February 28, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:Conundrum
If I'm pro-choice--and I am--then how come I'm always gleefully reporting setbacks for my side?
Dunno the answer to that one. When I get a spare moment, I'll head off to the ashram and see if I can't figure it out.
Meanwhile, I am pleased to report that the ridiculous and despicable attempt to halt protests at abortion clinics by charging them under the (itself pretty ridiculous) RICO statute has been decisively struck down by the Supreme Court. No, abortion clinic protesters are not terrorists, or racketeers, or extortionists; they are people who want abortions to stop. Where would this nation be if Sheriff Park had had RICO at his disposal when Dr. King marched into town?
Posted by Jane Galt at February 28, 2006 11:09 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksWell, a small seague of clinic protesters ARE in fact terrorists, as evidenced by the fact that said persons have engaged in terrorist activities, but there is an adequate legal framework for dealing with them.
Posted by: anony-mouse on February 28, 2006 02:32 PM"No, abortion clinic protesters are not terrorists,"
Right. Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist.
Yes, I know that the majority of such protesters are not terorrists, but to assert that no such protesters are terrorists is rather a stretch, no?
Posted by: Dave on February 28, 2006 02:38 PMIIRC, the case was not against ALL protestors. The case was against a specific group that (a) called themselves the "abortion mafia", (b) vowed to stop abortions "by any means necessary", and (c) engaged in specific acts of violence.
I believe (in a prior ruling) that it was held that this didn't fall under the RICO statute because no money or property was taken. In other words, if you threaten someone with force unless they give you money or property it is extortion. If you merely demand that they give up their Constitutional rights and physical safety, not extortion and not RICO.
Makes sense legally, but not much to hang your hat on if you are trying to compare abortion "protesters" to MLK.
Posted by: space on February 28, 2006 02:45 PMI used to be a social liberal. I switched sides after my wife got a job teaching at an inner city middle school. Broken families are the norm, and most of the middle school children are repeating their parents mistakes. At dances you will see 13 year old girls on their hands and knees dancing while boys take turns spanking them and/or pantomining having doggy-style intercourse with them, or recieving fellatio. This at a middle school (although there are a lot of 16 year-olds who have stayed back). At that point I switched sides - all that conservative talk about the importance of family finally clicked.
I mention this because I was still pro-choice at the time. It was not for another year or so that I became pro-life. All children deserve to be loved. All children deserve to live. Now abortion is probably the single largest deal breaker issue for me. Some of my friends are talking about protesting a local abortion clinic. Given that this is a blue state, I doubt it has ever been protested. I've never been to a protest before.
Everyone has asked themselves about what they would do if they were alive during slavery. Would you look at all those abolitionist Quakers and as a bunch of Christian kooks? Would you look at the pragmatics of both sides of the issue? Or would you recoginize the moral imperative?
Jane, I believe that in your unconscious you are reevaluating the morality of abortion. This may be a slow process that is unfolding over the course of years. It certainly happened that way for me. For other people, it took having their own baby.
The essence of ethics - the only objective guiding ethical principle - is universalizability. Apply the same rules to everyone equally. Although I disagree with his political philosophy I think John Rawls came up with the best formation of this principle: the Veil of Ignorance: detach yourself from your present situation and create the rules that guide your behavior without knowing whether those rules will hurt or help you. Under those terms, would anyone be pro-choice? Would you want the flexibility of being able to abort an unborn baby not knowing whether or not you yourself would be aborted?
Posted by: Justin on February 28, 2006 02:48 PMIf I'm pro-choice--and I am--then how come I'm always gleefully reporting setbacks for my side?
I know exactly what you mean. I'm pro-choice the same way you are--every word you've ever produced on the subject I'd have written myself had I the skill--but I'm appalled at how most pro-choicers conduct the debate. They refuse to acknowledge that anyone might have an honest belief that the fetus is a human being with human rights, instead insisting that their opponents want to enslave them.
Justin, what in the world your little anecdote has to opposition to abortion is beyond me.
Posted by: space on February 28, 2006 02:52 PMSpace-
The injunction applied to ALL protesters whether or not the original case was against a specific group.
Right. Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist.
Eric Rudolph wasn't a protester (e.g. someone who marches or demonstrates outside an abortion clinic) which is who this law was designed to suppress.
Using bombs to blow up buildings (unless you have a permit) which is what Rudolph did is already and still illegal.
SteveQ: I fail to see how that is possible. A court cannot grant injunctive relief against anyone who is not a party to the case.
Posted by: space on February 28, 2006 03:17 PMFor God's sake, this case isn't even about "protesters". This is about a group that invaded clinics, destroyed property, and physically restrained ANYBODY (whether entering for an abortion or not) from entering.
Furthermore, none of the 121 RICO predicate acts found by the jury was a peaceful or legal act, such as a sit-in or blockade. The JURY that heard the case was asked whether any predicate act was “based solely on blockades of clinic doors or sit-ins within the clinics, without more?” The jury answered, “No.”
So, let's cut the crap that this is applying RICO to a bunch of sign-waving critics.
Posted by: space on February 28, 2006 03:23 PMI'm pro-choice, but that does not mean I feel it is appropriate to ever silence the opposition.
For example, I think that everything Justin said above was absolutely moronic and off the subject, but he has every right to say it.
I also think it is worth noticing that this decision was unanimous. This wasn't an abortion case as far as I'm concerned, this was a first amendment case and it came to the result it should have.
Posted by: Kate on February 28, 2006 03:27 PMSpace,
I'm at work so can't give you a link, but there have been numerous cases of injunctions against particular groups of abortion protestors being applied to people who were not and had never been part of the named groups.
Posted by: SamChevre on February 28, 2006 03:29 PMI'm with Kate. This just happened to be about free speech at an abortion clinic. Activist groups and labor unions took the side of pro-life
protestors against N.O.W., fearing that if the injunction was upheld, their rights to protest could be thwarted. That the SCOTUS ruled 8-0 shows the 1st amendment still has some support.
Creech: My reading of the 8-0 ruling is that it had little to do with First Amendment directly and everything to do with the statutory interpretation of the law that might have permitted injunctive relief. In other words, Congress probably could have written the statute to favor NOW without violating the First Amendment, but it wasn't written in that manner. Hence, NOW loses.
Posted by: space on February 28, 2006 03:49 PMKate and Creech's view that this is a First Amendment case would be more credible if there were a reference to that amendment in the Supreme Court's opinion.
In this case, a jury found that the defendants had engaged in "four instances (or threats) of physical violence unrelated to extortion." The Supreme Court held that "physical
violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act" (which is the federal statute that was the basis for the injunction). Accordingly, the injunction was vacated.
Justin, I hear you. I trust others do too. Too bad Kate seems to feel she has to resort to ad hominem attack to establish her bona fides.
Posted by: SteveSC on February 28, 2006 04:06 PMI can understand why someone might feel that a fetus has human rights, thats easy to understand, I dont agree with it but I understand it. What is not at all clear is if, under the constitution as currently written, a fetus has rights. Im not so sure that is even remotely established. That is an entirely different question and one that has never, to my knowledge been addressed by the court, and if it were it would be one of those activist type statements that made its way into law in much the same way that the completely extra constitutional notion that a corporation is a legal person came into constitutional jurisprudence.
Posted by: Rick DeMent on February 28, 2006 04:39 PMSteveSC: I suggest you look up the meaning of the term "ad hominem attack". It does not mean, as you appear to believe, criticizing a poster for being off-topic or for posting something "moronic".
Posted by: space on February 28, 2006 04:42 PMI can understand why someone might feel that a fetus has human rights, that?s easy to understand, I don?t agree with it but I understand it. What is not at all clear is if, under the constitution as currently written, a fetus has rights. I?m not so sure that is even remotely established. That is an entirely different question and one that has never, to my knowledge been addressed by the court, and if it were it would be one of those ?activist? type statements
It certainly would -- I think some of the conservative justices may even be on record indicating that reading "person" in the 14th amendment to include fetuses would be something of a stretch. Not as much of a stretch, to be sure, as the tortured reasoning in Roe v. Wade, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Even if it were established, though, that the 14th amendment (or the 5th amendment) covered fetuses, though, and that there was a substantive due process (another textual contortion) right to life comprehended within the 14th and 5th amendments, you'd have to argue that abortion itself infringes. Arguably, you could get the necessary nexus with state involvement through regulation of abortion, but then, it seems to me you could avoid that nexus by eliminating formal regulation of abortion procedures. Does substantive due process guard against murder? I don't think it does.
Posted by: Taeyoung on February 28, 2006 04:51 PMSpace, your characterization is contradicted by every news report I've seen. NOW was suing Operation Rescue and the Pro-Life Action League, neither of which, AFAIK, is violent; they're blockaders, like the civil rights protesters who staged sit-ins at lunch counters. You may not approve of the blockade, but it is not the same thing as a bombing.
From the NYT:
In the 1980's, the National Organization for Women and two abortion clinics sued Operation Rescue and the Pro-Life Action League under the Hobbs Act. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that abortion clinics could use that statute, but that they had to prove in court that the actions of protesters were part of a "pattern of racketeering activity."
But later, after the anti-abortion groups won in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court reversed its own ruling, holding in 2003 that the protesters' behavior around clinics did not amount to extortion, or trying to obtain another's property through real or threatened "force, violence or fear."
The justices found in the 2003 ruling that the 117 specific acts described in the lawsuit did not meet that definition, and they sent the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But instead of dismissing the suit, the Seventh Circuit kept it alive on the basis of four additional actions of protest that the Supreme Court had not reviewed, and it ordered the Federal District Court in Chicago to determine whether those four actions might fall under the Hobbs Act.
Posted by: Jane Galt on February 28, 2006 04:58 PMWhat is not at all clear is if, under the constitution as currently written, a fetus has rights.
