal judgment, in my opinion. I know that your moral code values personal choice over pretty much all else; however, my moral code is not quite so clear cut or even necessarily well-defined. I admit that. For some reason that I don't understand, you seem to have mistaken my uncertainty for certainty, and ambiguity for clarity.

I devined that you were hiding behind the philosophical hypocrisy of 'right to life' by ignoring the very real humanity that exists.

I think your divining rod might need a tune-up. :)

If you shift your focus to the very real concrete constitutional rights wa all have as individual citizens you will have answers to.

If it were really that clear-cut, then the Justices would not need to address this question. I'm not claiming in any way to have the answers. However, when anyone on either side claims that their side is so obviously right that anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, a wingnut, selfish, immoral, a murderer, "anti-life", "anti-choice", "pro-abortion", etc. (all arguments made by one side, the other, or both), it makes me think that they've never really bothered to even try to understand the other side.

Sun Tzu would not approve.

The parallel to the drug analogy is that most women do not give themselves abortion. I'm just pointing out that the analogy is valid, and I'm not arguing the legality of either. (Obviously, I'm tiring of that debate.)

I can get along far more easily with a statement there is no right answer, than there is a right answer that must be enforced by the state.

I do not contend that breathing on one's own converts to valuable life. I contend that in a very difficult situation, it can be used as a relatively objective and observable point, although I can immediately think of quite a few ambiguous states known to medicine.

The animal point is well taken. Emotionally, I personally value an emotionally bonded animal over a newborn, an animal that willingly protects a human--there are those that claim dogs, for example, do that instinctively, but cats appear to be fairly clearly at choice.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I was not aware, Sir, that blog interactions were private. Indeed, it is one of the basic characteristics of such as a social medium that one cannot prevent it being multiparty. Surely you are capable of email should you wish to challenge cscs privately.

It is only my humble opinion that when one makes an argument, gets data from another, and then decides to use it in another argument, that one is at least discourteous. Indeed, one of the most basic rules of effective Intenet-enabled communications is to ask, not assume, that some position is supportive of your argument.

The US Navy has a wise punctuation of ass-u-me.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

OK, now you've crossed a line that I just can't tolerate. You seem to be implying that cats are better than dogs, when anyone with half a brain knows that dogs are by far the superior mammal. ;)

Hcberkowitz said on April 21 11:26 am

“I can get along far more easily with a statement there is no right answer, than there is a right answer that must be enforced by the state.

I do not contend that breathing on one's own converts to valuable life. I contend that in a very difficult situation, it can be used as a relatively objective and observable point, although I can immediately think of quite a few ambiguous states known to medicine.

The animal point is well taken. Emotionally, I personally value an emotionally bonded animal over a newborn, an animal that willingly protects a human--there are those that claim dogs, for example, do that instinctively, but cats appear to be fairly clearly at “choice””

It seems the state must enforce the answer at some point. Notwithstanding the choice of when a baby is old enough to be protected, some people may conclude that some other adults are really not human and kill them.

I think this is the end, new thread

While it's a tiny niche, there are interesting constitutional aspects for someone who is skilled enough in chemistry to create either a designer drug not on DEA schedules, and that doesn't use any controlled precursors, that will be for personal use.

*sigh* I consider the legal misuse of antibiotics and related chemicals a far greater threat to public safety than recreational drugs. We just haven't had catastrophic outcomes...yet. The Chinese did cut to the chase when they found a farm manager who had essentially made one of the four potential drugs (and possibly a second) useless for bird flu because he had fed it to chickens to protect them -- they shot him.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Whether it was your point or not, I don't know. But if it was your point, you have destroyed your own argument. The 'traditions and collective conscience' of our society accept that some people will want to have lots and lots and lots of sex with other people--whether they're dating or they just enjoy it. Promiscuity is acceptable within our traditions. Taking money for sex is not acceptable within our traditions. Thus, a state may regulate it.

Got it? That's the difference.

