What if: Abortion Laws

[Maxel]

Just wanted to float this out there for discussion:

What would happen if the government struck all laws dealing with abortion- specifically making it legal or illegal, providing federal funding for pro-Choice or pro-Life groups, etc.- from the law books?

I don't want to talk about the morality of abortion; I do want to talk about the interplay between the government and a morally-charged social issue: when it comes to legislation, is more or less better?

[hordak]

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."

— Martin Luther King Jr.

Depends on the individual issue.

[threepercent]

It would become a states rights issue, where it belongs.

What would happen if the government struck all laws dealing with abortion- specifically making it legal or illegal, providing federal funding for pro-Choice or pro-Life groups, etc.- from the law books?

this is exactly what should happen at a Federal level, then it would become a states rights issue, where it belongs.

The only part of this that lawfully should be at a federal level is perhaps protection of the unborn at an established point. right now that point is "birth" but sometime soon we will have to have a better "legal" definition of when a person becomes a "person".

[Maxel]

It would become a states rights issue, where it belongs.

So, would all moral issues fare better if they were dealt with on a state-by-state basis? If so, what's the fundamental difference between state and federal legislation that makes moral pronouncements acceptable from state legislators, but not from federal ones?

The only part of this that lawfully should be at a federal level is perhaps protection of the unborn at an established point.

Within limits, I agree. I think maybe the law should be more concerned with protecting the mother's rights and allow her to exercise her own protection from outside intrusions into her rights.

right now that point is "birth" but sometime soon we will have to have a better "legal" definition of when a person becomes a "person".

Agreed. Unfortunately, the line isn't divided by science but by ethical philosophies. In this thread, I want to focus more on the best way for the federal and state governments to involve themselves (if at all) with moral issues, such as abortion.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just wanted to float this out there for discussion:

What would happen if the government struck all laws dealing with abortion- specifically making it legal or illegal, providing federal funding for pro-Choice or pro-Life groups, etc.- from the law books?

I don't want to talk about the morality of abortion; I do want to talk about the interplay between the government and a morally-charged social issue: when it comes to legislation, is more or less better?

I think I'd need a little more info before responding:

1) Do you refer to all government regulations, or just federal government regs?

2) Would eliminating "all laws dealing with abortion" include standard health regulations of the type that govern many other medical practices and procedures?

[beefche]

I'm with Guy on this one. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I don't want to go back to backrooms and wire clothes hanger. So, how much regulation are you talking about?

[NeuroTypical]

It would become a states rights issue, where it belongs.

So, would all moral issues fare better if they were dealt with on a state-by-state basis?

3% didn't say anything about faring better. It's a constitutional issue. The feds ain't got no business telling the states where they should stand on abortion.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

LM

[Maxel]

1) Do you refer to all government regulations, or just federal government regs?

Either/or. How's that for helpful?

For sake of the following discussion, let's say just federal regulations. Let's imagine that the federal government, for all intents and purposes, has never acknowledged the existence of the procedure of abortion except for the following:

2) Would eliminating "all laws dealing with abortion" include standard health regulations of the type that govern many other medical practices and procedures?

No. Practically, the health regulations would still need to apply- the intended scope of this thread is to examine the pros and cons of the federal government never having gotten involved in abortion- forget Roe v. Wade; imagine that the issue has never made it to the US Supreme Court.

What I'm trying to get at is whether it's better for the federal government to pass laws on issues that find their root in ethical philosophies (read: religions) or to ignore them as much as possible.

[hordak]

So, would all moral issues fare better if they were dealt with on a state-by-state basis?

Not addressed to me but...

I don't think so. On the topic of abortion it is an issue of an individual(s). Most people who have a problem with it do so from a religions stand point. Thoughs who share the stand point are happy if the law corresponds with their beliefs, but it really doesn't affect them one way or another. It just tramples the individual right. Other moral issues impact the society itself and therefor would be better addressed by the state.

For example. If Utah bans abortion, or allows it, it only affects the people who seek out the service.

If something like prostitution is on the table. That effects the surrounding community, and therefor it should be up to them to decide the issue.

[Maxel]

3% didn't say anything about faring better. It's a constitutional issue. The feds ain't got no business telling the states where they should stand on abortion.

True; I was forwarding that question. The purpose of this thread is to examine whether or not the federal government (or even state governments) should involve itself in matters that draw their controversy from common codes of morality.

The idea I'm starting with is that the Constitution lays down the specific power of the law to legislate according to the rights of the people, and whether it's healthy or unhealthy for the law to concern itself with moral matters further than those outlined within the Constitution itself. I want to stress that this I'm trying to use this one case- abortion- as an example that can be extrapolated to other controversial topics.

[Just_A_Guy]

True; I was forwarding that question. The purpose of this thread is to examine whether or not the federal government (or even state governments) should involve itself in matters that draw their controversy from common codes of morality.

I'm still not sure I'm following you, but my two cents:

The issue is that, in the case of abortion, there frankly is no "common code of morality" on a national basis. If there were, there would be no controversy.