First of all, rights do not have to be granted by the Constitution in order to be possessed. They can also be granted by the state, local, or federal legislature. For example, animals have been granted the right not to be tortured for pleasure, humans have been granted the right not to be murdered or robbed by their fellow humans, etc.
Secondly, whether or not the fetus has rights is really a secondary issue. Before that question even matters, the question of whether the *mother* has a Constitutional right to an abortion needs to be resolved. Because unless she has such a right, the question of abortion automatically falls to the individual states and the federal government has to butt out.
While a case can be made that the Constitution assumes the existance of a "right to privacy", there is no Constitutional support for either a "right to do as you please with your own body" or a "right to tell the government that something is none of their business". The Constitution doesn't say "you can do whatever the hell you want in private" -- it says "anything you do in private, the government needs a warrant to find out about".
Something that amuses me is that most of the people who are pro-choice are also opposed to the legalization of prostitution and drug use. I wonder what flimsy rationalization they use for forgetting about this "right to privacy" they hold so dear the minute it hits up against an issue they don't like.
Posted by: Dan on February 28, 2006 05:14 PMJane: Let me be clear. I am not saying that NOW should have won. While I am by no means entirely familiar with this case and the law, it appears to me that the Supreme Court was correct that the actions of the defendants did not meet the statutory requirements of the Hobbs Act, and thus denial of injunctive relief pursuant to that act was appropriate. Fine.
But, as alkali pointed out earlier, just because an action doesn't meet the Hobbs Act requirements doesn't mean that its okay. Engaging in "instances (or threats) of physical violence unrelated to extortion" doesn't make you the second coming of Dr. King.
In addition, you willfully or ignorantly ignore the proven violent actions of the defendants that are in the record. It is irrelevant what your knowledge is of the defendants' actions. The defendants in the case, members of the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), were guilty of violent acts. That many of their actions were criminal was admitted by them. I don't know how you define violence, but to me (and the courts) vandalism, shoving, and other similar acts qualify.
Most importantly, your analogy to the Civil Rights protests is quite the stretch. Dr. King and others weren't violating people's rights. Yes, they might have been breaking ordinances against "coloreds" at lunch counters. But nobody had a personal right to sit in an all-white cafeteria.
In contrast, these "protesters" were physically restraining patients from entering the clinics. And not just women seeking abortions. Any patients. This is from NOW's brief:
At a Los Angeles clinic, PLAN members grabbed the arms and legs of an ovarian surgery patient who was due to receive postoperative treatment there. When she continued to attempt to access medical services, PLAN members pulled her hair, struck her, and beat her with an anti-abortion sign until her sutures ruptured and she passed out.
Wow! Sounds like something Dr. King would endorse. A little harmless protest. Please.
Posted by: space on February 28, 2006 05:29 PMmost of the people who are pro-choice are also opposed to the legalization of prostitution and drug use.
Most perhaps, but certainly not all. I'm not, and I'd be very surprised if Jane is.
In any case, I'd guess that those who do oppose those things would say that they have effects on the community which trump the right to privacy.
I'm still trying to figure out how a human being with a heartbeat and distinctive brain waves doesn't qualify as a person.
After all, we can't involuntarily take organs out of a person in that condition.
Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 05:58 PM"Wow! Sounds like something Dr. King would endorse. A little harmless protest. Please."
To me it sounds like a criminal act. Assault and battery charges at least should be brought.
But it sounds to me like something the state courts can deal with. I'm glad the Court held the Hobbs Act has some limitations. It's stupid enough that robberies of Quik Trips are routinely prosecuted in federal court (at least in lower population states where the federal case load is light enough to allow for it), much less battery cases.
(I think space might agree with me here. Not sure.)
"First of all, rights do not have to be granted by the Constitution in order to be possessed. They can also be granted by the state, local, or federal legislature. For example, animals have been granted the right not to be tortured for pleasure, humans have been granted the right not to be murdered or robbed by their fellow humans, etc."
This is true, but rights don't have to be conferred at all for conduct to be illegal. Animals are protected under the Endangered Species Act, but are not granted rights. The arson laws don't confer rights upon your house. So even if something does not have rights, that does not mean laws can't be enacted to prevent its intentional destruction.
Posted by: denise on February 28, 2006 06:18 PMMost perhaps, but certainly not all.
No, but it is one of the reasons why, even though I myself am pro-choice, I have more respect for most pro-lifers. Most pro-choicers' real belief is "telling a person what to do with their bodies is a gross violation of their rights, unless they're doing something I disapprove of, in which case its okay". "Killing innocent children is bad" is a much more consistent world-view, in my opnion.
In any case, I'd guess that those who do oppose those things would say that they have effects on the community which trump the right to privacy
A right that ceases to exist when the community doesn't like the effects of that right isn't a right at all. In any event, with that sort of attitude it hard to see how it could be wrong to ban abortion in a state where most of the people think abortion is harmful to the community (such as Texas).
Posted by: Dan on February 28, 2006 07:01 PMi'm not just pro "choice" -- i'm pro abortion (nature miscarries when the time ain't right, so can we given it's not too far along, still a long way between here and viable child, we've got enough people anyway (arguable but . . .) etc.). that said, i have never understood people who don't understand that if you're pro-life, you by definition can just sit on your hands and let others come to their own conclusion on the issue. (so why attack the guy who's just revealing how he got to where he is?) also strange to have a privacy right that, rather than permitting you to starve yourself or refuse treatment, allows you to insist that the state permit doctors or whomever to perform a procedure on you. so i too am often pleased when right to lifers do alright, even though i'm the opposition. put more simply, i find tremendously offensive the prejudice i discern towards religious folks and people who are pro life, even though i'm neither religious nor pro life.
SteveSC: I suggest you look up the meaning of the term "ad hominem attack".
Never mind, I shall!
ad hominem: (adj.) appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason [Lat.: "to the man"].
"Off topic" is arguably a counter-claim derived from logical reasoning, although given the topic at hand, the claim is debatable. "Moronic", contrawise, is ad hominem, though in very mild form (due in part to the predicate "I think that..."). It doesn't go to the substance, preferring instead to go to the man.
Not that Justin's post matters much either way, leading one to wonder why thou and Kate jumped upon it so quickly, rather than letting it die its own quiet death. Tweaked a bit, were we?
Whatever. Back to our regularly scheduled topic.
Posted by: Logical Reasoning Fairy on February 28, 2006 08:18 PMLGF:
If he had said that the poster was moronic I would agree with you. Instead, he said that the post was moronic, implying that it was illogical or unreasonable. Not personal at all.
Actually I thought that Justin's mention of John Rawl's principle is an interesting approach. Too bad he buried it under his conclusion that watching 13-year-olds, who have grown up in broken families, engaging in proto-sexual conduct convinced him that should they make the mistake of engaging in actual sexual conduct they should bear the misake for the rest of their lives, likely exacerbating the single-family phenomenon.
I'm not saying you can't oppose abortion, but that was the weakest rationale for it that I have ever seen.
Posted by: space on February 28, 2006 08:50 PMSpace,
Ever consider that those mistaken 13-year olds are less inclined to seriously weigh the potential costs of their sexual activity precisely because an abortion is easy to get and relatively stigma-free? Is your expectation that they are generally unable to control themselves and thus they need abortion to protect their future?
Posted by: Fuzz on February 28, 2006 10:11 PMThats right fuzz, 13 year olds are old enough to get pregnant they are old enough to live or die with the consequences.
No abortions for them man.
Nothing like life slapping you down with a little personal responsibility to get your attention. And if the 13 year old and/or her baby die because she is not big enough to delivery well that is just TS. That will teach her and any of those other immature 13 year olds to keep their legs closed.
Tough love, tough love I tell ya
Nice straw men there J Swift.
Now try thinking about what I'm saying, because it's not the Message of Harshness that you're ascribing. Perhaps you shouldn't be so eager to pounce methinks , but otherwise thanks for reminding me why I don't comment very often. The rabidity just never subsides.
Fuzz,
Why is what j swift posted a straw man? It's exactly what the South Dakota law just passed calls for. There are no exceptions for any reason except if you can prove that the mother will die if the pregnancy continues to term. It's what the pro-life movement wants. How can it be a straw man?
As far as the peaceful protesters are concerned they do exist. But what also exists is what I saw when I worked as the IT department for a Planned Parenthood affiliate. I cleaned up glass from office windows being shot out overnight. I had to evacuate the office because of bomb threats. I sweltered because of sabotaged air conditioning systems. Doors were destroyed by the innocent blockading Operation Rescue folks. I watched them "educate" women by screaming at them through bullhorns from a couple of feet away. I was called a baby killer because they thought I was a doctor. They screamed at passing motorists that they ought to run me over as I crossed the street. Have any of you lovely defenders of life had to view the bulletin board at work to familiarize yourself with the people who might violently assault you since they'd already proven that prediliction by going after a cop with a hammer when they were warned to quit harassing a woman? Ever had to watch your rear view mirror to make certain you're not being followed home?
Your ignorance is showing, Jane.
Posted by: Jim S on February 28, 2006 11:25 PMOne thing that someone once pointed out to me that I will point out now just because it seems appropriate. (Please note: I am pro-choice up until the moment of crowning for reasons as trivial as "I suspect the baby will have an eye color I won't like.")
The Pro-Choicers' arguments all too often have this weird resonation with the arguments given by the pro-state's rights people in the 1850's. It wasn't about slavery. Stop paying attention to those entities! It's about *OUR* rights as citizens! I can't help but wonder if this gets a little depressing to recite after a while. ("Let's agree that fetuses are three-fifths of a person!")
The pro-lifers, on the other hand, have arguments that all-too-often sound a lot alike the ones given by PETA and ALF for stuff like animal testing or Kentucky Fried Chicken. ("What did the fetus ever do to you?")
