I Disagree With You--I'm Tellin' Your Teacher!!
Dean
Paul Deignan is being subjected to what seems to be a surprisingly common tactic of people in academia: they don't like his opinions, so they're attempting to get him in trouble with his academic advisors.
What's particularly jaw-dropping is that if you just read the discussion he was partaking in, Paul was at no time anything other than civil and rational. No matter: it appears that simply disagreeing with a certain strain of feminist thought automatically gets you labeled an evil person. Paul was not met with reasoned responses, but instead with sexist smears and threats to his academic career.
That Professor Wallace Hettle would be so vicious and so childish at the same time seems to speak less to his own quite pathetic character and more to the pervasive climate of lock-step groupthink in the modern American university. Doubtless Dr. Hettle doesn't think he's done anything in the least bit wrong, and would be shocked at the suggestion that he's a fulminating, closed-minded, reactionary bully--although that's exactly what he is.
To answer Paul's specific questions on abortion: unlike certain vicious sexist pigs, I believe men have every right to have a voice on the abortion issue. And I would agree that on questions of life or death, I prefer to err on the side of caution.
That said, I simply do not believe that a clump of cells is a human being. Sorry, I do not, which is why I favor the availability of RU-486 and similar drugs. Like the vast majority of American women, as well as an even greater majority of American men (as a rule, men are more pro-choice than women are, despite the sexist remarks of a certain breed of hatemongering feminist), I am basically pro-choice, but I do not find legal limitations on the procedure all that troubling. This includes such simple things as asking the mother if she's informed the father (she can say no but she ought to be asked), parental notification, and increasing restrictions on the practice as the pregnancy proceeds into later and later terms. I would not favor jailing women but I would threaten the legal licenses of physicians who defied laws against late-term abortion.
When Roe v. Wade is finally overturned--and it will be, it was an incredibly arrogant overreach by the courts that's done an immeasurable amount of damage to our democratic processes--the pro-life movement will be faced with a crisis: the vast majority of Americans want abortion basically legal. They favor restrictions on the practice but, especially in the earliest phases, they want it legal in some form.
Despite the paranoid fantasies of those who rabidly fear the "religious right," pro-lifers will never successfully sustain a long-term complete ban on the procedure, because only a very few hard-core pro-life Republicans (or Democrats) will be able to maintain their seats. Pro-lifers will have to settle for some modest restrictions, and with relying on persuasion and things like running adoption facilities and shelters for unwed mothers in order to get their desires.
The pro-life movement is going to face another crisis within the next two decades as well: soon it will be possible to remove an embryo or fetus intact and preserve it without destroying it in the lab. What then?
Did you mean to have two posts?
WHOSE consensus? When Roe is overruled (and Dean is right, it's sure to be and should be), any consensus one's talking about would have to be built at the state level. You'd see VERY widely diverging practices at that point: some states probably would ban abortion outright; others would have no restrictions; most would fall somewhere in between.
Second, keep in mind that returning this question to the states, where it belongs, does not mean returning solely to the state legislatures. One thing that can be guaranteed is that it would immediately result in an extensive flood of litigation in the state courts, under STATE constitutional law.
"So the result may not be that different from Roe v. Wade."
The result in Roe, the three-trimester framework, is no longer the law anyway. Roe is a totem for both sides of the issue, but the real standard is from Webster (viability) and Casey (undue burden).
If a state chooses to bar abortion to all it's citizens, what legal ramifications could possibly stand against the rights guranteed in the BOR and the Constitution if a woman choose to leave her home state to have the procedure? Will we be seeing bounty hunters from Utah coming to California to arrest these heinous 'murderers' on charges steming from a 'crime' that isn't a crime in the state where the abortion took place?
That's the only reason I see Roe v. Wade as a good thing. To ensure all US women are treated equally under the law. And we all know states have a vastly different view of what should and shouldn't be legal. Thus why their laws must mesh with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, in addition to those in their own state.
Or do most anti-rights people (pro-life my ass, the vast majority support the DP) not dare think about such things and leave it to their 'elected' officals to do the thinking for them?
Personally, if Roe is overturned (I don't see a full overturn, I see a serious legal restriction, but I'm fine with that as long as the first trimester is left well enough alone) in Texas, and one of my daughters wants an 'illegal' one...I'll take her out of the state to have the procedure done. The laws of Texas, or any other state that desires to force motherhood and 'ho'ness on her (while calling the f*ckin' around man a 'BIG MAN') be damned!
Dean wrote:
"The pro-life movement is going to face another crisis within the next two decades as well: soon it will be possible to remove an embryo or fetus intact and preserve it without destroying it in the lab. What then?"
We'll be overjoyed. Why would saving a baby's life hurt us at all? You might as well say that winning the War for Independence killed George Washington's career.
It's the pro-abortionists who will be undone. As Robert Speirs noted, the issue of a woman's right over her own body will no longer be relevant as the baby will no longer be inside her body, and "viability" will no longer be an issue either. In order to continue demanding the "right" to kill babies, they will then have to come out openly as what they really are: pro-death.
