How about we start with one point of agreement, that is that the Roe vs. Wade decision, based on the Griswald case, has no basis in the Consitution?

I would assume that a Libertarian would strongly support the 10th ammendment which specifies that those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people. Since there is no mention of "Abortion" or "Privacy" in the constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court have no juris diction over these issues. They are left to the states and the people.

Do we generally agree on this salient point to start our reference?

I think the IVth Amendment points to a right to be free of government intrusion.

So you have to get past that one.

But it does seem to be a regional issue. And we note that the more densely populated an area the less likely the population is going to be intensely ant-abortion.

There are biological reasons for that and I may do a post on it sooner or later.

The reason we wouldn't go and gas 20 million women (my stepsister included) is because, despite being murder, the abortion was not in fact illegal at the time. The government can (or rather, should be) only dole out punishment if laws were broken. Of course, if abortion were to be made illegal and actually categorized as first-degree murder, then of course you could gas as many women as you want from then on out. (Of course, in my limited experience, women who kill infants who have actually been born are still usually not subjected to capital punishment. I don't think that's fair, but I'm not part of the U.S. legal system)

The reason we wouldn't go and gas 20 million women (my stepsister included) is because, despite being murder, the abortion was not in fact illegal at the time. The government can (or rather, should be) only dole out punishment if laws were broken. Of course, if abortion were to be made illegal and actually categorized as first-degree murder, then of course you could gas as many women as you want from then on out. (Of course, in my limited experience, women who kill infants who have actually been born are still usually not subjected to capital punishment. I don't think that's fair, but I'm not part of the U.S. legal system)

Well OK John. That makes sense. If abortion is illegal and we can catch about a tenth of the women doing it say, 100,000 a year, that cuts down on the number of executions considerably.

Sounds like a good plan.

Abortion is premeditated murder. How could it be classed as other than first degree? Are you suggesting we make a mockery of our laws?

I agree with the 2 main points above:

1 - the original decision, Roe v. Wade, was unconstitutional.
2 - Even if later classified as murder, in our system of law, we don't go back in time to try people for a crime that didn't exist when they committed it. I believe that's called ex post facto.

So, that takes us to the third point, whether abortion could be classified as premeditated murder. Let's look at history - generally, the woman involved was treated as being influenced by her emotions/hormones, and was generally given a light sentence. The medical person/whoever who actually performed the operation, was, in fact, treated as a murderer, although, generally as a lesser offense than a capital crime.

Would that be the case in the future? More likely than not, it wouldn't be a major problem. The women who REALLY wanted an abortion, would travel to get one in a state with more liberal laws. Would outlawing states have an epidemic of coat-hanger abortions? Honey, there weren't even that many in the "bad old days". Abortion proponents wildly exaggerated those statistics. More than likely, there would be some smuggling of the abortion drugs.

Linda F,

So you agree with my point that abortion is not murder. We treat it as an offense in the range of manslaughter.

Of course if women's hormones in pregnancy make their judgment bad I could see the need for other laws.

I think denying all women the vote because hormones make their judgment unsound has a lot of merit. Too many women vote for Democrats.

==

I still think it is best if government says out.

That still leaves the option of convincing women not to have abortions.

I think of abortion as a type of usually unjust war. That's why it's proper to protest it with picket signs and sit-ins instead of assassinating abortionists.

Being a female and having had a miscarriage, which is medically called an abortion... I would automatically disagree with abortion being termed murder.

Simply because the legalities between a desired and sought solution to an unwanted pregnancy could and would look like the unwanted natural early end to a pregnancy, I would have a problem with an "automatic" legal determination.

Unfortunately, not all women are physically capable of carrying a baby to full term and giving birth naturally. If only that were so! And if only all babies were healthy! And if that were so, the case for making abortion illegal would be a lot stronger.

Any birth control method other than abstinence is never 100% effective. Should women who do not wish to have children, or cannot physically carry them to term or even medical viability, or whose lives would be endangered by pregnancy be not allowed to get an abortion?

IOW, should women not be allowed to have sex?

As much as I personally am against abortion, as in I simply could not have one myself, I can't see how I can place myself in every other woman's shoes.

The people I think are unreasonable are those who are against birth control. All methods of birth control should be legal and easily obtainable. Because... ya know... people are gonna have sex.

In them good ole days, both participants knew that every sexual act might result in pregnancy. And, in some marriages, where both partners agree that the act of sex is an act of procreation... there's a joy and wonder that might not be available to those couples using birth control.