!^5

You have to admit, it's a very informative label. ;)

// Not all labels say what you want them to...

I can make an argument without religious doctrine

Fine do so whenever you get the chance. You haven't yet.

You take life when you pull a carrot out of the ground and (horrors) eat it. Innocent life is taken often. I don't in anyway agree that murdering those you consider inferior is much like aborting a fetus anymore than eating a carrot is much like aborting a fetus.

in our legal system there is a tenet of innocent until proven guilty

Don't you think it is rather silly to talk of fetuses being guilty or innocent? Only religious dogma could allow such nonsense.

BTW Catholics as a whole are not right-to-lifers. I should know a bit about it since I was raised as a Catholic, most of my family is Catholic and one aunt and cousin are nuns, a sister trained to be a nun, one of my closest childhood friends is a Jesuit priest. That is all anecdotal but surveys have consistently shown Catholics are not in agreement with Papal Bulls on the issue - love the terminology. Catholic elected officials have tended to be pro-choice. One was a priest who was forced by the Pope or bishop or somebody to seek other employment.

Even the Pope himself, who tops Bush in speaking for God instead of to Him, does not believe women having abortions are murderesses. No one does or women would be tried for murder for having abortions.

Since God doesn't believe abortion is murder, why do you? Man oh man, you are some religious fruitcake. :-)

Best, Terry

The court did that in Roe. The reality is that there hasn't been any strong anti-abortion tradition within American law, but there is a damn strong tradition of ensuring that individuals have the right to choose if and when they will start a family.

I don't in anyway agree that murdering those you consider inferior is much like aborting a fetus anymore than eating a carrot is much like aborting a fetus.

I'll refrain from the obvious Godwin here. ;)

Only religious dogma could allow such nonsense.

I see. Only religious people disagree with you. I disagree with you. Ergo, I'm religious. QED.

Catholics as a whole are not right-to-lifers.

No, you're right - they're not. Is someone disagreeing with you on that?

Since God doesn't believe abortion is murder, why do you?

Since God doesn't believe that pink unicorns are real, why do you? I.e., I've never said that abortion is murder.

I don’t say “rights” in any legal sense, but the majority census on the value of the fetus and the consensus concern for the mother’s reasons not to give birth.

Rights are inherently legal.

I think your point here cannot be stressed enough. As someone who is guilty of using the term "partial birth abortion", I feel that this is one area where ignorance has carried the day (at least it has for me). I don't know - perhaps this has invalidated my point about "name calling" never being productive, or perhaps it validates my point about focusing on using terms like "anti-choice" when the real battle needs to be on using correct terminology like "dilation and extraction".

Or, maybe I'm just an idiot. Whichever.

Dilation and extraction. Dilation and extraction. Just trying to get the correct terminology to stay in my head.

I'm sorry, but dry humour is often lost on me. (No doubt a result of being INTJ.) I finally got it, though.

Good show!

Attacking? Have you read what I've written? Control the choices? Look at what I've actually written and not what you imagine I've written.

Here are the salient points, summarized in quasi-famous statements:

1. Life is complicated. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something. (Princess Bride, with "pain" replaced by "complicated".)
   
2. Be nice. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
   

I don't consider that attacking, and I don't consider it making choices for you.

We agree on the role of protecting the minority. Nevertheless, we appear to differ that it is the role of a court governed by the US Constitution, as opposed to the family court of King Solomon, to make decisions that reflect a compromise. The Constitution does not address fetal rights, and, in fairness, does not address maternal rights.

Roe vs. Wade could be better written, in part because it does attempt, I believe, compromise. Nevertheless, as the most definitive decision to date, it does not establish "personhood" of a fetus.

There is no easy solution to an issue that stretches the boundaries of scientific knowledge, and, as well, gets into what are areas of faith and morals. In the near future, I hope to put up a blog (or discussion table) post on end-of-[adult]life issues, which are discussed less than abortion but can be as or more complex.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]