I ran across a powerful James E. Faust (a pro-life democrat) talk tonight that I wanted to share on the subject. He told a story about Mother Teresa, a deserving Peace Prize winner, that touched me. Here is a snippet from the 1995 talk, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil"
"Abortion is one evil practice that has become socially accepted in the United States and, indeed, in much of the world. Many of today’s politicians claim not to favor abortion but oppose government intervention in a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
During a prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C., on 3 February 1994, Mother Teresa gave the most honest and powerful proclamation of truth on this subject I have ever heard. She is the 84-year-old Yugoslavian nun who has cared for the poorest of the poor in India for years. She is now aged .and physically frail, but courageous, with immense spiritual strength. Mother Teresa delivered a message that cut to the very heart and soul of the social ills afflicting America, which traditionally has given generously to the peoples of the earth but now has become selfish. She stated that the greatest proof of that selfishness is abortion. It was reported that Mother Teresa had tied abortion to growing violence and murder in the streets by saying, 'If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.'
Then she alluded to the concern that has been shown for orphan children in India and elsewhere in the world, for which she expressed gratitude. But she continued: 'These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today—abortion, which brings people to such blindness.' Commenting on this powerful message, columnist Cal Thomas asked: 'Why should people or nations regard human life as noble or dignified if abortion flourishes? Why agonize about indiscriminate death in Bosnia when babies are being killed far more efficiently and out of the sight of television cameras?'
In conclusion Mother Teresa pled for pregnant women who don’t want their children to give them to her. She said, 'I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child.' What consummate spiritual courage this remarkable aged woman demonstrated! How the devil must have been offended! Her remarkable declaration, however, was not generally picked up by the press or the editorial writers. Perhaps they felt more comfortable being politically or socially correct. After all, they can justify their stance by asserting that everyone does it or that it is legal. Fortunately, the scriptures and the message of the prophets cannot be so revised."
It is hard to discard Mother Teresa's moving message after an endorsement like this from a modern day prophet: "the most honest and powerful proclamation of truth on this subject I have ever heard." It is sad to see today's politicians use their own deep beliefs on the subject as mere bargaining chips to pass the health care legislation. It's even worse to see them using the deep beliefs of their constituents on the subject as bargaining chips to pass the health care legislation.
What grade would you give President Obama and the Congress on protecting the lives of the unborn? Any other thoughts about abortion?
34 comments:
Abortion is a make-or-break issue for me, an issue that can make me disregard all of a candidate's other standpoints.
Regarding a woman's 'right to choose' not being included in the Constitution, don't forget the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
At the same time, however, let's not forget the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law..."
With murderers, we give them lengthy trials, attorneys and numerous appeals before we consider taking their lives. How can we be so careless with the lives of truly innocent people?
This is one of the grossest of sins, and will NOT be taken lightly come judgment day.
This post is perfect. Abortion is one of the grossest examples of America's general disdain for accountability. We want to eat the whole cake and have some left for later. We can't have both. Our actions have consequences attached that we cannot alter whether we want to or not. The consequences of wickedness will never be happiness.
I may have shared this before, but my little brother is adopted. His birth mother was 16 when she got pregnant and he was born with a heart defect. He had to have open heart surgery when he was a few months old. Everyone in my family and everyone who knows him are so happy this girl did not choose to have an abortion. Adoption is clearly the much better choice for any mother who can't raise a child. What's even more troubling to me however is that a large percentage of abortions are done for women who are married. I just can't believe a married couple would choose to end their own child's life out of convenience. Well-deservingly does the title of this post mention selfishness, I can't think of a more selfish thing to do than end your own child's life.
While we all agree that abortion is wrong in almost all cases, what can we even do about it? Unlike Nic, this is not a make or break issue for me. I can still vote for a candidate even if they are pro-choice. There is little to no chance that abortion will ever be made illegal. In my own opinion, the biggest thing we can do to slow abortions down is educating the public on other options. I would rather vote for the candidate who proposed solutions to help stop abortions rather than just saying they oppose them.
