Republicus

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Name:
Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Monday, March 06, 2006

The Pro-Life Gauntlet Is Thrown Down


Monday, March 06, 2006

Associated Press

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed into law a bill banning nearly all abortions, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

7 Comments:

Blogger Phelonius said...

I think it is about time that this was challenged. The right to have an abortion or not should come through the various states and not through the Federal government, and least of all through the judicial branch. If this is successfully challenged, though, be prepared for a great number of abortion laws to appear before the various state legislatures. There are going to be states that will allow everything (including the so-called partial birth abortions) and others that will oppose everything. The voters in every state will have to carefully analyze their consciences and decide what they can live with and what they cannot live with. God help this nation as it begins to struggle with this question again.

1:20 PM  
Blogger John said...

Well said, Phelonius.

Bork was right. Pro or Con, it's bad law.

Unfortunately, as it begins to get overturned here and there, the Pro-Choice Liberals are going to go ballistic.

By the time it hits Alito's desk, there's going to be massive demonstrations.

Abortion "Rights" are as sacred a cow to them as slavery was to the antebellum South.

2:08 PM  
Blogger John said...

Hey Amy, if you see this, check out James' (Phelonius) latest post, "Texas Winter Warning" and the commentary.

3:57 PM  
Blogger amy said...

I concur with what Phelonius said regarding state's rights. If South Dakota wants to outlaw abortion for its citizens, then fine. The SD government taxes its citizens the way it wants to, makes them wear their seat belts in a car or on a boat, etc., so it has every right to tell them they can't have an abortion. This is the basis of federalism that our nation was built on, and we should let it work itself out.

And John, I'll go and check out that post right now. Thanks.

2:46 PM  
Blogger John said...

My pleasure.

Championing federalism as an absolute, however, can be problematic.

Evidence A: State's "Right" to uphold the institution of slavery.

Evidence B: State's "Right" to secede.

This is interesting:

I likened the more militant Pro-Choice guardians to the guardians of slavery (and I think it was a legitimate likening), but whereas the pro-Slavery forces embraced federalism to protect the "right," the Pro-Choicers must recoil from that to protect their own.

3:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John said:
Abortion "Rights" are as sacred a cow to them as slavery was to the antebellum South.

huh? Are you saying that Pro-choice supporters would also have been pro slavery? Actually, that's exactly what you said, but I'll assume you made a mistake.

The arguments, like them or not, deal with privacy and a woman's right to her own body and thus a constitutional argument and not one of federalism. If you believe that the right of a woman to decide what will happen to her body can be adjutacated by the state, why not let Utah ban women from having a job outside the house?

Should states be allowed to make marijuana legal? euthanasia and suicide? At what point do you allow states to enter into the workings of individuals?

2:16 PM  
Blogger John said...

John said:

"Abortion "Rights" are as sacred a cow to them as slavery was to the antebellum South."

Anonymous misread:

"huh? Are you saying that Pro-choice supporters would also have been pro slavery? Actually, that's exactly what you said, but I'll assume you made a mistake."

The mistake is yours, *messieur.*

You made a non sequiter.

"The arguments, like them or not, deal with privacy and a woman's right to her own body and thus a constitutional argument and not one of federalism."

At the crux of the arguments are the questions of whether a human fetus also has its own rights to privacy and to his/her own body.

"If you believe that the right of a woman to decide what will happen to her body can be adjutacated by the state, why not let Utah ban women from having a job outside the house?"

You should note that nowhere did Republicus argue for or against allowing federalism to adjudicate the matter. Nowhere. Republicus was simply contemplating and commenting on his guest's comments.

And, again, your mis-analogous jump from the question of when a dependent human being is to be declared endowed with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to whether an independent adult human being should--likewise?--have her freedom of movement controlled by the state is a non sequiter.

"Should states be allowed to make marijuana legal? euthanasia and suicide? At what point do you allow states to enter into the workings of individuals?"

When their workings harm a fellow individual.

At what point the state should be allowed to enter into the workings of an individual who is only harming *his or her self* is another story.

And, of course, one individual's "harm" is another's creature comfort...

But the very question of "Individual Rights" indeed goes to the real crux of the abortion debate: Is a human fetus an "individual" human, or not?

And if not, when does he/she become one?

When they cease being biologically dependent on parental figures?

Soooooo...up to age 18?

6:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home