Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[Túrin Turambar]

But I assume it is an attempt to justify bombing abortion clinics and killing the doctors?

It is, in the form of a personal account by a man who gunned down a doctor in front of his clinic.

[axordil]

L_M--

His argument fails the simplest of all tests: if everyone was like him, that is, responsible only to whatever moral code they deem True and not to any social constraint, we'd all be dead in a week. Thus, even if he had an ironclad logical argument (which he doesn't of course, since one has to accept his assumptions for his logic to stand), it would still be wrong because it brought about wrong.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter how noble your goals are. It doesn't matter what you meant to do or why you do it. Results are all there is, because that's what we've got to work with here in the empirical universe.

[MithLuin]

This man knew what he was doing was wrong. He tried to convince himself that it was for a 'greater good,' but statements such as this: "All I had to do was hide my intentions from my wife for a few days until she left." suggest that he knew very well that he would be guilty as all get out for carrying through with his plan. And I don't just mean that he knew he would go to jail.

I know that no one here would even think of agreeing with this man, so it seems silly to argue against his points, but Lord M seemed to think you couldn't argue in his terms. So...I'll give it a shot. (It was tried by someone who corresponded with him in prison as well)

At no point did this man seek out any spiritual direction. He claimed to be acting according to God's will, but he himself determined what God's will was in this instance. Thus, he was acting independently of any church or authority - which means, among other things, he was susceptible to being governed by pride and by his own will, not God's will at all.

Secondly, while he could perhaps argue that a murderer needs to be stopped, at no point can he argue that he had the authority to do so. The "concerned citizen" thing only goes so far. He is not the government, nor the law, nor the church - he is not set up in judgement over his fellow man. Even if you accept that he had a moral obligation to attempt to stop the abortions, that does not justify shooting the man. After all, blowing the building up at 3 AM would have been just as illegal and just as effective, but would have taken no one's life. There were other ways - he did not pursue these other options. I do not know the details, but some doctors would have left town if they'd gotten a bunch of threatening phone calls. Problem solved, and without the mess.

He did not follow the Biblical instructions for dealing with someone who is a sinner (as he deemed the abortionist to be). First, one takes the person aside and exorts him to change his ways. If that doesn't work, you take a few friends and go back and try again. If that doesn't work, you throw the guy out of your church. At no point does it suggest taking the guy into a back alley and relieving him of his brains.

If I were thrown into a jail cell by myself, I would probably sing "Our God is an Awesome God" too. That, or the one that begins "The Lord Liveth." Beautiful songs. And praising God in hardship is admirable. But when you bring the hardship on yourself you have to accept responsibility for your actions. Saying "I had no choice" is a lie - he chose to follow through with his plan, when he could have stopped at any time.

But you are right, you cannot argue with this man - he was executed on Sept. 3, 2003. While I certainly would never support releasing someone like him, who would clearly just do it again, I do not see why he could not have been allowed to live in jail for the rest of his life. Capital punishment, even of people who so richly deserve it, seems excessive force in our currect high security society. I cannot imagine what this must have been like for his widow and children . [He murdered 2 people, not just the doctor: Jim Barrett and Dr. John Britton were the victims]

[Túrin Turambar]

L_M--

His argument fails the simplest of all tests: if everyone was like him, that is, responsible only to whatever moral code they deem True and not to any social constraint, we'd all be dead in a week. Thus, even if he had

Ah, but was he simply acting only from a moral code that he accepts? For example, if you had a gun a saw a man preparing to kill thirty children, and all attempts to reason with him failed, and you shot him, would society as a whole (or the law for that matter) fault you?

What it all comes down to is definitions - specifically the legal, ethical and philosophical definition of 'human being'. What scares me is how massive the implications of drawing this line are.

[axordil]

Whenever the implications of a society drawing a line are going to be massive, it is imperative that that line be drawn solely through consensus. If consensus is impossible, wait till it is. Even if it takes generations.