What makes this funny, for me anyway, is that pro-choicers are, stereotypically, abolitionist types. Pro-lifers are, stereotypically, pro-meat.
Yet, when it comes to internal humans, they adopt argument forms that they'd otherwise snort at.
Now that I think about it, I'm not sure how much insight this adds to the conversation. What the hell, I typed it, I'll throw it out there.
Posted by: Jaybird on February 28, 2006 11:43 PMYet, when it comes to internal humans, they adopt argument forms that they'd otherwise snort at.
Um, just because an argument is ridiculous when you apply it to a chicken doesn't mean that it is ridiculous when you apply it to a human being.
Posted by: Dan on March 1, 2006 12:47 AMIf a fetus is a 'human being' and abortion is murder then certainly women who've had abortions should be charged with murder. Period. Anything else is fuzzy thinking (or shrewdly not trying to alienate useful idiots like Jane). This includes retro-active prosecutions for legal abortions.
nb I'm pro-choice (and realize many people make bad or foolish choices, that's their problem) up until sometime around 'viability' in normal pregnancies, and far later when the mother's health or life is endangered.
Posted by: michael farris on March 1, 2006 04:33 AMWell, the legal reasoning of the court was correct in that the Hoops act doesn't cover terrorists, ie, those who kill or destroy for nonfinancial reasons. The Hoops act was specifically meant for the Mafia and similar organisations.
Would you apply RICO to Al-Queda? The Weather Underground? Scientology? The Republican National Committee? Peta?
None of these people are extorting money by means of force. At least, except as means to an end and not as an end in itself.
If a fetus is a 'human being' and abortion is murder then certainly women who've had abortions should be charged with murder. Period.
No, not really.
Posted by: AT on March 1, 2006 06:33 AMAT:
No, not really.
Uh, yes, really.
It is a dodge to say it isn't murder by redefining the term murder. For instance, in NY where I live, the murder statute reads as follows:
A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:
1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; except in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that:
(a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
Basically, if you intentionally kill someone, and you don't have an "extreme emotional disturbance" defense, you have committed murder.
Now, anti-abortionists can go around redefining murder statutes if they feel like it. They can call killing a fetus "jaywalking" if they feel like it. But it doesn't make logical sense.
Posted by: space on March 1, 2006 08:35 AMWell, no one who has an abortion today, or has had one in the past, could be charged with murder. The law does not currently define abortion as murder. In fact, abortion is currently legal.
If the law is changed in the future to make abortion illegal, women who have had prior abortions will be in no danger, becuase the Constitution prohibits the criminialization of ex post facto offenses.
Going forward, women who have abortions may indeed be guilty of murder. That would certainly be consistent with pro-life philsophy. But the legislature doesn't have to be consistent, they can criminalize abortion while exempting women who have illegal abortons from prosecution for murder.
Posted by: Joe Schmoe on March 1, 2006 09:13 AMAs far as the peaceful protesters are concerned they do exist???
Posted by: Nimer on March 1, 2006 09:42 AMJim S. That sounds a lot like what I witnessed once when the Phila. teachers were on strike and hassling "scabs." And the cops just stood by.
So we should outlaw all union picket lines because some get out of hand? The criminal behavior you witnessed is already covered in the law. The problem may be getting sympathetic cops and d.a.s to enforce the law.
Dan, I avoid that particular conundrum by saying "Abortion is a horrible act, a horrible thing, and, if there's a God in any interesting sense of the word (which I doubt), it's probably a sin... but we, as fellow travellers, do not have the right to prevent a woman from having one nor do we have the right to punish a woman for getting one."
You'd be surprised by how many pro-choicers find this position almost as offensive as the pro-life one.
Or maybe you wouldn't be.
Posted by: Jaybird on March 1, 2006 10:31 AMI love how people just make up facts that agree with their preconceptions. Jane doesn't want to believe that Operation Rescue is violent so she chooses not to look into the record of the case to see whether actual violence occurred.
Creech chooses to believe that any violence that occurs is simply some protesters "get[ting] out of hand". Sure, that might have been true in Jim's case. But Jim's case wasn't before the Supreme Court. In the ACTUAL CASE that Jane posted about, the facts are very different:
(a) There was proven instances of violence.
(b) The violence included numerous instances of behavior that exceeded that of sit-in style protests.
(c) There was credible (to a jury) evidence that the "protest" group organized and directed the violent behavior.
(d) There was credible evidence that the "protest" group intended to financially harm the clinics. This evidence included statements by the defendants that they deliberately prevented non-abortionseeking patients access to the clinics in order to deprive the clinics of other sources of revenue. It also included evidence that the protesters deliberately destroyed clinic property.
Given these facts, I think that the argument made by the plaintiffs had merit: The defendants actions constituted extortion to the extent that they were threatening the plaintiffs with a deprivation of their property (i.e. their business operations) unless they stopped performing abortions.
The judicial opinion hinged on interpreting the Hobbs Act to mean that the definition of extortion required that the defendants not merely deprive the plaintiffs of their business operations, but appropriate to themselves the plaintiff's property. The court was distinguishing between extortion and coercion (itself a crime, but one which does not permit relief under the Hobbs Act).
Again, I don't dispute the judgment of the Supreme Court. It appeared to be fair interpretation of the statute. But I do take issue with Jane and others, who mischaracterized this as a wacky case of misapplying the federal statutory law against extortions to few protesters who got a little pushy. That isn't what happened here at all.
Posted by: space on March 1, 2006 10:51 AM"there is no Constitutional support for either a "right to do as you please with your own body"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Also
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
and most importantly - this is the real one for me
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United StatesPosted by: karl smith on March 1, 2006 11:02 AM
Read the 9th Amendment again and think about the abortion question. That's a jawdropping Amendment, when you think about it.
Remember what Bork said about it? I'm kinda glad he didn't get on the court, now that I reflect on him...
Posted by: Jaybird on March 1, 2006 11:06 AMKarl Smith: I am lost as to what anti-abortion laws have to do with involuntary servitude. Frankly, if obligatory jury duty doesn't qualify (and I don't think it does) and prison labor for pennies doesn't (not so sure about that one) then I hardly see how requiring a person to bring a fetus to term is "involuntary servitude".
Now, I am pro-choice (for the early stages of pregnancy). But any argument in favor of of that position requires must be consistent that pretty much every single pro-choice person in America has no problem with government restricting abortions during the last 1/3 to 2/3 of pregnancy. So, if it isn't involuntary servitude in the third trimester, why is it in the first one?
Posted by: space on March 1, 2006 11:16 AMJustin says:
At that point I switched sides - all that conservative talk about the importance of family finally clicked.
We liberals think family is utterly unimportant. In fact, we have a secret plan to have the Supreme Court abolish families. We're going to raise taxes so that the government can take care of the children, leaving adults to laze around eating Cheetos and reading pron. Kind of like Sweden, but with better junk food.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop on March 1, 2006 11:31 AMSpace, that seems like asking how a person could, say, want alcohol to be legal but not crack cocaine. "Why are you drawing the line HERE and not THERE?"
They drew the line where they did.
I, personally, think that marijuana should be made legal.
I am not quite so hot on, say, making "MAKE YOUR OWN INHALANTS!" home kits legal.
I don't think that my belief that weed should be legal necessitates that we as a society should go all the way to making snuff films between consenting partners legal.
It's possible for a person to have a huge problem with abortion in the 8th month but not have a problem with it in the 1st without them being particularly inconsistent.
Posted by: Jaybird on March 1, 2006 11:52 AMJaybird,
Maybe I wasn't clear. I have no problem drawing a distinction between the 1st and the 8th month of pregnancy. I myself draw just such a distinction. I have a problem with drawing the distinction on the basis of a theory of involuntary servitude.
Posted by: space on March 1, 2006 12:24 PMI couldn't quickly find the NY law (NY Penal code § 125.25)on the web, but I suspect that its entire text is not included by "space", above, for the following reasons. (A) It seems unlikely that the code would have both a 1 without a 2, and an a without a b. (B) It seems unlikely that a second degree murder definition would not have a self-defense exception.
Clearly, common law includes a self-defense exception. "I reasonably believed my life was in danger" is an accepted defense in most jurisdications, whether or not the human you killed was a "person". In many jurisdictions, killing A to save B's life is allowed. Therefore, in those jurisdictions, competent medical testimony that a woman's life was endangered would be sufficient to prevent prosecution of a doctor performing an abortion on that woman.
On the other hand, a state can require a reasonability test (I shot and killed that driver because he might have accidentally run over me...)
Posted by: Twill00 on March 1, 2006 01:49 PM"If I'm pro-choice--and I am--then how come I'm always gleefully reporting setbacks for my side?"
Because you are a decent, fair-minded person who genuinely supports freedom of speech? That's just my guess, but it is consistent with what little I know about you.
FWIW, it was arguments by pro-choice (pro-abortion) people that shifted me from a pro-choice position to my current moderate position. I would like to see abortion restricted, but not forbidden. And I would prefer that the rules be made by the people (which happened here in Washington state) or by their elected representatives, rather than judges.
Posted by: Jim Miller on March 1, 2006 01:53 PMCornell finally came up with the N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25 text, and "space" didn't leave out anything relevant. Numbers 2-5 were other kinds of murder-2, and affirmative defense B was assisted suicide.
So apparently self-defense is not a separate affirmative defense in NY, but "extreme emotional disturbance" because your life was in danger is. So killing someone logically because he is shooting at you is not allowed, but if you do it emotionally, then you're okay.
Blue state thinking.
Anyway, even if NY would ever outlaw abortion in general, you could kill the person/fetus as long as you were upset by being pregnant. Of course, the doctor would have to make a "practice" of being upset...