I think the crux of the Framer's preoccupation with federalism was regionalism--the acknowledgment that South Carolina's populace had (in some degree) a wholly different set of mores than Vermont's, and the reluctance to force the worldview of one group onto another group.

Generally speaking, there's got to be some kind of "critical mass"--a magic percentage of people who agree with a proposition, and when we reach that number we feel comfortable proclaiming a social consensus and legislating accordingly. But I think our nation as a whole is simply too big ever to achieve such a "critical mass", and therefore moral questions should not be legislated by the federal government. Such a critical mass is still attainable in at least some of the smaller states, and I suppose in such states morality-based legislation would be appropriate.

I do see abortion as an exception to the above, simply because I find elective abortions so deeply morally repugnant.

The above view, though, would seem to set up a classical "tyranny of the (super)majority", and frankly I'm not sure at present how to deal with that problem.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

Abortion in a nutshell:

Globs of cells aren't people, and killing them isn't wrong. People are people, and killing a person is wrong. Humans are bad at agreeing on when a glob of cells becomes a person. I've heard people tell me that masturbation is murder because of all those poor sperm. And I've also stood in a room and heard someone opine that it ought to be legal to abort a child within the first year of it's life.

Here's the problem - you gotta have laws that let us know who to arrest for murder, and who to leave the heck alone. So a line must be drawn somewhere.

This thread is about who gets to draw the line. The constitution says each state gets to draw it for themselves. Current reality is that the line is drawn by the federal govt.

LM

[Maxel]

I'm still not sure I'm following you, but my two cents:

Yes; well, I'm fast losing my own logical footing in this thread. I think I've gone too far too fast- I know what I mean, but I'm having a difficult time translating that to words.

That being said- you hit on exactly the idea that I was looking for. The idea that people of the same philosophical 'makeup', if you will, generally congregate in the same area (regionalism). It makes sense that the common views on non-Constitutional rights and practices should be dictated, within reason, by the people who live in that general area. It seems, in the light of that reasoning, that states should have much more power and influence in these kinds of cases than the federal government.

The above view, though, would seem to set up a classical "tyranny of the (super)majority", and frankly I'm not sure at present how to deal with that problem.

I thought you had all the answers? Don't burst my bubble!

[Just_A_Guy]

The idea that people of the same philosophical 'makeup', if you will, generally congregate in the same area (regionalism).

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, though:

Are regionalistic concerns as much of an issue anymore? I mean, regionalism in the Framer's day was a major issue because they were still feeling the effects of British colonial trends--the cotton growers went south while the tobacco planters went to Virginia and the Carolinas, and both developed agrarian societies; whereas the religious zealots just wanted to get away from everyone else and wound up in New England where they ultimately developed a strong industrial base because the land wasn't much good for anything else. It remained an issue for a while--the West was settled by people who were used to doing things themselves, and Utah by still more religious zealots.

But to what degree do regional differences still exist, and will they continue beyond this generation as we are increasingly homogenized by mass media? Other than the logistics of governing a nation of 300 million people, will there still be a defensible basis for true federalism five or ten decades from now?

[Justice]

The government shouldn't legislate moral laws until such freedom hurts others.

The question is, does abortion hurt others?

It depends on if you think something unborn is alive and classifies as "other."

I happen to think what is unborn is still life, and therefore, abortion hurts others.

[mikbone]

It would be left up to the Doctors that are willing to do the procedures.

I fix bones in a Catholic Hospital. Catholics hospitals refuse to perform abortions.

But all the time you can look on the operating room board and see D&C listed.

D&C in the hospital is short for Dilation and Curettage not Doctrine and Covenants.

What's a Dilation and Curettage?

Well if the mother had a miscarriage and the fetus has not been ex-pulsed then it removes the non-vialble tissue. If the fetus is still alive, its an abortion.

[Maxel]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, though:

Are regionalistic concerns as much of an issue anymore? I mean, regionalism in the Framer's day was a major issue because they were still feeling the effects of British colonial trends--the cotton growers went south while the tobacco planters went to Virginia and the Carolinas, and both developed agrarian societies; whereas the religious zealots just wanted to get away from everyone else and wound up in New England where they ultimately developed a strong industrial base because the land wasn't much good for anything else. It remained an issue for a while--the West was settled by people who were used to doing things themselves, and Utah by still more religious zealots.

But to what degree do regional differences still exist, and will they continue beyond this generation as we are increasingly homogenized by mass media? Other than the logistics of governing a nation of 300 million people, will there still be a defensible basis for true federalism five or ten decades from now?

A roommate and I were talking about this earlier today. Frankly, I have no answer- but, perhaps, if states are allowed to make laws regarding abortion, ssm, etc. and are allowed to stick to those laws (and not have them redacted almost immediately), perhaps we might see the beginning of some sort of cross-exodus between states? For instance, if Utah outlawed ssm and abortion and Colorado specifically legalized it, we might see people moving from Utah to Colorado and vice verse as their morals and lifestyles dictated. I personally think this is one of the driving ideas behind the 'gathering of Israel' in the latter days- the Saints will begin to move away from societies that get too wicked.