If you start with a bogus premise, you can justify anything. The 20th century demonstrated that to the tune of hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths. Thus the question really is, how can we determine which premises are bogus and which are valid, in advance of the results, which are the ultimate test of validity?

The options are, pick one of the premises promulgated as part of the Truth by one of the various incompatible factions out there, or pick one that a sufficient number of people can live with that does NOT depend on any of those factional Truths. In a modern pluralist society, the latter is certainly the lesser of two uncomfortable choices. If someone feels they can't compromise, well, they can feel that way. 100% approval is not a requirement for enforceable law. Eventually, and again, it may take generations, enough of society will move on.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court.

The court heard arguments today in one of the most important cases on its docket this term: the case regarding Congress' ban on so-called "Partial Birth Abortions". In 2000, the court struck down a very similar Nebraska ban in a 5-4 decision, with Justice O-Connor providing the swing vote. Since Justice Kennedy wrote a very strong dissent in that case, most observers expect that it is likely that the new law will be upheld, with it being highly likely that the new new justices will vote to uphold the law. Alito was apparently silent throughout the arguments (and Thomas didn't even show up), but there was this one interesting reported exchanged involving Chief Justice Roberts:

"We have no evidence in the record" as to how often such a situation arises? Roberts asked.

"No, your honor," replied attorney Priscilla Smith, who argued for striking down the federal law.

This is potentially significant because Congress made "findings" that these abortions are never medically necessary, which is strongly disputed but most medical experts. This could be a sign that Roberts is willing to question these Congressional findings.

But I doubt it.

And, no big surprise, the court upheld Congress' ban on the so-called partial birth abortions, essentially reversing the 2000 decision authored by Justice O'Connor. Justice Kennedy not only provided the swing vote, he wrote the majority opinion, echoing his scathing dissent in the 2000 case. This is the first time since Roe v. Wade that the court has upheld a ban on abortions that did not include a specific provision protecting the health of the mother. I don't think that it is a sign that Kennedy is prepared to overturn Roe, but it certainly represents a significant "chipping away" (as Justice Ginsberg put it in her dissenting opinion) of the right to choose to have an abortion.

Reading through some of this thread again, I just want to comment on what a wide-ranging, excellent and amazingly civil discussion this has been on this most difficult of subjects.

[baby tuckoo]

Reading through some of this thread again, I just want to comment on what a wide-ranging, excellent and amazingly civil discussion this has been on this most difficult of subjects.

Except for my post back on page 26. What a pompous ass I am.


Once I grow up, I'll never do such a thing.

[Cerin]

There's to be a benefit concert for a children's hospital here, and the local Bishop (I think it was) is asking Catholics to boycott it because Sheryl Crowe is performing and is pro-choice and pro-stem cell research.

This makes no sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else? Dirty money? But it isn't Sheryl Crowe's money, she's just helping to get money to help sick children. Dirty by association?

[Impenitent]

During a visit to Brazil, the pope stated that Catholic politicians who legalise abortion excommunicate themselves from the Church:

BEGINNING his first papal pilgrimage to South America, Pope Benedict has issued a strong condemnation of abortion and immediately ignited a firestorm by suggesting Catholic politicians who legalise it have excommunicated themselves from the church...<snip>..."The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the code [of canon law]. It is based simply on the principle that the killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with being in communion with the body of Christ. Thus, they [the bishops] didn't do anything new or anything surprising, or arbitrary."

Full story here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pope-i ... 71122.html

So...Catholic politicians who contravene canon law in conducting their civic role should be denied communion?

How about Catholic doctors who perform abortion?

How about Catholic women who undergo the procedure?

Does this extend beyond abortion to other contraventions of canon law? To what extent? Murder? Catholics convicted of murder (or homicide, the taking of life), rape, theft? Where would the line be drawn? What is a 'sin' which can be repented of and forgiven, and what is a 'sin' which deserves excommunication from the body of the church?

What are your thoughts?