Posted by: Twill00 on March 1, 2006 01:57 PMThe 14th Amendment cannot be used as a limit against abortion==murder, excluding the boundry cases of rape, incest, and emminent risk of death to the mother. When sex is consentual, the participants should expect that there is a reasonable risk of pregnancy, and there is an inherant agreement to accept the risks therein (i.e. produce children). This is how we legally justify child support for a parent now. If it is a consentual act, then there is no more slavery in requiring the completion of the inherant contract than in requiring a person to complete a contract to roof a house (certainly an indentured servitude contract under the most pedantic reading).
OTOH, if the choice of pregnancy is pushed away from the voluntary act of conception to the choice of the mother to abort or not abort, then it's trivial to conclude that the man no longer has a legal choice, and would therefore no longer be liable (morally, if not legally) for child support.
Posted by: Kentucky Packrat on March 1, 2006 02:06 PMmichael,
This includes retro-active prosecutions for legal abortions
You can't prosecute someone for something that was legal at the time they did it. It is currently legal to kill fetuses, even if they ARE human.
space,
It is a dodge to say it isn't murder by redefining the term murder. For instance, in NY where I live, the murder statute reads as follows: A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when: 1. With intent to cause the death of another person
Ergo abortionists aren't guilty of murder, because they don't have intent to cause the death of another person -- their intent is to cause the death of a fetus.
And before you say "but a fetus is a human being", it doesn't *matter* if the fetus is a human being. What matters is if the person doing the killing *knew* it was a human being at the time when they killed it. Abortionists don't think they are killing human beings, ergo they do not have the intent to kill human beings.
Posted by: Dan on March 1, 2006 02:12 PMClearly, common law includes a self-defense exception.
The defense of justification, which includes self-defense, applies to all crimes and has its own place in Article 35.
Space is either ignorant of the New York Penal Law or he is being disingenuous. There are separate abortion crimes in the homicide article at 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55, and 125.60, with specific definitions at 125.05(2)-(3).
All crimes in the United States are statutory (despite what Eliot Spitzer and Patrick Fitzgerald believe). Using basic principles of statutory interpretation, it's obvious that the NYPL's inclusion of a specific regime for abortion crimes means that the ordinary homicide crimes do not apply. States are free to define and punish homicide as they see fit, subject to federal constitutional limitations. They can always choose to be more lenient than the federal constitution allows.
And yes, IAAL.
Posted by: AT on March 1, 2006 02:21 PMAnd before you say "but a fetus is a human being", it doesn't *matter* if the fetus is a human being. What matters is if the person doing the killing *knew* it was a human being at the time when they killed it. Abortionists don't think they are killing human beings, ergo they do not have the intent to kill human beings.
That would only reduce murder to manslaughter.
Posted by: AT on March 1, 2006 02:23 PM"there is no Constitutional support for either a "right to do as you please with your own body"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Please explain how either of those sections of the Constitution protects a right to do as you please with your own body. Criminalization of abortion, for example, is neither a search nor a seizure (let alone an unreasonable one), nor is it the taking of private property for public use.
You seem to have made an illogical leap from "I have a right for my person to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures" to "the government can't tell me what I can do with my person". They most certainly can! They just can't search it or take things from it without reason. And by the way -- "we passed a law saying something's illegal and we think you're doing it" is a valid reason under law.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States
I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of that amendment. Are you tryin to argue that any government law that tells you what you can do with your body is "involuntary servitude"? Because while you can certainly twist the meaning of the words enough to make that claim, doing so means that ALL laws are unconstitutional. And that's just silly.
Interestingly, though, that amendment does mean that the fetus cannot be the property of the mother -- as a genetically distinct human who has committed no crime, it cannot be.
Posted by: Dan on March 1, 2006 02:32 PMThat would only reduce murder to manslaughter.
Quite probably; I don't know what the New York manslaughter statute is. I was just pointing out that, contrary to space's claim, they weren't covered under the second-degree murder law.
Posted by: Dan on March 1, 2006 02:37 PMWhy not fall back on the 9th Amendment?
Instead of asking where the right to have an abortion is, why don't you explain where the government gets the right to prevent abortions from happening and punish people who participate in them?
I think that the 9th gives me enough leeway to shift the burdon of proof back to the Pro-Lifers.
Posted by: Jaybird on March 1, 2006 04:21 PMWhy not fall back on the 9th Amendment?
Instead of asking where the right to have an abortion is, why don't you explain where the government gets the right to prevent abortions from happening and punish people who participate in them?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This has been discussed here before. Key word: "retained." Key date: 1791. Key noun: "the United States."
Your proposition would necessarily mean that what is and what isn't a constitutionally-protected right is purely subjective.
The equation "(a) Abortion == Murder, therefore prosecute; else (b) hyporcisy" is merely an effort by some rhetoricists to dismiss an entire point of view by grouping it in with the most extreme position found in that viewpoint (which would, indeed, happily prosecute the post-abortive woman for murder with maximum penalties).
Fact is, a wide range of distinctions are regularly made within the present legal system, taking into account the action itself, the consequence, the motive, the circumstances of commission, and so forth. Distinctions like these have been made by numerous legal systems since time immemorial, so they are hardly a novel thing to live by.
To insist that pro-lifers who believe abortion kills must demand the maximum legal recognition the term, is fallacious. First, the legal system itself is not bound so rigidly. Second, many women might well have as their defense that they did not even know "it" was human, consistent with some of the more extreme pro-choice propaganda.
Third and most ironically, to make such a demand is to insist on an extreme moral absolute with no allowance for intent or mitigating circumstances, and I daresay most of the rhetoricists do not even believe in the existence of such a thing, let alone would allow themselves to be bound by it.
Posted by: anony-mouse on March 1, 2006 04:33 PMMegan -- Maybe it's because some in the pro-choice camp seem to regard abortion not as a necessary evil or even distasteful, but as something noble. Look at Cider House Rules or Vera Drake, where the abortion providers are the heros.
You seem to be on the "necessary evil" side.
Posted by: denise on March 1, 2006 04:52 PMWhy not fall back on the 9th Amendment?
Because the 9th amendment doesn't forbid either the states or the Congress from restricting any of the unenumerated rights it refers to. It just clarifies that those rights are not automatically eliminated by reason of their not being included in the Constitution.
Posted by: Dan on March 1, 2006 05:23 PMAbortion is a type of murder most beneficial to the human species. Its exercise amongst those most incapable of providing for themselves and their would-be children is to be encouraged. Libertarians who grumble about paying taxes that subsidize irresponsibility should celebrate every instance of abortion that removes one more probable drain on social resources. I'm sure a utilitarian calculus can empirically demonstrate the freakonomic benefits of abortion...paging Mr. Levitt...
It is past time for us to be rid of the idea that *all* human life is sacred simply because it is human. Nature does not grant such "rights;" mankind creates them. The "right to life" is a social and legal construction created and enforced by the state. Metaphysically, it is no less meaningless than a "right to privacy." If we wanted to change it, we could. Our rights regime allows for infinite permutations of structure. Isn't it time we experimented a bit?
Posted by: Immoralist on March 1, 2006 05:44 PMAnony-mouse: There are two claims here based on two different facts.
One is that abortion has never been prosecuted in American or English law as any sort of homicide, except possibly when the woman died due to neglect or incompetence of the abortion provider. Otherwise there never would have been laws specifically against abortion, with penalties generally lighter than even manslaughter (negligent homicide), because abortion would have already been illegal. This would logically indicate that historically, the fetus was never legally a human being subject to the protection of the law. Either they were not human according to law, or they were one of the categories of humans that it is OK to kill, along with enemy soldiers in time of war and certain criminals.
The second fact is that only a tiny minority of Americans would ever vote to apply homicide laws to a women who procured an abortion. (Yes, there are some, but every movement has it's nutty fringe.) This means that most of the people out there shouting "abortion is murder" are either utterly illogical or they are exaggerating.
Posted by: markm on March 1, 2006 05:52 PMI was not being disingenuous. As markm points out, the reason you have separate abortion statutes is precisely because society has not historically considered the killing of a fetus to be the killing of a person.
My point was that if, as a society, we deem a fetus at any stage, or even a blastocyst, to be a person (a) there is no need to rewrite the statute to make the killing of a fetus a person because the intentional killing of a person (henceforce inclluding the unborn) is murder and (b) doctors who perform abortions and pregant women who willingly submit to them would be guilty of murder. Indeed, taking the morning after pill would be murder (and presumably prescribing it and dispensing it would make doctors and pharmacists accessories).
Posted by: space on March 1, 2006 06:25 PMI used to secretly root for the pro-lifers for years before I finally crossed over to that side. It's kinda hard to support abolishing abortion when you've had one yourself..and just think of all the people who have had them, paid for them, drove the girlfriend to one, counseled one. Many are implicated.
I just think that overall, taking a really long view, abortion on demand (which Roe ended up giving us) just didn't turn out to be such a wonderful thing for women. It created horrible new pressures and expectations, and fostered the worst kind of betrayal. I think that deep down we are programmed to conceive, despite all our education and pseudo-sophistication, and all our loving and dating and stressing over men tend toward that unconscious goal.
Oh I know, back-alley abortions blah blah oh the humanity. Just today on the Internet I saw step-by-step instructions on how to do one, just in case. So the pro-aborts will make SURE the bloodletting lives up to the phone pre-Roe hype.
Posted by: cassandra on March 1, 2006 06:30 PM"Because the 9th amendment doesn't forbid either the states or the Congress from restricting any of the unenumerated rights it refers to. It just clarifies that those rights are not automatically eliminated by reason of their not being included in the Constitution."
Doesn't that mean that the burden of proof should be on those arguing that the state should have the right to exercise it's power to prevent abortions and punish people who are involved with them?
