Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If it were a matter of turning back the clock, you'd have a point. I really don't think we live in the same world, though. Since 1973, women have gotten a lot more uppity about these things. They're also having a lot more premarital sex. (YMMV.) Hippies aside, I think you're going to find that a lot of people who've lived their entire lives with this as a "right" are going to behave differently from women in the 1950s and 1960s.
We also live in a world in which both sides of the debate have mobilized their respective forces to care A LOT about what happens to women/babies they've never met.
|
OK, so its 2003. 1000 times more divisive though? 20 times? 2 times? 1 times? Sounds like a big guess. I note that part of your argument is based on how much people already care, i.e., how divisive it is already. How again do we disagree more once the federal question is settled (and yeah, its settled per the Sup. Ct.). My guess is that your guess is wrong and people will accept the judgement of their neighbors or, if its important enough, move somewhere where the neighbors are more to their liking.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You're mistaking your beliefs for your average conservative voter's. (This is the "I'm not a wingnut, but 80% of my voting base is" problem for GOP spokespeople.) I have yet to see a bumper sticker that says "Abortion is a matter best left to the individual states, who could go either way on it as a matter of federalism."
|
And yet, with your powers of persuasion, I'd bet that you could get 99% of "pro-lifers" to say that the bible and the 10 commandments and every other book to not quote God as saying no to abortion. The problem for most is that He didn't say yes to it either. In that regard, I'm pretty sure my "beliefs" are consistent with those of 99% of the people on either side of the debate including il Papa. You think I'm misrepresenting my people? Ask them. If they try making up a biblical quote, my guess is its not one that says "don't do abortions".
Too easy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You seriously think that voters in Missouri and Virginia who've been whipped into a frenzy about baby-killing --- so much so that the GOP administration has banned abortions in overseas federal hospitals, far away from Missouri and Virginia --- will think that it's okay that American babies are being slaughtered in California, Massachusetts, and New York? Once you define a fetus as a baby, you're really not going to stop at closing the clinics within arm's reach.
|
Uhm, assuming that some states define fetuses as babies (human life for the purpose of murder), I'm not sure that Missouri and Virginia will carry the day. I mean, its one thing for me (and absofrigginlutely ME) to say don't spend one dollar in my name on all/99%/most of this stuff. Its another for Missouri to tell California not to spend one dollar in California's name on this stuff. Thus, the analogy is stretched.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
And yes, I see constant debates in Congress over conditioning everything from public health money to military bases around whether some states allow abortion or not. Everyone will carry around a little list so they can know who's good and who's evil. Ashcroft has not proven himself a very good federalist when it comes to states that run afoul of Biblical prophecy policy.
|
If its saying federal money can't be spent on abortions, than yes, I'm all in favor. 100%.
You see debates over where to spend money on "whether some states allow abortion or not". Uhm, are there states that don't allow abortion? Woo hoo, I got what I wanted, no need for things to change then. What are you talking about?
And yes, Ashcroft is an asshole.
But horsetrading? What does California get in return for giving up abortion, a waiver on its taxes or something?
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The other areas of regulation of the medical profession tend to involve things that huge swaths of people agree are wrong, not areas where people legitimately disagree, but 51% can agree on legislation.
Let's look at a state where it's 65% pro-life and 35% pro-choice. Pick a jury in the murder trial of a doctor and a patient. Either you disqualify all prospective jurors who don't believe it's a crime, or you never get a conviction. Get the conviction in front of the right federal judge, and the prosecutor's wasted everybody's time. Even if you eliminate all jury nullification, aren't there some state court judges out there that won't sentence a woman to five, ten, or life over an abortion? Will judges have to run on a hard-abortion/soft-abortion ticket, depending on their jurisdiction (think Research Triangle, N.C.)?
Well, that's okay. Just pull the doctor's ticket, right? But do you pull it for making a referral to an out-of-state clinic? Or advising women this is an available option?
In short, a post-Roe world is a bit messier than abortion opponents are willing to let on.
|
Regulating doctors is an interesting question, but not the topic I was really asking about. I would like a specific scenario for your doomsday thoughts.
FWIW, I think other parts of the constitution would cover the doctor's ability to advise women of opportunities etc.... I don't have a problem with state court judges exercising their discretion, at least not as long as they face the electorate directly or indirectly.
As for your murder trial example, I think you still have the problem we started with. How is there any solid basis for declaring it a murder? I'd bet you (yes YOU Atticus) could beat 99% of the pro-lifers in that biblical argument. Leaving the prosecutor with .65%, i.e., (.01 x 65), of the population as prospective jurors.
But again, the real question is, what is the doomsday scenario? Is there a specific horse-trading scenario that has Missourians telling Californians what they can't do with their own money?
If so, how, and how do we see this as even a credible possibility?
Hello