Forgive me if I'm sounding brusque. If you could ignore any 'tone' (I'm feeling strongly about this) and address your thoughts to the objective issue I would be grateful.

I'll come back when I've had some time to reflect further and re-read what I wrote and tone it down if I can find the language.

Thank you.

[Faramond]

A Catholic convicted of murder who repented of the sin and sought forgiveness would not be denied communion, I suspect.

A politician who supports Abortion rights is not seeking forgiveness for a sin. In the eyes of the church, there has been a grave sin and no repentence, hence the excommunication.

I'm not saying it's right, but there's a clear distinction between the two cases. The key is some measure of repentence. Since the church doesn't seem to distinguish between religious duty and spiritual duty, a politician who doesn't want to make abortion illegal is deemed to be in open defiance of God's law, in a state of actively not seeking forgiveness for "promoting" abortion.

It's the insistence that religious duty supercede civil duty at all times that makes this an issue.

[Impenitent]

It's the insistence that religious duty supercede civil duty at all times that makes this an issue.

Yes, I agree (and Faramond, I think I was editing my post to tone it down while you posted). My difficulty is in the insistence that our civic leaders must coerce all those in the society over which they govern to abide by the religious conscience of their politicians rather than their own.

I believe this is related to the discussion in the "would you vote for a Mormon for president" thread.

[Faramond]

The Catholic Church is sticking its nose into civil affairs, where it has no business. I got into an argument, or a friendly discussion, if you will, with Jn and Cerin about this on Torc once, where they took a much more hardline approach than I did back when some bishop wanted to deny Kerry communion during the 2004 campaign. But I do think this is a real problem, the attempt to let in theocracy through the back door.

[solicitr]

Cards on the table first: I'm mostly pro-choice ('mostly' because I disagree with killing the kid minutes before the contractions start).

But abortion-rights supporters had better wake up to what's going to be a very, very relevant fact in coming terms of the Supreme Court: Blackmun's Roe opinion, viewed as a piece of legal reasoning and Constitutional exegesis, is arrant crap. It's a wretchedly drafted opinion, and therein lies the Achilles heel of the pro-choice side: more and more judges are admitting that it is. No matter how much Blackmun twisted and turned around trimesters and viability,* he never could disguise the fact that the Constitution says not one word about how to define human life (and that of course is the key issue: privacy only kicks in once you've decided that there's only one human being involved).

The slender reed upon which Roe hangs is the principle of stare decisis, the doctrine that what happens in the Court, stays in the Court. (Sorry ). Once an issue has been decided, it stays decided. But different Justices attach different weight to S.D., and vary considerably as to how long a decision has to hang around to become a permanent part of the legal framework. Clarence Thomas, bombthrower that he is, rejects it utterly, asserting that a rotten decision remains rotten, no matter how long it ages (and you gotta admit, some stinkers like Korematsu keep scoring ever lower on the smell test as time goes by).

*For law geeks- Blackmun spent a whole off-term at the Mayo Clinic studying up on prenatal development, which I suppose gets him a gold star for effort: but his use of it in his opinion violates the First Rule of Appellate Law- you don't argue facts.

[Cerin]

I didn't realize 'til reading this article that 'anti-abortion' meant anti-contraception as well.

The quiet campaign against birth control
By Cristina Page

At National Right to Life's conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders he was their candidate. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To a layman's ears, it sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports teaching only abstinence to teens.
But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one.

One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions." In fact, he told the crowd, he already had some practice redefining contraception: "I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent."

No matter that emergency contraception has the same mode of action as the birth control pill and every other hormonal method of birth control. To the anti-abortion movement, contraception is the ultimate corruptor. And so this year, the unspoken rule for candidates seeking the support of anti-abortion groups is that they must offer proof they're anti-contraception too.

Unannounced candidate and former Sen. Fred Thompson at first denied he had been a lobbyist for the contraception advocacy group the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. Until billing records materialized proving he worked for the group, he somehow had "no recollection of it."

Presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, beefed up his anti-contraception resume by co-sponsoring a bill to de-fund the nation's largest contraception provider, Planned Parenthood, by excluding it from Title X family planning for the poor. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.

Another presidential candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo, like Mr. Romney, has ventured far into the "contraception-is-abortion" territory. According to Mr. Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, emergency contraception "cheapens human life and simply uses a woman's body to dispose of the child instead of a doctor." By the same logic, so do the birth control pill, the contraceptive patch, the IUD, the NuvaRing, and the Depo-Provera shot - which, it's worth noting, together account for 40 percent of the birth control American women use.

The American public is unaware of the new wave of anti-contraception activism by opponents of abortion, which makes it much easier for politicians to appease the anti-contraception base. Take, for example, President Bush. While he has delivered some big anti-abortion victories for the religious right in the last seven years (Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., and the so-called partial-birth abortion ban), anti-contraception work has taken up more of his energy. He attempted to strip contraceptive coverage for federal employees; appointed anti-birth control leader David Hager to the FDA panel that approves and expands access to contraceptive methods; chose another contraception opponent to oversee the nation's contraceptive program for the poor; defunded international family-planning programs, and invested unprecedented sums into sex-ed programs that prohibit mention of contraception.

For now, the candidates vying for the Right to Life endorsement are doing their best to avoid directly answering mainstream voters' simple questions on the subject, such as, "Do you support couples having access to safe and effective birth control options, including emergency contraception?" Considering that even 80 percent of self-described "pro-life" voters and a majority of Republican voters strongly support contraception, it's no wonder why.

link

[Impenitent]

How much of that is rhetoric for the purposes of getting endorsement? How many serious contenders support this position? I don't know what the numbers are for these lobby groups - just how powerful are they and how much support do they have? Is that support growing? Or is it likely they will remain a very vocal minority?

In Australia, there has been some good news. The premier of Victoria has announced his intention to decriminalise abortion - and the opposition has cautiously suggested it would support the change.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Prim, on Roe v. Wade.

It's intersting that among the regular posters here there are three lawyers; all three of us are pro-choice; and yet all three of us are more or less agreed that from a jurisprudential standpoint Roe was a very bad decision. It doesn't matter how ardently you may believe in a perceived right, you can't just have judges write it into the Constitution. Sooner or later Roe will go down, and put this very divisive issue back before the elected branches.

There are lots of good reasons for liberals (and libertarians and a certain sort of conservative) to get upset about what conservative jurists might do, but Roe shouldn't be one of them. It's ultimately a lost cause.

I need to clarify that despite agreeing that Blackman's reasoning in Roe is fairly tortured, I do not believe that it should or need be overturned. I don't think that anyone questions the validity of the Griswold decision establishing a constitutional right of privacy, despite the fact that there is no specific language to that affect in the U.S. Constitution. I do think that that right can be extended to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion in certain (but not all) circumstances; I just don't think that Blackman did a very good job of doing so. I'm hoping that some day a future justice will be able to establish a more solid precedent.

I'm betting on Justice Nerdanel.

edited to fix a silly mistake

[solicitr]

The problem with applying Griswold, Vor, is that you only get there by deciding first that only one person is involved. Myself I agree that only one person is involved (up until some very late stage); but the Constitution, dammit, is absolutely silent on the matter. (See my old long post above).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There's a lot of things that the constitution is silent on that have been filled in over the years (for good and for evil, depending on your point of view). I agree that it is a tricky one.

[solicitr]

Sure, but most of them derive as pretty natural first-order functions of the text: for instance, the Exclusionary Rule flows naturally as about the only meaningful way to give force and effect to Amds. 4 and 5. But from where within the four corners do you begin to deduce what is and is not a person?

[axordil]

English Common Law? It's from that the notion that somewhere between conception and birth a fetus acquires some rights really comes, I think. Traditionally it was quickening, of course, but the central tenet seems to me to be that there are different legal stages involved: unprotected, protected, and born.