Posted by: Jaybird on March 1, 2006 06:33 PMThis would logically indicate that historically, the fetus was never legally a human being subject to the protection of the law
That is only one of two possibilities, the other being that anti-abortion laws may have been passed to provide a lesser form of punishment for a class of crimes that would otherwise be treated as homicides.
This means that most of the people out there shouting "abortion is murder" are either utterly illogical or they are exaggerating.
You appear to have confused the word "illogical" with the word "unpopular". Given the colloquial definition of "murder" as "the deliberate taking of innocent human life", the claim "abortion is murder" logically follows from the axiom "human life begins at conception". That axiom is no more illogical than any other axiom about when human life starts. You are correct that it was not, historically, a widely-accepted axiom, but that doesn't make its use illogical.
It is also worth noting that, under the standards you're using, almost the entire pro-choice movement is "illogical" -- after all, historically the states had every right to ban abortions and there was no notion that people could do as they pleased with their own bodies, while in the modern day only a tiny minority of the population favors keeping abortion as unrestricted as it currently is.
Posted by: Dan on March 1, 2006 06:50 PMDoesn't that mean that the burden of proof should be on those arguing that the state should have the right to exercise it's power to prevent abortions and punish people who are involved with them?
No, because the states have the power to do anything the Constitution doesn't forbid them from doing.
Posted by: Dan on March 1, 2006 07:23 PMDoesn't that mean that the burden of proof should be on those arguing that the state should have the right to exercise it's power to prevent abortions and punish people who are involved with them?
Try this thought experiment. Note that the state doesn't have "rights," only powers.
"Doesn't that mean that the burden of proof should be on those arguing that the state should have the power to prevent x and punish people who are involved with x?"
Your interpretation of the Ninth Amendment strips the states of their general police power, as you would not allow them to regulate or criminalize any activity without passing a strict scrutiny test. This seems to be almost an anarchist position. Explain why abortion is different from any other criminalized x without reference to any other provision of the Constitution.
Posted by: AT on March 1, 2006 07:26 PMThe ninth amendment restricts the powers of the federal government,
not the states. The constitution spells out the areas where the
federal government has authority. Anything not explicitly stated
is automatically an area where it has no authority. The only
constitutional way the federal government can do anything at all
about abortion, either to discourage or encourage, is for the
Senate, by two-thirds majority, to propose a constitutional amendment
giving the federal government this new power and then have the states
by a three-fourths majority approve that proposal.
It works oppositely for the states. For the states the constitution
is mainly a list of things the states are prohibited from doing;
anything not on that list is automatically something a state can do.
A state is prohibited from preventing its citizens from leaving
and from preventing the citizens of other states from entering.
Beyond that it cannot discriminate against the citizens of other
states nor their products or businesses. And of course the state
is required to hold elections. Beyond that the state is free to
be a tyranny if it's elected representatives so desire.
Of course, what's tyranny is in the eye of the beholder? And that's
the point. The constitution sets the citizens of the united states
as judges of what's good and bad, and they are free to move themselves
and their money. And of course they did. Unpopular states found
themselves losing money and population, or not gaining population.
And not surprisingly, even if it was too slow for some, they changed
their behavior in response.
Unfortunately for the ninth amendment, the seventeeth amendment
essentially nullifies it and for that matter the rest of the constitution.
The seventeeth amendment does this not because it says any such thing,
but because of the pragmatic working out of it's consequences.
Human nature being what it is, people interpret things in a way favorable
to themselves and their power. Although there are exceptions, most
presidents interpret their power generously. Whatever the convention
may be on what presidents can and cannot do, the average president
will tend to move that boundary outward. Likewise with judges; most
judges think things would be better if they had even more power. And
since the power of judges is what they say it is, so thus it expands.
It's not like this isn't an obvious problem. The idea Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, and others came up to counter this with was the Senate.
Senators were elected by their state legislatures and thus were
particularly responsive to the interests of state legislatures. We
can count on state legislatures, in a very human way, to be protective
of their power. But senators were the only institutional barrier to
ever more creative and expansionist interpretations of the power
of the federal government. They had the power to impeach judges and
of course they had to approve presidential nominees to the Supreme
Court. If we had a nineteenth century Senate in power today, I imagine
they'd be impeaching judges right and left for violation of their
oath to uphold the constitution.
But the seventeeth amendment erases all this. Because Senators are
now elected directly they have no incentive to be protective of the
powers of states, and indeed personally, just like the judges and
just like the president and just like representatives in the House
of Representatives are motivated to interpret federal power as
broadly in the context of their time as they can persuade themselves.
Now the pragmatic consequence of all this for the citizens of the
United States is a tremendous erosion of their political power.
It's probably not obvious, to many, just why.
Think about it.
Posted by: Mark Amerman on March 1, 2006 08:31 PM"Your interpretation of the Ninth Amendment strips the states of their general police power, as you would not allow them to regulate or criminalize any activity without passing a strict scrutiny test. This seems to be almost an anarchist position."
That's not a bug.
It's a feature.
Posted by: Jaybird on March 1, 2006 10:13 PMThat's not a bug.
It's a feature.
That may be, but it's not a feature that originates in the text or original intent of the Constitution, nor one that has any support in the history of constitutional law, nor one advocated by legal scholars of any type, liberal, conservative, or libertarian.
Posted by: AT on March 1, 2006 10:52 PMThis would logically indicate that historically, the fetus was never legally a human being subject to the protection of the law. Either they were not human according to law, or they were one of the categories of humans that it is OK to kill, along with enemy soldiers in time of war and certain criminals.
Actually, the ancient Hebrews had a law making it a criminal offense if, while two men were fighting, a woman was struck causing a miscarriage; however even then a distinction was made between whether a serious injury was caused to the woman, or not. If not, the woman's husband could demand compensation up to whatever the two were willing to settle upon, or the court would allow. If I am not mistaken, this kind of thing has been present in other legal systems as well.
Today, I understand it is possible for a miscarriage induced by assault or reckless behavior to be prosecuted as manslaughter; but if the woman goes and seeks a medically-induced miscarriage, then by present legal doctrine it is considered to be nothing.
The consequence is that the fetus is treated as property in real effect (I can volunatrily deprive myself of my own property, you cannot involuntarily deprive me of it) but is designated as some sort of human in the criminal case (else, it would be called robbery, not manslaughter). So which is it?
Obviously, the question is not so simple as you would make it.
Posted by: anony-mouse on March 2, 2006 01:45 AM"it's not a feature that originates in the text or original intent of the Constitution, nor one that has any support in the history of constitutional law, nor one advocated by legal scholars of any type, liberal, conservative, or libertarian."
People enjoy telling other people how to live. They enjoy telling them what fabrics to wear or not to wear, they enjoy telling them whether they can eat rabbits, or goats, or horses, they enjoy telling them whether they can sodomize each other.
The fact that people in power aren't cool to say stuff like "sure, if you want to have sex with your wife when she's out to sea, that's none of my business" is a problem with the people power, not with me.
Posted by: Jaybird on March 2, 2006 10:32 AMPlease explain how either of those sections of the Constitution protects a right to do as you please with your own body. Criminalization of abortion, for example, is neither a search nor a seizure (let alone an unreasonable one), nor is it the taking of private property for public use.
The government cannot in general take from you that which belongs to you. It can under warrant. It can under emminant domain if you are justly compensated.
Criminalizing abortion forces one to give up their blood and body for use by another. At minimum this must be examined on a case by case basis to see if there is just cause for an injuction against abortion. Abscent such investigation the right of the mother to refuse use of her body by another person (yeah I think a fetus is a person) should be paramount.
I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of that amendment. Are you tryin to argue that any government law that tells you what you can do with your body is "involuntary servitude"?
If the government requires that you use your blood and body in service of another person then yes this is involutary servitude.
Above someone mentions
When sex is consentual, the participants should expect that there is a reasonable risk of pregnancy, and there is an inherant agreement to accept the risks therein (i.e. produce children). This is how we legally justify child support for a parent now. If it is a consentual act, then there is no more slavery in requiring the completion of the inherant contract than in requiring a person to complete a contract to roof a house (certainly an indentured servitude contract under the most pedantic reading).
To try someone criminally for not honoring their end of a civil contract is absolutely involutary servitude. You can sue them in civil court for it. I also think that the fetsus could be allowed to sue the mother if one could show there was a meeting of the minds between the two. I am not sure this is possible but you can try.
However, what you cannot do is send them to jail for this, anymore than you can send me to jail for not paying my credit card bill.
Perhaps, you want to argue that the mother is committing fraud by tricking the fetus into thinking it will have the benefits of a womb for nine months. However, since the fetus could not choose not to be conceived I think this is a non-starter. That is, the fetus's understanding of the "contract" is irrelevant because the fetus made no choice.
This entire issue becomes more clear in my mind once you accept that the fetus is a person. Then it not only has the rights but also the limitations of the person.
Surely, I could not expect to take one of my friend's organs for my personal use no matter what sort of implict contract existed between us. Put on top of that the fact that I never signed a contract, made a statement, offered compensation or took any action which implied that I understood I was being garunteed the use of an organ and the issue that my friend should jailed for not letting me use her organs becomes absolutely ridiculous.
At the end of the day there is no contract between mother and fetus. Perhaps, there should be, but there is not. The fetus is not even capable of entering into a contract. Perhaps, we wish it were, but its not.
Futhermore, a contract of blood and body is unenforcable anyway. I cannot sell myself into slavery. I could except money and sign a paper but the government cannot enforce the contract.
Therefore, the fetus cannot demand usage of the womb. It is sad. It is tragic. I dare say it is wrong, to kick a helpless fetus out into the world where it is destined to die. However, the government does not have the power to stop it, anymore than the government has the power to force a parent to love their child.