Anyway- the idea that people will up and move to a place with legislation that reflects their own belief seems a bit naive, even to me... I wonder if this kind of thing has happened before? I'll have to look into that; see if it's happened in recent history anywhere in the world (barring mass exoduses away from a government embroiled in civil war, tyrannical regimes, etc.).

I see your point about the case for federalism being lost.. I wonder if there's a remedy? In my life, it seems that the more a person educates himself/herself about "the issues" and the government, the more impassioned and active they become about their ideals. Maybe we'll see a wave of self-education sweep the nation and people will begin just such a cross-migration?

[Guest]

Abortion being made legal in the Federal government - completely overruling all existing State laws concerning the matter was terrible - not because I'm pro-Life, but because it did not get enacted by vote - but by 7 people sitting on the Supreme Court. Majority of the States at that time had anti-abortion laws put into their constitution by vote but the Supreme Court judgement effectively squashed all the state laws under the guise of "women's right to privacy" which is completely bogus. I mean, the Supreme Court had to figure out when a fetus is viable, thereby, backpedalling on trimesters and pulling a number out of their backsides to say... ah, er, 29 weeks. That's a good number, let's decide that as the time when the fetus is a person. Yeah. Very scientific there. Especially since my next-door neighbor born in 1972 at week 22 suffers from no developmental issues besides dyslexia.

So, yeah, let's bring it back to the States so that THEY can put into vote when a fetus gains the right to life. Because, some people might think it's nothing but a parasite prior to birth, but others believe it is a person once the egg meets the sperm. So yeah, you can masturbate all you want... Otherwise, put the definition of when life begins in the Federal law books by Congressional vote. Now would be the time for you pro-choicers out there since you got the executive as well as both houses to get it finally passed. Then the matter can be put to rest.

[OtterPop]

Your neighbor may well believe that he/she was born at 22 weeks gestation in 1972, but it simply ain't so. Do an internet search. Perhaps the neighbor's parents hadn't -- ahem -- been married long enough and spun this tale.

[NeuroTypical]

Heh. I remember hearing that as I grew up: "The first one can come at any time, all the others take 9 months!"

From the era that brought us TV shows with the married couple sleeping in different single beds.

LM

[threepercent]

EVERYTHING that is legislated is based on morals. thats the first mental hurtle to jump. to speak of "legislating morality" is a false argument whos purpose is to legislate legislation.

That said, yes I am saying this is a constitutional issue, and LMM stated it correctly.

If states were allowed to govern themselves, things would be better. A perfect example of this is prostitution. if the Fed gets involved , then every state would either have to allow prostitution or ban it, and if abortion is any indicator, fund it. as it is, it seems to be working out fine. abortion would be much better resolved at a state level.

[OtterPop]

If states were allowed to govern themselves, things would be better.

Some things are better managed at the state level, but not everything. I'm assuming no one here is in favor of having slave states and free states?

[Traveler]

Just wanted to float this out there for discussion:

What would happen if the government struck all laws dealing with abortion- specifically making it legal or illegal, providing federal funding for pro-Choice or pro-Life groups, etc.- from the law books?

I don't want to talk about the morality of abortion; I do want to talk about the interplay between the government and a morally-charged social issue: when it comes to legislation, is more or less better?

Okay - I have not read all the posts in this thread but there is something interesting about abortion. That is that if all unwanted children were aborted rather than being born into abuse there are a number of rather interesting by products. (According to the research done for the book Freakonomics.)

1. There would be less poverty in the world.

2. There would be much less crime in the world.

3. There would be far less starving children.

4. There would be far less child abuse.

It would appear to me that by the same logic that abortion on demand (the right to choose) is justified the world would be better off if those so engaged (responsible) were never allowed to have children.

The Traveler

[mikbone]

if all unwanted children were aborted rather than being born into abuse there are a number of rather interesting by products. (According to the research done for the book Freakonomics.)

I've read freakonomics.

The above statement has multiple inconsistencies thus using it as a platform for your follow-up statements does not give them support.

1) Just because children are not wanted does not mean that they are born into abuse

2) And vice versa, just because a child is wanted does not mean that they will have an abuse free childhood/life.

According to your statement though we should be justified in sterilizing all abusive personalities...

[TheyCallMeMom]

In most cases I am for states rights.. as previous posters have stated..

But not in the case of abortion, removing all "religious" points from the argument, its not a moral issue.. its a basic human rights issue

The medical advances and information we have made in regards to the development and health of the human fetus since Roe v Wade, hold an incredibly strong argument for the illegality of abortion. I feel based on this information we need to regulate it. Its no more or less a moral issue than is murder.. Ending a life irregardless of how life is sustained, is not something any government should be regulating.. punishing yes, regulating, no