I would grant any woman who became pregnant due to rape an abortion without any legal consequences. The "morning after" pill should be given free of charge to rape victims, IMHO.

And, should a sonogram or other prenatal test show an abnormality, I cannot find it possible to condemn parents for seeking an abortion. I am well aware that this is a somewhat selfish action... and that there are no guarantees ever of having a healthy baby... or of the child continuing to be healthy until adulthood.

Nor do I see handicapped children (regardless of cause) as undeserving citizens not worthy of love and care. Perhaps parents who know this about a fetus are fortunate... or perhaps not. I don't feel that it is my place to judge or to put my feelings into written law.

Because of medical advances, I think I could support a law forbidding late term abortions. I am not considering those infants requiring extreme medical care to survive, but those who are developed to the point that they take a breath on their own when delivered.

I'm sure that medical professionals can determine that point of viability in an infant. After that point, abortion is murder.

And... I don't expect anybody to agree with me :-)

M Simon, I presume you would be OK with a local jurisdiction and/or state making abortion illegal and (in clear instances of intent) equivalent to 1st degree murder. Just keep the Federal government out of it. Am I reading you correct?

Brett_McS,

I think all governments should stay out of it. But I could live with what you suggest.

Because it would allow an abortion underground to develop and other States would learn from it.

But it is nanny statism. Or as I prefer in cases like this - Moral Socialism. It treats women as second class citizens unable to make competent decisions. And if the people making the law don't punish the woman as an equal partner in the crime you are on a slippery slope to treating them as not full moral actors in other areas. We already do that functionally. I would hate to see it as a justification for a law.

And then what do you do about women with no husband and children who are poor? I would think that more welfare would be in order. Morally. That is the position of the Catholic Church.

So you get on a slippery slope to other things. Like Economic Socialism. I'm not a libertarian purist I do think some socialism is a good thing. It keeps absolute destitution to a minimum. But keeping welfare to a minimum is a good thing.

It is a problem. Absolute logic leads to stupid decisions. Leaving that kind of logic leads to hard decisions.

But black markets are a very bad thing IMO. They decrease the respect for the law. We have a whole subculture of law breakers. Pot smokers.

Let me add that Moral Socialism works just like Economic Socialism.

Once you start meddling you have to do more and more to cure the defects of each previous enaction.

Hell's bells, M Simon! I'm beginning to think you have no moral honesty when discussing this issue at all!!

Concerning Jewish Law (from the previous thread), most of the websites I've seen on this matter specify that *as a general rule*, abortion due to a whim is immoral and not allowed. So I don't see what you're bellyaching about, since it does seem 'constitutionally based' in this instance.

Concerning everyone spying on everyone, well, that's a function of perspective, isn't it? Or do you mean to tell me that if you had foreknowledge that someone is likely to be committing a crime you shrug it off and MYOB? Or that pregnancies are *not* already stringently monitored by prospective parents, grandparents, future aunts and uncles, Ob/Gyn specialists, church members, office staff, etc etc etc?

Please. And you think *I'm* nuts?

Further, while the rhetoric tends towards 'abortion is murder', it could be more accurately stated 'abortion is homicide'. Poisoning is not always murder, for instance; cf fugu poisoning.

Now, we do have to take into account that pregnancy is inherently high-risk. But so is coal-mining.

Finally, if someone *else* other than the mother (or authorised representative thereof) killed the unborn child, it is automatically treated as a homicide and a murder. Why is it treated differently when the mother is involved? If you demand consistency from pro-lifers, then it stands to reason that you demand consistency from pro-abortionists as well.

I note also that if you successfully take your own life, you are beyond the justice system of this existence - whereas, attempted suicide, just like attempted murder, is indeed a crime. So it's not as if we treat one as a crime and one as not...

I still think it is best if government says out

You are assuming, of course, that abortion involves only one individual.

Science now demonstrates that there is very little difference between the brain of a late term fetus and a newborn AND both are much more aware and capable then previously assumed.

Logic out of that one, m'kay?

And understand I am a reluctant pro-choice. I believe the government should not interfere with abortion up to 10-12 weeks gestation, but after that, states should have a say in balancing the rights of two conflicting individuals even up to criminalizing elective abortion (ie abortion on a healthy fetus and NOT done to save the life of a mother or in cases of rape or incest).

Darleen,

I can live with a Roe type regime.