Posted by: Karl Smith on March 2, 2006 12:25 PMThe government cannot in general take from you that which belongs to you. It can under warrant. It can under emminant domain if you are justly compensated. Criminalizing abortion forces one to give up their blood and body for use by another
That's an interesting rhetorical trick, but I'm not falling for it. The first three sentences, above, refer to the *government's* inability to confiscate your property. The fourth refers to the fact that abortion forces a mother to share her body with another private individual -- i.e., the fetus. There's nothing unconstitutional about laws forcing people to share their property with other private citizens -- there is, indeed, a long history of such law dating back to before the founding of the country and continuing to the present day.
If the government requires that you use your blood and body in service of another person then yes this is involutary servitude
It might be possible to torture the meaning of "involuntary servitude" in that manner, but it could still only apply to cases where the mother had been raped. In all cases where the mother became pregnant through consentual sex she has entered into that "servitude" voluntarily.
yeah I think a fetus is a person
Then any abortion which kills the fetus is a form of murder, and hence punishable under the law. The only way around that would be to extract the still-living fetus and then abandon it to die on its own. That raises other legal issues, which I'll address below.
To try someone criminally for not honoring their end of a civil contract is absolutely involutary servitude.
There's no support for that claim in either the law or in the English language. If you enter into a contract wherein your end of the contract is an agreement to keep somebody alive, and then deliberately let them die, you can and will suffer criminal penalties for it.
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you. Your notion that the 14th amendment makes it unconstitutional to require that parents take care of their own helpless children doesn't even pass a laugh test. Parenthood is not slavery, no matter how much you torture the meanings of the words. :)
Posted by: Dan on March 2, 2006 02:35 PMI'm not sure why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you. Your notion that the 14th amendment makes it unconstitutional to require that parents take care of their own helpless children doesn't even pass a laugh test. Parenthood is not slavery, no matter how much you torture the meanings of the words
You do not have to take care of your children. You can give them up for adoption. Not allowing parents to give their children up for adoption would be unconstitutional.
there is, indeed, a long history of such law dating back to before the founding of the country and continuing to the present day.
What law is this? You can do it through the tax system, but this is specifically permited in the consitution.
You can sue in civil court. I could support that the state sues on behalf of the fetus. However, you need a trial for every case. You need an injuction placed for every instance.
There's no support for that claim in either the law or in the English language. If you enter into a contract wherein your end of the contract is an agreement to keep somebody alive, and then deliberately let them die, you can and will suffer criminal penalties for it.
Depending on the nature of the contract you may be guilty of depraved-heart. However, you would have to show that your entering into the contract inflicted the condition which killed the person.
That is, the person took some risk thinking that you would be there to help them and you didn't.
Suppose you wrote down one night "I promise I will give John my kidney if he needs it, signed Dan" Tomorrow, without knowledge of the contract John is diagonised with renal failure and needs you kidney. You refuse and John dies.
Is this depraved-heart? Involuntary Manslaughter?
What crime are you committing?
Then any abortion which kills the fetus is a form of murder
I assume you mean criminal homicide. But I am still not sure. You have to show that the abortion inflicted death on the fetus. This is difficult because the fetus's natural state is dead. That is, unless the mother is doing something to keep the fetus alive(i.e. feeding the fetus through the ombilical cord) the fetus will die. Case in point, mother dies --> fetus dies.
To be sure, all of this refers to a fetus which is not viable outside the womb. Once, the fetus is viable the constitutional defense for abortion is gone.
If someone simply refuses to help you stay alive, how can this be infliction?
In all cases where the mother became pregnant through consentual sex she has entered into that "servitude" voluntarily
Whether you entered into the agreement volutarily is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is volutary right now. That is, you cannot sell yourself into slavery.
This is why companies make you sign non-compete agreements. The government cannot enforce an agreement that you will continue working for that company. They can only enforce an agreement that you will not work for someone else. You always have the right to be lazy bum.
On the parental issue - you may feel as if you have to be a parent but you don't.
Child support which is a complex a seperate issue is something that you owe to the other parent, not the child.
For example, the law cannot force you to be there for your kids. The law cannot force you to support you kids emotionally. This is not to say you don't have a moral obligation to do these things. However, what you should do and what you are legally obligated to do are different.
Posted by: Karl Smith on March 2, 2006 03:20 PMWe will continue to have abortion (and murder/manslaughter) arguments until we legislate when exactly a human life starts.
It's not that pro-choicers want to kill babies. They don't.
It's not that pro-lifers want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. They don't.
It's that we don't agree on what a human being is.
For me, pictures of fetuses sucking their thumbs aren't enough: they make plastic dolls that do that. Evidence of heartbeats and brainwaves isn't enough: dogs have those.
I believe that a human being is self-aware, and has memories of the past and plans for the future (I don't remember where I got that definition, but it says what I think).
I'd be willing to accept, for legal and practical purposes, that birth, however and whenever it happens, is the cutoff. It seems to me that that's about as clear as it can get: when a thing is no longer a subset of my body, then it can be considered an entity with rights that might conflict with mine. I might not believe it to be quite human yet, but I'd accept it legally.
In any case, until we go with some definition, we'll be talking around each other and making inconsistent judgments.
Not allowing parents to give their children up for adoption would be unconstitutional.
Why? I don't see anything in the Constitution about that.
I believe that a human being is self-aware, and has memories of the past and plans for the future (I don't remember where I got that definition, but it says what I think).
So that's like, what, ages 2, 3, and 12, respectively?
We will continue to have abortion (and murder/manslaughter) arguments until we legislate when exactly a human life starts
The abortion debate continues in large part because the courts have decided the legislature isn't allowed to decide that sort of thing. Killing children is illegal, as is abandoning them and allowing them to die. Ergo any law declaring that human life begins at, say, conception, would have the effect of rendering all abortions de facto illegal even if the act of abortion itself wasn't technically banned, because there would be nothing you could do with the fetus subsequent to its removal from the mother's body that wouldn't violate some law. That would put the law in direct conflict with existing court abortion rulings.
Posted by: Dan on March 2, 2006 07:28 PMDan,
On your view, why is that parents cannot legally be forced to give their kidneys, bone marrow, OR EVEN A SIMPLE BLOOD TRANSFUSION, to save their children's lives, should they become sick AFTER BIRTH?
DO you favor requiring that parents be willing to give of their bodies in this form? What about to one's parents, or other relatives? Or would autonomy---and the right to one's own body--trump the other person's right to survive using one's body?
Posted by: Lisa SG on March 2, 2006 07:35 PMI believe Jane made the point some time ago that pro-life people don't actually act as thought they believe what they profess. If pro-lifers truly, honestly believed that abortion was the moral equivalent of murdering a 2 year-old (or a 34 year -old for that matter) then the appropriate response is not blockades and bullhorns, it is civil war.
The fact that the pro-life camp does not organize and lauch such a war indicates that they don't really believe that a fetus is a person. If they did, they would be obligated to kill abortionists no less than it was an obligation to kill Mengele or Camp Commander Hoess had one been there and had the means and opportunity.
It amazes me that pro-lifers do so little in the way of "direct action" given what they claim to believe.
Posted by: Smoov on March 2, 2006 08:06 PMIf they did, they would be obligated to kill abortionists no less than it was an obligation to kill Mengele or Camp Commander Hoess had one been there and had the means and opportunity.
Many forms of Christianity hold that killing is wrong, even if the victim is a killer himself. Many other moral systems believe similarly. So, no, it does not automatically follow that anyone who thinks abortionists are murderers would feel obligated to kill them.
Then, of course, there is the fact that a person might think abortionists deserve to die, but be unwilling to risk life in prison and/or death just to kill one of countless abortion practitioners. As a parallel, think of all the anti-war types who decry the state of Israel as "genocidal" and "murderous" -- how many of them actually go out and kill Israelis? How many of the people who condemned the genocide of the Tutsis actually help fight the Hutu warlords behind the massacres? Etc, etc.
Posted by: Dan on March 2, 2006 08:59 PMSmoov, meet straw man.
Most "pro-lifers" don't "truly, honestly believe that abortion [is] the moral equivalent of murdering a 2 year-old." Most believe it is some kind of unjustifiable homicide. Unjustifiable homicides include murder, which is often punishable by death, and accidental homicides, which usually aren't punished at all.
I really hope you're not suggesting that people must either be (a) for abortion or (b) terrorists.
Posted by: AT on March 2, 2006 09:02 PMOn your view, why is that parents cannot legally be forced to give their kidneys, bone marrow, OR EVEN A SIMPLE BLOOD TRANSFUSION, to save their children's lives, should they become sick AFTER BIRTH?
Because there is no law requiring them to. There's no Constitutional barrier to a state passing such a law, though, just as there is no Constitutional barrier to requiring that parents give up some of their property in order to provide their children with food, clothing, and shelter.
DO you favor requiring that parents be willing to give of their bodies in this form?
I'm against such a requirement.
I suspect, from the tone of your post, that you're making the mistake of assuming that, because I don't think the Constitution forbids a law from being passed, I must support the passage of such a law. I think abortion is a great idea. I think prostitution and recreational drug use are just fine, too. I do not, however, fool myself into thinking that the Constitution protects any of those things under some questionable "right to do what you want with your own body".
Posted by: Dan on March 2, 2006 09:41 PMAT:
No, I'm not suggesting that. Also your post (and Dan's) make a lot of sense. I certainly don't have the answers on this one.
Posted by: Smoov on March 2, 2006 09:44 PMWhile I'm pro-choice in the very early stages of gestation and also pro-choice with some qualifications later on (legally speaking, though I think abortions are morally abhorent), I want to mention this;
Roe v. Wade hearkened back to the earlier laws in our country where a fetus was considered to be legally protected once it reached 'quickening' i.e. the point in time when it's existance was physically evident to the world. These laws were enacted during the 1800's and were slowly repealed roughly around the late 1800's-mid 1900's and replaced with earlier standards.