I agree - adoption is a much better choice to make than to end the baby's life, especially when there are so many couples out there who cannot conceive one themselves.
I don't like the "no chance that abortion will ever be made illegal" excuse. I don't think Pres. Faust does either: "justify their stance by asserting that ... it is legal. Fortunately, the scriptures and the message of the prophets cannot be so revised." No offense, but in my opinion, that just sounds like a weak cop out. Lots of things are "legal," but that doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and accept it. Let me explain:
The way I see it, the abortion issue is similar to gun control in some respects. The Supreme Court has recognized a woman's right to choose and also the people's right to bear arms. However, these rights are not absolute, and lawmakers are free to place certain restrictions and regulations upon those rights as long as they do not cross a certain line.
A great example of this is the recent health care legislation, where federal funding for insurance plans covering abortion was hotly debated. I applaud the pro-life democrats in the House who refused to vote for the bill unless there was strict language added to it ensuring that no tax dollars would be spent to cover someone's abortion. There are other examples of how a woman's right to choose has been restricted (parental permission requirements, waiting periods, etc).
Now, if a candidate is pro-life, he or she will be more likely to fight for tighter restrictions on a woman's right to choose, lowering the number of abortions. A pro-choice candidate will fight to pass legislation to remove these barriers to abortion, making it easier for women to abort their babies.
The bottom line is that while the Supreme Court may not ever overturn Roe v. Wade completely, it's not as if the right to choose can never be eroded or restricted by pro-life lawmakers. So if voters are passionate about restricting abortions (as we LDS members should be), then why not vote for candidates who are more likely to fight for legislative measures to reduce abortions?
Am I wrong for equating abortion with murder? Does it really make a difference when the fetus is viable - when it is normally capable of living outside of the uterus? Isn't a baby just as dependent on its mother, or some equivalent, to live as a fetus that is not viable? Does murder of a baby constitute less of a crime than murder of a grown man?
If abortion is equivalent to murder shouldn't it always be a make-or-break issue?
Great points, and I think you're right.
The most spiritual baptismal interview I was involved with on my mission was with a woman who had aborted one of her babies when she was younger. Even though I could tell how much emotional and spiritual damage the abortion had done to her, and that her repentance was very contrite and sincere, I still couldn't say yes - I had to set up an interview with the mission president. The fact that the mission president (not just the local district or zone leader) has to pass on whether a woman who has aborted a baby is worthy of baptism and has truly repented tells me that abortion is a VERY serious sin, probably on the same plane as murder.
I also have a close family relative who had an incredibly traumatizing experience with an abortion during his medical training. As a result, he had a complete nervous and mental breakdown, and his wife and his 5 kids completely abandoned him and he hasn't seen or heard from them since. This goes to show that abortion destroys more lives than just the defenseless unborn's.
I can't find any meaningful distinctions between murdering someone outside of the womb and someone inside the womb.
No, abortion is not on the same plane as murder. Consider this, if you are about to have someone baptized, and they admit they had an abortion, all you need is the mission president's ok. If such person admitted to murder, they would have to be ok'd by the first presidency. I saw both cases where someone was granted permission by the first presidency while another was denied permission to be baptized. Consider this as well from LDS.org
As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church:
“As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.”
So abortion is not as serious as murder, for whatever reason. I see your point Devin, and it's a good one, however there are just too many other issues to consider to throw all my weight behind this one issue. That's just my own opinion, and I respect others who may make this an all-or-nothing issue.
Thanks, Creighton for the clip by President McKay and his counselors (I believe you but do you have the source for it so I can read it?)
Perhaps their statement is correct but they did say that "no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion." In addition, they only said that the Lord's silence on the issue "would suggest" that it is not on par with murder. Therefore, the Lord's take on abortion, as far as we know, is silent. Lastly, President Faust more recently stated that "Mother Teresa gave the most honest and powerful proclamation of truth on this subject that I have ever heard." He quoted her saying "If we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?...millions are being killed by their own mothers."