Gregory,

I'm exploring the issue. So I can take different points of view. And true Jewish law does not allow whim - but health of the mother can be very broadly interpreted.

And then you have a LOT of people with no religious guidance on the issue.

For me right now it comes down as a tactical issue. We absolutely need to CRUSH the communist in chief. I'd like to get every one on board I can.

So if the anti-abortion folks could be less Doctrinaire we could get more allies.

Besides the penalties proposed by the antis put it in a category akin to misdemeanor manslaughter. Because the woman involved would not be counted as a criminal. Despite the fact that she initiates the chain of events and is an accomplice.

Which says that women are not moral actors. I agree. Too many vote for Democrats. But we could fix that by removing their right to vote on the basis that they are not moral actors.

====

The "there out to be a law" folks got us the public school system. And the drug war. Maybe there doesn't need to be a law.

What I favor is talking women out of having abortions. Then we don't need no government agents inspecting the genitalia of females for signs of a crime.

Yeah. It can't happen here. And America will never elect a Communist President.

Every power we give government will one day be used against us.

It is pretty clear from all the comments here and elsewhere to my abortion posts that abortion for the doctor amounts to misdemeanor manslaughter and the woman (initiator and accomplice) goes free.

Not a very serious crime when we have a Communist government on our tails.

So how about an end to the Culture War? Can't we just talk women out of having abortions and get on with saving the Republic from the communists?

M Simon: Right, thanks for the clarification. I think.

Okay, so we're talking tactics, and for myself, I dunno. I think it's incredibly stupid for a person to pull the lever for the Democrat simply because the other side is too rhetorical fire and brimstone on one issue, even though otherwise he or she ins in near-total agreement on other things.

But tactics can always be tried out, no problems. If they don't work, we swap them out. I think that's fair.

And I will absolutely agree with you that President BHOmbastic needs to leave office, the sooner the better, and people need to be dissuaded from supporting the commies and fascists and socialists and big government types and neo-aristocrats that propped him up there.

I'm just not convinced that shutting up about abortion will do it.

Nor am I convinced that once you've successfully shut up one part of the Big Tent, that other parts will not be asked to shut up 'for the duration' as well.

Furthermore, I am unconvinced that asking someone to quiet their conscience is a good idea, even if it's tactically sound.

But hey, I'm wrong a fair number of times, so maybe we can give this a shot.

I'm just not convinced that shutting up about abortion will do it.

All I can tell you is that abortion talk drives me up the wall. And given that, I expect it will change some people's votes. Maybe a lot of people's votes.

So what do you want to do? Get as many people on your side as you can to save the Republic or fight a battle that will not be won for ten or thirty years?

And all over misdemeanor manslaughter and the woman (initiator and accomplice) goes free. The penalties suggested don't accord with the murder accusation.

If you don't save the Republic you may never get to fight that battle.

I swear (loud and often - I'm a Navy man) conservatives just don't seem to be able to fathom grand strategy - i.e. making alliances. Let me give you a hint. First Hitler then Stalin. And that means you stop fighting Stalin to focus on Hitler.

Me? Well, seeing as I'm not American, my ability to influence grand conservative strategies is pretty much zip.

But I do get your point, and maybe it's worth a shot. Who knows? Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is better than nothing - given that the government's and MSM's roles are muchly reduced, then we can use the court of public opinion to swing our peers to see things our way.

Hey, I know! Maybe that would work for drug legalisation too! Let's kick these commies out of office, and then we can work on getting the facts out there on the matter.

Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is better than nothing

No to moral socialism, no to economic socialism.

Sounds like that small government thingy the Republicans are always on about.

Pro-choice logic usually breaks down around the birth canal. If you suck out the brains five minutes before exit, you "aborted a fetus," and it's okay.

But the moment that head exits the birth canal, do the same thing, you have "murdered a baby," and you can spend life in prison.

It gets even weirder if we're talking about premature infants. A baby farther along in its gestation, but still in utero, can be killed, and it's just abortion. But a preemie in the hospital can't be touched, or it's murder.

Now, Peter Singer is logical in that he ties the right to life to overall development (he thinks you ought to be able to legally kill your children up until around age two, and that infanticide in subsequent years ought to have lower penalties the younger the child is).

But what do you think, in your complete, comprehensive, logical manner?

Josh,

Roe seems to be a pretty good compromise. Not counting that it wasn't enacted.

The trouble is that logic breaks down at the edges. When is an acorn a tree?