Ultrasounds have effectively moved back the time at which fetuses are 'evident to the world.'
While I personally think that the woman\mother should have the largest say in how her body is used (as has been mentioned, requisitioning blood is on a totally different level than confiscating money), at least until the fetus\child is capable of surviving outside the womb, the attempt to push back the time when fetuses are recognized as people is consistant with the standards expressed in Roe v. Wade.
Of course, as much as pro-lifers use ultrasounds and such in their literature I think it's unlikely that they'd rely on the argument that I just stated, because it would be a clear admission that abortions were once totally legal in this country for some time after conception.
Posted by: Ryan on March 3, 2006 03:10 AMBecause there is no law requiring them to. There's no Constitutional barrier to a state passing such a law, though, just as there is no Constitutional barrier to requiring that parents give up some of their property in order to provide their children with food, clothing, and shelter.
Then we are at a genuine impass. If you think that the government can force you to give up your bone marrow to someone else then it could force you to carry a fetus to term.
However, I am not sure how you can argue that this is not either seizing private property (your body) or forcing involutary servitude (working for someone else).
Would you also contend that the a state has the constitutional power to pass a law forcing blood donations to the Red Cross?
Posted by: Karl Smith on March 3, 2006 10:39 AM"The fact that the pro-life camp does not organize and lauch such a war indicates that they don't really believe that a fetus is a person. If they did, they would be obligated to kill abortionists no less than it was an obligation to kill Mengele or Camp Commander Hoess had one been there and had the means and opportunity."
This is crazy on so many levels, but here's one of the many reasons why I haven't started shooting up abortion clinics. The priest of my parish preached about the pro-life stance that our obligation is to use the means most likely to persuade others so that a real change can be made. If you have a fervent belief, but carry it out in a way that turns others off, you are not helping the cause. (Just to be perfectly clear, I believe the murder of abortion clinic workers is horribly wrong, morally and legally.)
Karl Smith: Where do (or did) you go to law school and how far along are you (or did you get).
Ryan: The concept of "requisitioning blood" is a little strange, and I don't think gets us very far, if for no other reason than pregnancy (or we could say the fetus) causes the production of more blood. A pregnant woman + fetus has/have 50% more blood than a woman who is not pregnant. (That's part of the reason our ankles get so pretty in the third trimester.) So, anyway, it's not like the baby is taking blood that mom would otherwise have been using for herself.
Finally, as a general comment, a lot of people in this thread are mixing up rights and protections. The law can offer a protection without granting a right.
Posted by: denise on March 3, 2006 10:46 AMdenise:
"This is crazy on so many levels"
It isn't "crazy" to suggest that mass-murdering millions of human beings should elicit an overwhelming--possibly violent--response. My point is that pro-lifers do not really believe deep down that millions of people are being mass-murdered or else they would do far more to stop it than simply protest.
The appropriate respnse to actual mass-murder (e.g., the Holocaust) was in fact overwhelming violence in the form of the Allied liberation of Europe. It was not "crazy" to engage in violence for the purpose of stopping Hitler, just as it would not be crazy to use any means necessary to stop the practice of abortion IF it became possible to definitively determine that the fetus is a full person (not just a legal "person" like a corporation). Of course that is unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever, so anyone actually commiting violence would and should be imprisoned.
It is certainly "crazy" to suggest extreme measures when you come from that hard-core pro-choice perspective which considers the fetus nothing more than a clump of tissue which is part of the mother's body. It would be crazy to execute shoplifters, but most people don't think it is crazy to execute serial killers. I certainly don't pro-lifers are crazy for using aggressive non-violent tactics to stop what they percieve at the very least as the termination of a potential human life.
Dan wrote:
"Many forms of Christianity hold that killing is wrong, even if the victim is a killer himself."
True. However I would wager that a majority of the Allied soldiers in WWII were nominally Christian, and that a significant fraction were observant Christians. True pacifism is relatively rare and in any case is a problemmatic doctrine in its own right.
"How many of the people who condemned the genocide of the Tutsis actually help fight the Hutu warlords behind the massacres?"
That can easily be viewed as an example of humanity failing in its responsibilty to judiciously and selectively apply violence to stop a larger evil, where there was no other recourse available. The Canadian in charge at the time pleaded desperately for more soldiers. Clinton and the Europeans demurred; a million people were slaughtered. Getting off-topic...
AT wrote:
"Unjustifiable homicides include murder, which is often punishable by death, and accidental homicides, which usually aren't punished at all"
Accidental homicdes are, er, accidental. Abortion is never accidental. Again, I am not claiming abortion is murder or even homicide, I am simply attempting to see the situation through the eyes of a rational actor who genuinely believed that abortion is murder. Aside from accidental homicide and "jutified" homicide such as self-defense, war, police, etc. all other forms of killing people are illegal and punished harshly. Abortion may fit into some alternate category.
Also, what's with all this "granting" of rights? The Constitution ennumerates natural rights. It "grants" nothing.
Anyhow, what I am trying to do is conduct a thought experiment on what responses would be reasonable given certain precepts. I am certainly not advocating violence, nor am I saying that pro-lifers are insincere. I do agree with Jane that they don't act in accordance with their professed beliefs.
Posted by: Smoov on March 3, 2006 11:10 AMHowever, I am not sure how you can argue that this is not either seizing private property (your body) or forcing involutary servitude (working for someone else).
It is not involuntary servitude because it doesn't involve service -- and, as noted earlier, unless the mother was raped, she voluntarily chose to gamble on being forced to care for a child, so her "service" is voluntary anyway.
It may perhaps be a seizure, but the Constitution only requires that people be compensated for property seized by the government for public use; it does not forbid the government-enforced of property between individuals. That's why the civil court system -- which does little other than forcibly transfer property between individuals without compensating the loser -- is constitutional.
Posted by: Dan on March 3, 2006 12:46 PMAccidental homicdes are, er, accidental. Abortion is never accidental.
I did not claim that it is. I was pointing out that homicide, the killing of one person by another, is a broad concept, and that various types of homicide are punished differently, or not at all. In New York, unjustifiable abortional acts performed on another are felonies and carry the same penalties as criminally negligent homicide and vehicular manslaughter. They are punished as homicides, but are not considered murder.
Again, I am not claiming abortion is murder or even homicide,
It is considered homicide in New York after 24 weeks.
I am simply attempting to see the situation through the eyes of a rational actor who genuinely believed that abortion is murder.
And as I said, of the majority of the population that believes we should have stricter abortion laws, or even of the 20% to 25% that believes abortion should be strictly illegal, that's a small number. You're trying to define hypocrisy into existence. The hypocrisy argument alone never does much for me (You believe restrictions on abortion are a gross violation of your natural and constitutional right to liberty? Why aren't YOU out on the streets counter-protesting?).
Aside from accidental homicide and "jutified" homicide such as self-defense, war, police, etc. all other forms of killing people are illegal and punished harshly.
The justifications you list account for a lot of killing, and as I pointed out, it's not true that all other types of homicide are punished harshly.
Abortion may fit into some alternate category.
And, in fact, it does in many states, including New York. The crimes and the penalties already exist. Striking the 24-week category from the "justifiable abortional act" definition is a minor change.
Posted by: AT on March 3, 2006 01:06 PMHowever I would wager that a majority of the Allied soldiers in WWII were nominally Christian, and that a significant fraction were observant Christians
The Bible has generally been read as allowing Christians to serve in wars, although that sentiment isn't universal. Freelance murder is a different matter.
The Canadian in charge at the time pleaded desperately for more soldiers.
Did he start killing Hutu warriors himself? According to the reasoning you're applying to anti-abortion activists he would have, if he'd really believed there was genocide going on.
Clinton and the Europeans demurred
Pretty much the entire planet demurred, Canada included. My point is that approximately none of the people wringing their hands and saying "oh god, this is genocide" actually tried killing the people responsible.
Also, what's with all this "granting" of rights? The Constitution ennumerates natural rights. It "grants" nothing.
That is not true. The Constitution both grants rights and protects natural ones. The sixth amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...") is an example of the granting of a right. The second ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed") is an example of a protected natural right.
Posted by: Dan on March 3, 2006 01:07 PMJust to pick at a nit, Karl Smith, child support is an obligation to the child, not the custodial parent, even though the payments are made to the custodial parent. For example, the custodial parent cannot contract away the child's right to support via a separation of divorce agreement. Only the judge, acting on behalf of the child, can do so. Agreements between the parents for child support can ALWAYS be changed by the judge, whereas spousal maintenance agreements cannot (unless the law separately provides for such).
Posted by: Rex on March 3, 2006 01:20 PMAll pro-choicers are baby-murderers.
All pro-lifers are Bible-thumpin' feaks who want to turn the clock back to (year in distant past).
And both sides are really, really stupid, awful people -- unless they include you or me, in which case they're geniuses.
Carry on.
Posted by: RMc on March 3, 2006 02:05 PMSmoov said "The appropriate respnse to actual mass-murder (e.g., the Holocaust) was in fact overwhelming violence in the form of the Allied liberation of Europe. "
Sadly, of course, stopping the Holocaust had absolutely nothing to do with the Allied liberation of Europe. Germany declared war on the US in response to the US declaration of war on Japan.
Likewise, almost every other act of genocide in the last 100 years has been met with unforgiveable inaction from the world at large.
Thus, your analogy is entirely inapt.
Regards,
Neil
". My point is that approximately none of the people wringing their hands and saying "oh god, this is genocide" actually tried killing the people responsible."