In light of the quote from President McKay and his counselors on abortion I would probably agree it is a sin whose degree is somewhat less than murder and therefore not equivalent. However, it still ranks among the most heinous of sins and for me is a make-or-break issue. Just because it isn't murder doesn't mean it's not really bad.
Devin, I really liked your point on the collateral damage of abortions which is so often overlooked in the whole debate.
My guess is that abortion is worse than adultery but not as bad as murder. This is my complete, unsupported by doctrine guess, but it would seem unfair to me if the spirit that would have inhabited the aborted baby's body did not get a chance at at least something of a mortal existence. So killing someone who has already lived some of their life vs. killing the potential for life is a little worse. That's just my guess though. I can't say for sure if when the spirit enters the body. I'd be interested to know what your guys' opinion might be concerning why abortion isn't on the same level as murder. The link to the quote is below.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=29a518e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
So could we all agree that abortion is not your typical, run-of-the mill sin, but one that is extremely serious? That's the bottom line I've taken from this helpful, respectful discussion.
I see where you're coming from Creighton and I understand why you're not ready to "throw all your weight" behind this one issue. Tell me if I'm close :)
You've probably never voted (except Gov. Huntsman) for a politician who wasn't pro-choice in your short voting career. But that doesn't mean that you're pro-choice. You vote for them for other standard partisan reasons. So in that regard, you're kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. For you, it probably feels like a "lesser of two evils" type of choice. I would hope, however, that if you were faced with the decision between a pro-choice democrat and a pro-life democrat, that you would choose the latter. Am I right?
And thank you for educating me about the church's stance. If you'll notice, I didn't want to come out in my earlier comment and definitively say that abortion = murder because I wasn't sure. I just said that I couldn't find any meaningful distinctions between the two. But if the church does distinguish (first pres. for murder vs. mission pres. for abortion), then that's good enough for me. And like you, I'm not sure why - "for whatever reason." All the church literature I've read on the subject tells me that abortion is a very big deal for the Lord.
In the end, I'd echo what Matt said. "Just because it isn't murder doesn't mean it's not really bad." All I know is that abortion is very serious, and I'm grateful that there are politicians out there that feel the same way I do about that issue. It's a bonus for me if I agree with them about their stances on other issues as well.
I would vote for a pro-life democrat over a pro-choice democrat for a number of reasons. Not only would he be against abortion, but he would also probably be more moderate on a lot of other issues as well. I'm not as liberal as I used to be, so candidates who are more in the middle, like governor huntsman was, definitely have more appeal. I'll probably vote for more (R) this next go around, specifically sen. Hatch for taking the fight to the bcs, and sen. Bennett because of my old comp, devin's service, and I don't think he's outrageously to the right.
As for abortion it's serious enough you can lose your church membership if you support, pay for, or encourage abortion in any way. I certainly don't want to be found in that spot. There are a couple things legislatively that definitely concern me. One would be forcing me, as a physician, to perform an abortion. The other would be forcing me, through healthcare legislation, to pay for other's abortion. Offering that option through private health plans is one thing, but using taxpayer dollars to fund it is another. So I too was happy to hear that there were lawmakers on the (D) side who stood up for that. That's also part of the reason I hope more (R) are voted into the house and senate come November. One party control of it all is never good, no matter what party it is.
I also did not mean for my previous comment to be sexist. It could also be a she instead of a he.
Here's what I can personally do to change the Roe v. Wade situation, besides Devin's great suggestions.
1. I can vote for and support candidates for president who is likely to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and appellate and district judges (to improve the pool for future SC justices) who will interpret the constitution instead of redrafting it. It does not matter whether the appointment is of a democrat or republican or someone who is politically liberal or conservative. What counts is their judicial philosophy.