The answer is that these are highly unlikely, for several reasons.
First off, the right to travel, while not explicitely stated in the Constitution, actually predates the Constitution in common law tradition and has been recognized from the founding of this country. You're not going to see that overturned ever.
Furthermore, you won't see legal kidnappings and such across state lines for the same reason that they don't arrest people for crossing state lines to solicit prostitutes in Nevada (where it's legal), or to cross state or county lines to buy liquor (there were still "dry" states in the U.S. up until at least the 1960s or so, maybe even the 1970s, and there are still numerous "dry" counties and municipalities now).
When two states have similar laws they will almost always have what are called "reciprocity" agreements to allow persuit and prosecution across state lines--but this simply means that, say, cops in Alabama will pursue someone wanted in Texas for something that's illegal in both states.
If Utah were to outlaw abortion, that wouldn't give Utah officers any authority to act in Nevada--indeed, if they pursued and tried to arrest someone in a state where they had no jurisdiction, those officers could be arrested on felony charges (basically for assault and kidnapping). As for bounty hunters: assuming the state of Utah even had the budget or inclination to do that, those bounty hunters too would be subject to arrest and prosecution for acting in a state where they are not licensed or wanted. The Federal courts would also almost certainly get involved, and they tend to take a very dim view of one state trampling another state's sovereignty.
You might conceivably see a state make it a crime to knowingly take someone across state lines to have an abortion, but there'd be serious problems enforcing that.
It is now possible for someone living in a "dry" county to drive to an adjacent county (or state) and drink alcohol there. As long as they don't make the return trip intoxicated, they haven't broken any laws. It may depend on the particular statue, but I imagine returning with trunkful of beer and/or liquor would be illegal as well.
Let us return to the question of abortion. If a woman travels from (say) Utah -where abortion is now hypothetically illegal- to Colorado -which has allowed the practice- to contract for an abortion, and has done so on Colorado soil, then she has not committed a crime. If she has the abortion done in Colorado, the same should apply.
Now. If she made the contract in Colorado, but returned to Utah and had the operation performed there, then she would be liable.
It really isn't that complicated when you think about it.
Rhianna, alas, displays a common level of misunderstanding about the Contitution, federalism, and state's rights. Quite a few people oppose Roe v. Wade not on the basis of their belief about abortion, but on their reasoned point of view that the federal government has absolutely no legal jurisdiction over the question. Period.
This is directly analogous to the Prohibition example above. The feds had no jurisdiction over alcohol until the 18th Amendment was passed.
Too many people, from all points of the political spectrum, tend to view constitutionality -and law in general- with respect to "what I think is right." Laws they find emotionally, ethically, or ideologically attractive are per se just and constitutional. By corollary, laws they find repellant are unjust and unconstitutional.
This is why I find Alito's nomination acceptable. By all accounts the man looks to the text of the Constitution; no penumbras, no emanations, no "living" Constitution; just the words on the page.
As for the blog from which this emanated: it is entitled "BitchPhD," and the titlebar has a photo of a young (under 10) girl flipping the bird to the photographer.
All class, all the time. 'Nuff said.
Where's Rod when you need him? Heh.
Dean: I was going on the assumption that there were still at least dry counties to be found here and there among certain states.
That is no longer the case?
Surprisngly, I had friends who lived there and very few of them thought they were living under oppressive Taliban-style rule. The city was known for having excellent schools and being a great place to raise a family. If they were to ask me, I'd tell them they're encouraging people to drive to surrounding towns' bars and drive home drunk, but they didn't ask and since I don't, y'know, live there or pay taxes there or vote there, I figure it's none of my business.
I'm pretty sure they banned lottery ticket sales too, although I may be wrong about that. None of my business either way. Their town, their rules.
They have elections for a reason. Who'da thunk?
Of course, since it's inside the DFW mega-city, all you have to do is cross the city limits into Ft. Worth or Dallas or one of those small towns-become-suburbs and buy liquor.
In regards to the prolife/prochoice thing:
I call myself "prolife", but am not a "no abortion shall ever be performed" type. I just figure since on the scale of 1 to 100, I'm above the 50 mark, that must make me more pro-life than not (1 being the rabid "if you choose not to abort you're letting a man rule your body!" types, 100 being the "no abortion, EVER" types).
So, I'm not a "No abortion, period" type, more of a "consider every other option, ESPECIALLY including adoption, first" type.
Do you self-described pro-choicers (especially the "I think it's wrong, but I'm still calling myself pro-choice" subset) consider that position - "anything else is preferred if it doesn't put the woman's physical health at risk" - to be "prolife"? Since I don't favor outlawing abortion entirely and under all circumstances, does that make me technically "pro-choice"? If so, does my attitude of "You had the consensual sex, you knew the risk" swing me back to the other pole?
One big difference. Those potential human beings are totally innocent.
As to Dave's question: pro-life and pro-choice are just labels, and if you can get the rabid extremists out of the discussion you'll generally find that most people are somewhere in the middle. You could consider me mildly pro-life if I told you that I'd never want my wife to abort my child. You can consider me moderately pro-choice when I say I don't think using RU-486 at 8 weeks is anything worse than a sad choice.