Neil wrote:
"stopping the Holocaust had absolutely nothing to do with the Allied liberation of Europe"
The Holocaust was stopped as a RESULT of the Allied liberation of Europe. Claiming there is no connection is a stretch. If your point is that stopping the Holocaust was not the original impetus behind Allied involvement, well that is well known. Most of the world was unaware of the scale of the Holocaust until late in the war.
If you are suggesting that had we known about the Holocaust early on and absent any other reasons we would not have lifted a finger to try to stop it--that is a pretty dark view of our culture and history. I believe most people would be in favor of stopping the Nazis even if they stayed within their borders and limited their atrocities to members of their own society. Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe it really is all about oil.
"Thus, your analogy is entirely inapt."
It probably is a weak analogy. I'm not a professional logician or an accomplished sophist.
However I still believe that the following holds water: "When all other recourses fail the use of lethal force is justified in cases where human beings are being murdered in an organized, systemic fashion."
Just because we have failed our fellow human beings repeatedly does not mean we must continue to do so forever.
Posted by: Smoov on March 3, 2006 02:39 PMThat is not true. The Constitution both grants rights and protects natural ones. The sixth amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...") is an example of the granting of a right. The second ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed") is an example of a protected natural right.
How can a natural right exist to an item not occuring in nature, I.e. a gun?
"How can a natural right exist to an item not occuring in nature, I.e. a gun?"
Good question, but I believe the natural right the original poster was referring to was the right of self defense, which the ability to bear arms (not specific to just guns) is a necessary part.
Posted by: Mark on March 3, 2006 03:42 PMHow can a natural right exist to an item not occuring in nature, I.e. a gun?
Humans naturally possess the ability to construct armaments, guns included.
You're correct that you won't find any guns in nature that weren't produced by humans, but then you won't find any speech or writing that wasn't produced by humans, either. Indeed, humans have probably been making weapons for longer than we've been capable of language, and have definitely been making weapons for longer than we've been capable of writing.
Posted by: Dan on March 3, 2006 04:02 PM
This is very sad
Vehicles Restricted in Baghdad Amid Iraqi Violence
The Holocaust was stopped as a RESULT of the Allied liberation of Europe. Claiming there is no connection is a stretch
His point was that we didn't liberate Europe to stop te Holocaust. We ended the Holocaust purely by coincidence, because the people who were carrying it out happened to be the same people whose asses we were kicking for entirely unrelated reasons.
If you are suggesting that had we known about the Holocaust early on and absent any other reasons we would not have lifted a finger to try to stop it--that is a pretty dark view of our culture and history.
Dark, perhaps, but entirely accurate. We weren't willing to sacrifice a relatively small amount of lives and money to save the Tutsi in the enlightened 1990s -- do you really think the vehemently isolationist and bigoted Americans of the 1940s would have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of American lives and trillions of(adjusted) dollars to save a bunch of foreign Jews, gypsies, Communists and homosexuals?
When all other recourses fail the use of lethal force is justified in cases where human beings are being murdered in an organized, systemic fashion
Again, just because it is justified doesn't mean you yourself are going to be willing to do it, especially at the cost of your own life or freedom. People starved to death today because you paid for internet access instead of buying them food -- humans are, by our nature, limited in our willingness to sacrifice for people we don't personally know.
Posted by: Dan on March 3, 2006 04:14 PMHow can a natural right exist to an item not occuring in nature, I.e. a gun?
Answer: It can't. The Second Amendment wasn't intended to protect a natural right. It was intended to protect the States against the federal government. The Second Amendment was intended both to discourage the existence of a standing federal army by insuring that the states could provide military protection if necessary and to permit the states to protect themselves against the federal government, if it came to it.
Individual self-defense was, by far, a secondary consideration.
Posted by: space on March 3, 2006 05:27 PMDan wrote:
The Constitution both grants rights and protects natural ones. The sixth amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...") is an example of the granting of a right. The second ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed") is an example of a protected natural right.
And:
Humans naturally possess the ability to construct armaments, guns included.
I don't see how you get from a proposition that human beings have the "ability to construct firearms" to "keeping and bearing arms is a natural right." Ability and right are not logically connected; the two have no bearing upon one another. Human beings have the ability to kill, to torture, but no one would claim that such abilities are "natural rights."
The whole airy nonsense of "natural rights" is, like all metaphysics, a total fraud. Rights do not exist as a matter of nature. They are constructions supported by politics, argument, will, and power. And they are none the less real for being such constructions. But in no sense can they be accurately conceptualized as originating in nature.
Posted by: Immoralist on March 3, 2006 05:28 PMI don't see how you get from a proposition that human beings have the "ability to construct firearms" to "keeping and bearing arms is a natural right."
Um, I didn't say that the fact that we can make guns means owning guns is a natural right. I said that the fact that we have the natural ability make weapons is why it is possible for weapons ownership to be a natural right even though guns don't exist in nature.
The reasoning behind why individual weapons ownership was viewed as a natural right by the Founders (and by many of their predecessor in England and elsewhere) centers around the natural right to self-defense and self-determination.
The whole airy nonsense of "natural rights" is, like all metaphysics, a total fraud. Rights do not exist as a matter of nature.
It is certainly true that you could examine the universe with the finest microscope and never find a single particle of "natural rights", "justice", "truth", "love", or any other the other philosophical concepts we hold dear. But calling them "a fraud" is a bit much.
Some people believe that natural rights have an objective existance, and those people are indeed mistaken. But the term "natural rights" can also mean "rights which all people are entitled to without having to do anything to earn them". It is obviously a matter of opinion which natural rights of that type people have, but that's nothing new -- even the people who believe natural rights come from God argue at length about which rights he supposedly gave us.
Posted by: Dan on March 3, 2006 06:00 PMTo claim that a fetus has rights that trump those of an adult woman is the height of misogyny.
Posted by: Harry on March 4, 2006 07:16 AMThe Holocaust was stopped as a RESULT of the Allied liberation of Europe.
The Holocaust was largely complete by the time the Allies liberated Europe. By 1943 in most parts of Europe, and 1944 in the rest, the Nazis had reached the point of extremely low marginal returns on their efforts because nearly all the Jews they could have killed, had been killed.
Posted by: Brittain33 on March 4, 2006 09:55 AMDan -
One last question regarding the powers of the government.
Suppose Congress passed a law requiring all stock currently traded on the NYSE and NASDAQ to be redistributed equally to all living persons possessing a lawfully issued social secrity number.
Is this constitutional? The issue in my mind is that such a law does not constitute due process. No citizen can be deprived of property without due process.
However, in a civil trial you have the chance to argue before a jury that you should not have to give up your property.
Shouldn't every mother have this right? She is being forced to carry a fetus to term but doesn't she have the right to argue for posession of her womb before a jury?
Posted by: Karl Smith on March 4, 2006 10:32 AMDan wrote:
"Some people believe that natural rights have an objective existance, and those people are indeed mistaken."
Dan is indeed mistaken.
-- God
Posted by: Smoov on March 4, 2006 12:09 PM“To claim that a fetus has rights that trump those of an adult woman is the height of misogyny”
I would have to think this a personal statement not related to the general argument. But frankly supporting (as Roe & Doe were supposed to) the right of one (the mother) over the other (the fetus) does not in any way guarantee the right of a woman to do wrong, legally or morally. If Blackmun based the decision on trimesters, then partial birth abortions in the third is legally murder. It is not misogyny to protect the innocent; children born in that trimester are normal and functional, no matter what the legal definition of when life begins. The abortion laws of today only take into account the rights of one party, and exclude the rights of the other two parties. Apparently you advocate the idolization of the “adult woman”.
To the topic,
RICO was a “hail Mary” play by the proponents of abortion to silence the anti-abortion activists. Under a liberal administration you could get away with it. A side that was so “liberal” that they simply want only one set of facts on the table. Based on a specious court decision (at best), the big press of the “settled law” debates in the confirmations of Alito and Roberts, shows of the tenuous and speciousness of the basic argument. The sad part of the “right of privacy” argument is that pre-Roe & Doe states were already loosening the constraints of abortion laws.
A Rabbi once told me that the “bible” does allow for the knowing death of the baby to save the life of the mother, this covers about 7% of the approximately 1.3 million abortions taking place in America today. Perhaps that is the basis of Jane’s “conundrum”. Fetuses even at the earliest stage are life, not a boil, pimple, or “analogous mass of bio-tissue” as one congressman to vainly put it. I will never give birth, I’m guessing that most of you men out there won’t, but I am a father and grandfather. I know that it is the human side (the side that Justin spoke of), not the legal side that is the real focus of this thread, that has the greater impact on each of us. Whether or not one stands in the Clinic, 5’ outside or 5 miles away if you’re for or against abortion.
Of the framers of the Constitution, Hamilton was the largest in guiding implementation of the precepts; he was against the 3/5ths solution, as I’m sure he would be against the 7% solution of today. Jefferson on the other hand was for slavery and settled for the 3/5ths solution. The assent of civilization is to be “inclusive” and error on the side of life, I don’t think busting a hole in the skull of an 8 month old “fetus” and sucking out the brain would qualify for an assenting civilization. It would qualify for the descent of a civilization.
On the side of the pro-choice I hear “my rights over all”, but I never hear a word about personal responsibility. It’s a sad personal “choice”, but yours to make. Nothing in the “Instruction Manual of Human Development” says that decisions are required to be easy.
Since all late-term abortions are done to protect the life of the mother- there is no problem here whatsoever.
Now, trying to use the police power of the government to force women to go through with an extremely deadly procedure like childbirth...
Posted by: Harry on March 4, 2006 02:42 PMThe reasoning behind why individual weapons ownership was viewed as a natural right by the Founders (and by many of their predecessor in England and elsewhere) centers around the natural right to self-defense and self-determination.
I do not, however, fool myself into thinking that the Constitution protects any of thos