Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Showing posts with label Roe v. Wade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roe v. Wade. Show all posts

Monday, June 27, 2022

Overreach


Silverfiddle Rant!

"Fool if you think its over, it's just begun..."


How long until Centrist voters turn on Republicans?




This list is repugnant to the constitutional spirit of our republic:

* Unconditional abortion at any stage of development with no consideration of the rights and/or viability of the fetus
* State-sponsored "bounty hunting" those (including physicians) who assist in abortion procurement or in an abortion procedure
* Total ban on abortion, with no exceptions based on rape, incest or health of the mother
* Prosecuting a physician for performing a medically-determined abortion
* Prosecuting people who help others procure an abortion, including buying them a ticket or transporting them out of state
* Prosecuting women for having an abortion
* Prosecuting women for traveling out of state for an abortion
* A state prosecuting residents of other states for abortion-related actions taken in another state
* Prohibiting people from receiving any federally legal medications via US Mail
* Prosecuting a woman for ingesting an abortifacient and causing an abortion in her own home

My objection is rooted not in morality, but in historical western jurisprudence, natural rights and our constitution.  We are a constitutional republic, not a Christian theocracy, and the question of abortion--as it pertains to the state and its citizens--needs to be addressed in the light of historical laws, common law and a balancing of the rights of the mother and child, to include the fact that medical science has pushed back the viability of a fetus to 20-25 weeks.

Safe, Legal, and Rare

Go yahoogle polling on abortion.  A broad spectrum of Americans are willing to accept first trimester abortions as well as third trimester bans, with exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother.

Such a law would flare up the anger on the fringes, but would represent a consensus that polling suggests the nation could settle into.  Such a law would also look like the laws of most advanced European nations.

If the GOP were smart (and they are not), they would loudly kibosh all speculation about banning birth control, rolling back gay marriage, gay rights and sodomy laws, etc.  Democrats have dramatically seized the high ground on the issue of liberty, just as it looked as if the GOP had firm possession of that champion's trophy.

Legal is not necessarily Moral

I think abortion is morally repugnant, as expressed by first century Christians in the Didache. Other religions, including Judaism, while not cavalier on the issue, do not take such a narrow view.  The law must reflect the will of the people and must not impose narrow religious views on everyone.  Otherwise, it is imperial diktat, and in a democracy, the people will end up ousting the tyrants. 

Forcing over-interpreted mandates on people will only harden hearts and minds, not change them.

If we want to end abortion, we need to change those hearts and minds through scientific reasoning and moral persuasion, and for heaven's sake, can we approach this debate with some humility, charity and compassion? 

Government Giveth, Government Taketh Away


Silverfiddle Rant!

"A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away"
- President Gerald Ford





I have problems with language like this...
"Yet, even as the court continued to forge new ground in creating a private sphere where Americans could do as they pleased in their family life without undue government interference..."
I don't blame the writer. She is simply echoing the mindset of government and judges that has prevailed for over a century: That government must carve out spaces and create new rights for us. That mindset contradicts the US Constitution and the philosophy behind it, which hold that these rights and spaces flow from natural law, preexist any written document, and may not be infringed by government.   

This unconstitutional mindset can be summed up as...

Rights come from government, so a person must seek permission from government to do something.  If challenged, that permission must be found in the constitution.

That's ass backwards. The Constitution constitutes the government, telling it what it can and cannot do. Our individual rights are unenumerated and many and do not flow from that document. 

A Constitutional Mindset...

The question is not whether a black man may marry a white woman, or whether someone has a right to contraception.  This starts a game of "where can we find that right in the constitution?"  

Rather, the question should be, where in the constitution does it allow a government to infringe upon such a fundamental right?

What say you? 


Related:












Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Roe v. Wade: Overturned?

Discuss.
!--BLOCKING--