My experience is that when you get right down to it most people fall into that area.
Are you sure you're asking the right thing, here? Won't this issue be a problem for the pro-choice movement?
I can't see where the pro-life side would have a problem with preserving the child's viability.
We'll be able to remove 'em and throw 'em in a freezer and leave them there. Some are now opting to "adopt" such eggs, and more power to 'em, but will they really be ready to absorb millions of them that way?
"Whose sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man."
-Genesis 9:6
Also, I have never heard of a method of abortion (saline, suction, etc.) that would not be considered cruel and unusual punishment by our courts if done to a convicted murderer.
That said, given some of the problems with capital punishment, i.e., the occasional mistaken conviction and execution of an innocent man, and given that there are many pro-lifers on abortion who also oppose capital punishment for this or other reasons, I would be willing to see convicted murderers locked up for life if it would also bring an end to abortion.
Abortion is, of course, justified in the rare (as in 1 in 100,000) cases when the woman's own life is in danger. She has the right to self-defense. I also would have no problem myself with RU-486 in the first few weeks of a pregnancy, during such time as it is ascertained* that the brain is not yet formed and the fetus is not yet capable of conscious awareness. After that, no abortions at all except under the above-mentioned exceptional circumstance.
*I will not take the word of NARAL or Planned Parenthood on that.
More important, at least half of the millions of babies who get aborted each year are female.
We talk about chemo-therapy and AZT and have discussions with our families over the side effects of these drugs. I am going through a tizzy right now over my next treatment for rhumatoid arthritis since three drug treatments have created some really bad side effects, including a positive TB reaction. (not the contagious kind, only in my body which can go full blown if I consider, Remicaid and Humeria.
RU-486 is an awfully strong and a very dangerous drug, and I believe it should not be thrown around as an alternative at all. That chemical compound of RU-486 was not, not, not tested on women under 18. The approval came around because of politics and a hope for a better way to have an abortion.
I would seriously question this drug to a friend of mine and most especially a loved one. It is too risky and I for one am glad the FDA is reconsidering their first rushed opinion of the safety of this drug. Just look up the drug in several sites and you may wonder about it like I do. FWIW and thank you.
I'd like to thank you publicly for sticking up for free speech.
This nonsense with these two "academics" has crossed the line. We can disagree, but attempting to destroy reputations and careers is beyond the pale in my book.
Thanks for shedding light on this abuse. Tomorrow, I will call my law firm and request that they look into a lawsuit. Meanwhile, I opened a thread for legal analysis and opinion on libel issues.
Of course a poorly kept secret that ought to be better known is that a handful of birth control pills taken a day or two after you suspect conception will usually do the trick even better, and more people ought to know that in my opinion.
Paul: The only solution for hateful speech is more speech. Fortunately we increasingly live in an era where everyday people have direct access to the tools needed to respond to unwarranted attacks. Instant publishing may have its down side but allowing more people access to the microphone is a good thing on balance.
I'm thinking they would take a large number. It's an interesting question, but I don't think it's the dilemma you make it out to be. Keeping the embryo vs. destroying the embryo. Hmmm. doesn't seem like such a pro-life dilemma to me. Also, you can consider the number of people lining up for adoption. And the number of people who would actually be able to have such a frozen embryo extraction? exceedingly small, given health care costs.
We are talking about health care costs, here, not VCRs. :-)
I just saw a bill for $15,000 for a two-hour outpatient procedure. And you're thinking frozen embryo procedures are going to drop?
Pretty soon we're going to be able to take a woman who's 6 weeks pregnant, insert a little hose, and "thoop!" stick that little bugger in some sort of suspension vehicle and keep it there for an indeterminate amount of time without killing it. And it'll get cheaper as time goes on, just like everything else in medicine does.
I mean, ask yourself this: they claim that medical costs are going up, but is it really because the procedures are getting more expensive, or is it because we demand so much more, expect so much more than we used to? That so many things that used to be debilitating are now considered manageable problems?
Ask yourself this: what medical procedure has NOT gotten cheaper over the last 20 years? I'll bet the only one you can think of is delivering babies, and the only reason that's true is because of the hideous liability costs.
That is ultra-sicko.
However, did you ever come up with the grotesque designation that human individual existence is a bugger from the moment of conception ?
That said, your position sounds very similar to the thesis Will Saletan makes in his excellent book on abortion politics, Bearing Right, which I heartily recommend. The basic disagreement is still how much to restrict, which I why I disdain most polling on abortion - it gives people "legal" or "illegal" as options when a tiny fraction of the public holds either of those views. This is also why I loath questions about whether Roe should be overturned - too many people think it's the only thing holding up legal abortion anywhere in the country. (Obviously not federalists!) Polling should be prefaced with exactly what Roe did, so people don't assume overturning Roe will make abortion illegal everywhere.
The more pressing issue is how to ensure women don't abort for reasons that can be addressed - poverty, fatherlessness, getting an education and career and such. Universal prenatal care for pregnant women and expanded day care at public universities might be such ways.