2. I can vote for and support candidates for the U.S. Senate who will confirm those judicial appointments and will not confirm judicial appointments who have demonstrated a willingness to make law.
3. I can vote for and support candidates for the U.S. House and the Utah legislature, who will sponsor/advance efforts to amend the constitution to strike down Roe v. Wade.
4. I can try to persuade others to do 1, 2, and 3.
Amen to both Creighton and Chris's last comments. My dad and I were talking the other night about Roe v. Wade and one huge problem with the decision is that it changed the law for the entire country, where something like abortion should be left to the individual states (laboratories of democracy) to decide whether they want to legalize abortion. Once Roe v. Wade was decided, just about the only hope of getting it overturned now is by constitutional amendment, which is very difficult.
Devin, I'm too lazy to figure this out but what is the make-up of the current court and the possibility of getting it overturned? I know Thomas and Scalia are on board for such an action but what about Roberts (I'm guessing yes) and Alito? Kennedy doesn't seem likely after Planned Parenthood v. Casey but there is always the hope right.
My personal opinion is that precedent, while it is very important for the court, would not prevent it from overturning Roe if the right people were on the bench. We need some things to come together at the right time but I think it's not unreasonable to think it could happen. This is a huge reason why we should support candidates both Congressional and Presidential who are pro-life. If pro-lifers make up enough of Congress and we have a pro-life president during an opening in the Supreme Court we are in business.
It seems like it would be easier to get 5 votes on the bench than go through the process of constitutional amendment.
That point about bypassing the legislative process and going to the court would make an interesting post. We are seeing more and more political minorities who have no shot at winning over the electorate bypass it altogether and go to courts - it's much easier.
Here is my problem with overturning Roe v. Wade.
1. Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established"
2. By voting in politicians who will appoint only those judges that are known to be supportive of a certain political stance, you are in essence politicizing (don't know if that's a word or not) the supreme court. The supreme court was never meant to be politicized, and to do so would be unwise in my opinion.
3. What if the stars (pun intended) aligned, and Roe v. Wade was turned over? Would abortion be legal or illegal? If it was illegal would it be illegal in all cases? Who would decide that? Say if it were legal in some cases (rape, incest, health of the mother) how do you determine whether or not a case of pregnancy was actually rape or not? Say if a 20 year old woman had consensual sex and got pregnant, then went to get an abortion only to learn abortion=illegal except...aha...in case of rape, what is to stop that person of accusing her consensual partner of rape? Ethics? Arguably her sense of ethics would be a little skewed. I just don't see it being practical. Abortion being legal is more than likely going to stay that way. There are other, more practical ways to lower the rates of abortion that we ought to support.
We can argue all we want about how the supreme court justices overstepped their bounds when they legislated from the bench allowing women the right to abort. But here is my real question in response to Chris's post about voting for politicians who will appoint justices that will not practice judicial activism. How do we know such candidate will appoint this type of justice? For example, here are the justices from Roe v. Wade:
Renquist - D (appointed by Nixon - Rep)
Powell - M (appointed by Nixon - Rep)
Blackmun - M (appointed by Nixon - Rep)
White - D (appointed by Kennedy - Dem)
Burger - M (appointed by Nixon - Rep)
Brennan - M (appointed by Eisenhower - Rep)
Douglas - M (appointed by FDR - Dem)
Stewart - M (appointed by Eisenhower - Rep)
Marshall - M (appointed by Johnson - Dem)
(M stands for majority while D stands for Dissent)
These republican presidents appointed judges who apparently interpreted the constitution differently than you or I would. How could we have known that beforehand? This just gets to be very messy, and very hard to say "I will vote for so-and-so because I truly believe he will appoint justices that will interpret the constitution the same way I do." For me, it just does not sound very possible, no offense intended.
I failed to realize until just reading about it that the hypothetical situation I offered is the actual situation that led to Roe v. Wade.
Yeah, you've got 4 that would probably do it in Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. The 4 that would say no would be Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor. You never know with Kennedy, but I think you're right. I wouldn't hold my breath with him after the Casey case.
And while it's easier to bypass the legislature and head straight for the courts to persuade them to make the law, this is a scary trend in the legal landscape that should be firmly rejected, something Judge Bork calls "heresy." Consider:
"This belief, widely held and propogated in the law schools and even by some Justices of the Supreme Court, that judges may create new principles or destroy old ones, alters the priniciples actually to be found in the Constitution. Courts then not only share the legislative power of Congress and the state legislatures, in violation both of the separation of powers and of federalism, but assume a legislative power that is actually superior to that of any legislature.
The innovations are announced in the name of the Constitution - though they have little or nothing to do with it - and are therefore intended to be, and are accepted as, final. Courts have behaved this way on occasion throughout our history, but never so often as in the modern era; what is more ominous, never before has such behavior been so popular in the law schools, in the press, and in the opinions of elite groups generally. Heresy sometimes becomes so pervasive that it becomes the new orthodoxy."
That is from "The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law." It's a great read, and it's all about the problems with the very phenomenon you mentioned in your comment.
Creighton, all great points.
1) I don't like the idea of the court flip-flopping back and forth on decisions, it leaves no stability. But they have done it in the past and will continue to do it. On something this big I think they got it wrong the first time and should fix it. Just as the Court was wrong in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous case holding that slaves were property not citizens, they got it wrong in Roe.
2) You raise a good point with your second argument. However, you wouldn't need to seek judges with a pro-life history just seek judges like Scalia who interpret the Constitution by its text and original meaning. Scalia's mode of constitutional analysis often leads him into making decisions he personally disagrees with but feels it is what the constitution dictates.
3) If Roe was overturned it would leave it up to the people, either directly or through their elected leaders, to decide the legality of abortion. The constitution leaves to States the power to decide issues of morality. It would become a state issue just as gay marriage is at this time. Some states would likely legalize it and probably the majority of states would make it illegal.
As for knowing whether the candidate will appoint that kind of a judge we can't. We just have to hope at that point having done all that lies in our power as voters.
Per usual I have a few points I'd like to throw into the mix here:
Point #1: I don't see how you can believe--despite the Church's neutrality--that abortion isn't on the same general level as murder unless you definitively believe that life doesn't begin until conception. How could it be any different, substantively, if there really is a human life (spirit in a body) and another person takes action with direct intention of ending that life. That's the very definitin of murder, is it not?
Am I disagreeing with the aforementioned statement of neutrality by the Church? No, I just think some are confusing a difference of degree with a difference of substance. Due to all the complications Creighton mentioned I think that God recognizes abortion as a much less offensive than straight-up murder, but if life begins before conception, then it still has to be murder or something akin to it like manslaughter (still only a difference of degree, not substance).
Ponit #2: Creighton I know we've hashed out this re-incarnation argument of yours before, but there's one thing I still don't understand: why doesn't the "fairness" apply to everyone? In other words, you're saying that it isn't fair ONLY for unborn persons to be denied mortal life due to the actions of another, e.g. abortion, yet (apparently) this "fairness" doesn't apply to any other run-of-the-mill murder victim?
Why not, though? I don't see how that's fair to people who get murdered who happen to be born...to me your idea of fairness isn't very fair, because the whole point of fairness is that it applies equally to everyone without "regard to persons" to quote scripture. If your standard applied to everyone, why wouldn't the Lord be equally obligated to give a "life refund" (as it were) to EVERY murder victim? They're deprived of life in precisely the same way an aborted "fetus" is, just not to the same degree, so why do you think there is such a firm distinction at birth which entitles some (let's say) "refunded life" but not others? In the very least I think you should use a different word, because your theory hinges on the exact opposite of fairness: arbitrariness.
But here's the problem: if God really was fair about it, then this recompense wouldn't just apply to the unborn but to every single murder victim as well. But if that were the case, then murder doesn't look so bad all of a sudden, right? If mothers who abort their children are off the hook BECAUSE God undoes the damage, then Adolf Hitler would also be in the clear because not a single holocaust victim would ultimately be deprived of life.
But why stop at murder, when you think about it? Why doesn't God simply undo EVERYTHING wrong about life? C.S. Lewis addressed this avenue of thought, describing a world where a wooden beam turns to flowers as one man tries to use it to hit another. The problem is that life basically loses all meaning: if our actions don't have real consequences because God steps in at the last second, then any concept of ethical responsibility goes out with the bath water, so-to-speak. Though I know it's tempting to concede this point but hold onto certain extreme exemptions like abortion, but the problem remains wherever you want to keep this notion.
Here's the bottom line: though obviously certain mitigating factors must be taken into account, that doesn't change the fact that ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM, like it or not, EVEN IF God makes it all better for the victim.
Point #3: though I adamantly agree that all every political avenue to undo Roe should be vehemently pursued, I also think that science could or at least should have a very important role. As I alluded to earlier, the bread-and-butter of the pro-choice position emphasizes the uncertainty of when life begins. Roe v. Wade was only possible, in other words, because science has not yet proven that life begins at conception or at some point before birth, thus it can't scientifically or legally be considered murder. Thus I think part of the struggle, and perhaps the most important part at that, should involve funding scientific research with the potential of PROVING that life begins before birth. If it could be done, it would strike the final blow that would automatically undo Roe v. Wade irrespective of the makeup of the Supreme Court (unless they'd be willing to constitutionally protect murder...).
Huh??? I don't get it. You're pro life, but it seems that you have problems with Roe being overturned? That doesn't seem to add up to me.
1. Stare decisis - everyone trumpets stare decisis when the Court has done something they like, but they seem to ignore it when they lobby for an activist bench to change a past precedent they don't like. Conservative and liberal judges are both guilty of this behavior. Everyone cherry picks when it comes to stare decisis, so that's a pretty lousy defense of Roe v. Wade.
2. I totally agree with you that the bench should not be politicized. My dad does too. "It does not matter whether the appointment is of a democrat or republican or someone who is politically liberal or conservative. What counts is their judicial philosophy." The sad reality is that it ALREADY is very politicized. Ask Judge Bork, Clarence Thomas, Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito, and the others who were put through the political ringer in the Senate before either being rejected (Bork) or confirmed.
3. You're right about not being able to be 100% sure what kinds of judges they will turn out to be after a presidential nomination, so it's a risk you take, but presidents appoint many lower federal district and appellate judges besides those on the S.C. More often than not, the majority of those appointments share the same judicial philosophy as the pres. who appointed him. I think you highlight the exception(s), not the general rule.
4. As I alluded to earlier, the proper branch of government to answer all of your questions implicated in your hypothetical would be each individual state legislature. The lawmakers, unlike federal judges, are democratically elected and accountable to their constitutuents. They make the laws and the judiciary branch is meant to merely interpret them, not make up new ones.
To borrow another line from Bork to illustrate, "If judges are, as they must be to perform their vital role, unelected, unaccountable, and unrepresentative, who is to protect us from the power of judges? How are we to be guarded from our guardians? The answer can only be that judges must consider themselves bound by law that is independent of their own views of the desirable. They must not make or apply any policy not fairly to be found in the Constitution or a statute."
Jeff, it depends on your definition of when life begins. I DO NOT believe in reincarnation. Nor do I follow your exaggerated series of events of what God would do if life were fair. What I am saying is that I highly doubt a spirit ever inhabits an aborted fetus's body. Now I admit I have no doctrinal foundation for that belief, just my own personal opinion. I think a main purpose of this life is to gain a body, and how can a spirit gain a body if there isn't one to gain? It doesn't add up for me. I also do not believe abortion to be considered murder. You can believe it if you want to, but I do not. I think it is a sin, I think it is horrible, regretful, and very serious, but I would not call a mother who aborted her child a murderer.
As far as Roe v. Wade is concerned, there's just no way I can see it being turned over. That being said, you guys are the law school guys, not me. So if you say it can happen, well I'd believe you a lot more than me. I still think that even if you did turn it over to the states, some would make it totally legal, some would make it partially legal, and I highly doubt any state would make it completely illegal in all cases. For the states that would make it partially legal, I still think it would be hard to ensure the legal abortions were legitimate. Plus wouldn't someone just travel to a state where it was legal so they could have an abortion?
Well I have to say that I'm a lot more satisfied with your answer this time (even if I still don't agree), so good job. Now I think we're closer to getting at the heart of the issue.
If I were you, though, I would put more emphasis on your belief that life doesn't begin before birth (since the spirit hasn't entered the body yet), because that DOES make a substantive difference. If life hasn't even begun yet, then OF COURSE abortion isn't murder.
What I don't get, though, is why abortion is even a sin at all if you're right about that? Despite depriving themselves of the opportunity to have another child, I wouldn't see anything explicitly wrong or sinful about destroying a lifeless fetus, though I appreciate your concession for those of us who aren't convinced that life doesn't begin before birth if it is purely for our benefit.
I guess for me it ALL hinges on the issue of when life begins: if before birth then it most definitely is comparable to murder, but if it doesn't then it isn't. Granted other issues like the potential of life and selfishness and responsibility would still be at play, so it wouldn't be totally justifiable, but when life begins is the fundamental issue in my mind.
What I do like, though, is your answer about gaining a body as the main purpose of life, because that does provide a solid distinction at birth between aborted fetuses and murder victims. Though I have to admit I'm still a little uneasy about it, I do see where you're coming from: though God does have to let people do bad things to each other as part of His plan, that doesn't mean He has to allow one person to completely ruin it for someone else, and I respect that.
It's hard to define life. Do we define life as the potenial for life? is it right at fertilization? Is it when the heart begins to beat? Is it when the brain is fully developed? Is it when the spirit enters the body? I don't know.
Going back to what would happen if Roe were to be overturned. I like Matt's analogy to gay marriage. Some states would totally allow abortion (the coastal blue states), other states would only allow it in cases of rape, incest, and the mother's life is in danger (probably Utah & the heartland red states), and others would be somewhere in between, allowing abortions, but placing substantial roadblocks to the procedure. I seriously doubt any state would completely ban abortions, no matter what.
Women desiring an easy abortion would either have to travel to a state that allows easy access to abortions or comply with the state law of the state in which she lives. If she doesn't want to face that music, an overturned Roe decision would force women to be more careful in their sex lives.
Heaven forbid a change in the law that promotes greater responsibility and accountability for one's actions!
One thing I wanted to ask you law school political junkies; trying to figure out why the supreme court justices of Roe v. Wade decided the way they did. I have heard that republicans of that era were more like libretarians are today, that the government should stay out of the people's business? Why did these mainly (R) appointed judges rule the way they did? I have read a little bit of the majority opinion and I really don't think it's that good.
Based on reading about the lead-up to Roe in a book called "The Brethren" (great read by the way), what made it possible was a great deal of back-room persuading and even straight-up vote trading (i.e. I'll vote for this decision I don't agree with if you'll vote for another one I want to win), with Justice Brennan taking the charge by using literally any means necessary to advance his unconstitutional (activist) agenda.
Another big part of it, though, was due to the unintended creation of the precedent of a doctrine called the "right to privacy" (Griswold v. Connecticut is the most famous of these, which involved an ridiculous and largely un-enforced law against contraception) that began in a single footnote in a majority opinion written by Brennan which he didn't warn his colleagues about. Over time, the precedent grew firmer and firmer, until finally it was solid enough to cover abortion (they explicitly waited until they knew it before they voted on it).
Bottom line: most of those Republican-appointed Justices you mentioned were totally blind-sided, tricked, and coerced into voting for an opinion they didn't really agree with. By the time Blackmun got around to writing the opinion, it didn't really matter how he said it because enough of the opposing Justices had unwittingly backed themselves into a corner.
Man, just think of how much better off we'd be if the real Brethren were leading this country.
There are plenty of cases where a justice appears to change their spots once on the Supreme Court over a long period of time. Part of this is due to an inability to read how a lower court judge would rule if freed from the oversight of higher courts and ruling on a "case of first impression."
Devin, I heard Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings and, although he could not say so directly, I am under the impression that he would say stare decisis has cemented Roe v. Wade into law that could not be simply reversed at this time. There were four elements, he knew them by heart, and that's what I would guess.
If a candidate for judicial office is true to a judicial philosophy of interpretation, it shouldn't even matter whether their personal philosophy is pro life or pro choice, let alone R or D.
How far does the doctrine of stare decisis extend? If a former decision was, according to contemporary standards, clearly wrong should stare decisis still control the court?
This is going back a bit, but I have a few comments on precedent: I think it's a tad disingenuous to single out "republican" or "originalist" justices for not respecting precedent, when on average most "activist" (i.e. non-originalist) judges have far less respect for precedent they don't like. I know this souds like a "tu quo que" (but you do it, too!) fallacy, but there's a larger point here. As it stands, stare decisis is virtually meaningless in constitutional law, aside from being a misleading buzz-word dissenters use to complain about opinions they don't like.
The brutal reality is this: the strength and duration of stare decisis depends almost entirely on whether the judges agree with the precedent, and again I'm mainly talking about activists on both political sides (originalists typically try to follow precedents as much as possible, especially when they don't like it).
But there's also another important factor to consider: the solidity of a precedent isn't merely determined by the amount of time it has existed, but more importantly to what extent it has been accepted by the public at large. The precedent established in Brown v. Board of Education, for example, is powerful not just because it has been around for over 50 years, but because Americans (by-and-large) have since ACCEPTED IT as legitimate, because they opinion actually changed the social norm. If Brown v. Board was overturned, in other words, the complaint wouldn't focus on the precedent itself but on its MERIT. As such, I think that most appeals to stare decisis typically indicates a bad precedent, because if it were good precedent then stare decisis would follow AUTOMATICALLY.
Now, by those standards, would anybody seriously claim that Roe v. Wade has been accepted by the mass populace just as much as Brown v. Board? I think the opposite might be true: some people have probably become MORE opposed to abortion BECAUSE of Roe, evidenced by a yearly protest at the capital (Scalia cleverly references this in his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
Am I saying that all stability in our constitutional law should be thrown out the window? No, what I'm saying is that stare decisis is a one-sided, misleading buzzword with an aim typically at the opposite of stability. It's like when Madam Mihm lays out a bunch of rules for the "wizard's duel" in Sword in the Stone, where Archimedes (Merlin's "educated owl") then points out that "she only makes rules so she can break 'em!" She knows that Merlin's honor gives her a serious advantage with every rule she makes since she only cares about winning and has no honor. Liberals or "activists"will walk all over precedent 'til the cows come home, hoping that their honorable counterparts will follow the very rules that they had to break to establish their unconstitutional precedent in the first place.
Thus, it is my personal opinion that where BAD precedent is involved, "stare decisis" is just as bad--if not worse than--the "instability" it seeks to avoid. When judges ignore precedent they still have to worry about doing a good job: with precedent, on the other hand, they are frequently COMPELLED TO DO A BAD JOB, and I personally don't see much value in that.
Hey, Jeff, great points on stare decisis, which were almost all new to me. I just wish the abortion policy were determined by the voice of the people in each state, for good or bad.See Mosiah 29
Post a Comment