very important point Mike, thanks! Why do you find some of these other decisions, in particular Kelo, to be more important than Roe v Wade?

Thanks much, Eric!

Kelo is more important than Roe v. Wade because Roe affects women who are able to become pregnant. But Kelo affects everyone who can own property. Men and women, those too old to have children and those in the prime of their lives. Even children themselves who have inherited property that is held in trust for them.

It's also got far more Constitutional impact than Roe v. Wade as do the other issues I mentioned. They all have to do with constitutional liberties, constitutional structure of government, and the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty, and property. Things that are specifically discussed in the Constitution. Abortion is not. And while I won't argue that there are points in the Constitution that implicitly relate to abortion, I think the explicit points are more important.

eww... kelo is nasty. especially with the city trying to charge back rent. don't worry mike, i can't see how this can go on... one day, some city is going to go too far, a new case will develop and this kind of crap will be overturned. (lucky for me, it has no effect in Washington state haha)

silly silly people...

didn't everyone get the memo that the GOP sent out...the ONLY "issues" to be discussed are "god, guns, gays and abortion"...anything outside of that would end knee jerk reactionary politics and actually involve rational discourse rather than emotional voting...

silly rabbits, Tricks are fer hookers...

and we all know what whores we have in DC, eh?

Excelsior!

Would aborted fetuses be able to be property owners? What does Alito think? WHAT DOES ALITO THINK!!??!?

more importantly, would government entities be able to protect the iceberg lettuce industry using the tool of imminent romaine?

Right on the mark, Michael.

And Gonzo, the GOP sent out that memo at the same time that the Dems sent out basically the same memo, because they sure harp on the 'right to choose' like it's the be all and end all of life on earth.

The fact is that even if Roe were struck down abortion would remain legal in most states and nothing would change for most Americans, and even those who live in states where it was restricted - probably only partially - could still travel to a neighboring state to get an abortion.

dave

I must point out, Gonzo, that while your James Dobsons and Dr. Lauras are celebrating loudly that Bush is nominating a pro-life justice, your James Carvilles and your N.O.W.'s are screaming equally loudly that anyone who doesn't like Roe has no place on the court.

Both sides are equally guilty of blowing this thing all out of proportion. And both of them reeeeeeeeeeally need to shut up.

Hmph. Personally, Mr. West, I think the James Carvilles and NOWs can't scream loudly enough. That said, I do agree that the effects of Kelo are more far-reaching. Great piece, btw.

But ND, isn't Carville just inherently more irritating than anyone on the planet, even if he's right on this issue?

Dave

Michael..your point is well taken... but the counterpoint is here...

the Article shows the GAO investigation results about the "morning after" pill... which was shot down in very unusual circumstances by political appointees form the Administration...

by making this drug available, you would see a drastic reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies ending in abortions... bad for senate majority leader Frist's family business( they own quite a few abortion clinics)... but very bad for the GOP crusade against a woman's Right to choose for herself... it woudl remove the Issue almost completely...

so why did the Bush Administration shut it down BEFORE the scientific research was done?

good Question...eh?

Excelsior!

Dave,
You really think the right to control one's land is more important than the right to control one's body?

Dave,
You really think the right to control one's land is more important than the right to control one's body?

I assume you meant that question for me, T A Dodger, since I wrote this article and Dave said nothing of the kind.

But the question is both loaded and oversimplified in its present state. To the point that as it is, the question is not applicable here.

Ah, I apologize for misdirecting the question.

The question is accurate:

Overturning Roe v. Wade would severly diminish a woman's right to control her own body.

Kelo was an aweful decision that severly diminished people's property rights.

If you say Kelo is worse than on overturning of Roe v. Wade, you are saying that control over one's property is more important than control over one's body.

I don't really see this as an EITHER/OR situation. Both Roe and Kelo are potential wreckers of personal liberty. It is what's behind these movements that is most frightening: the bizarre marriage of rich Republicans with Christian fundamentalists, the union's only purpose to further both their aims. Later, when they've got what they want they'll turn on one another for the final contest...

We can only hope that the country is beginning to truly awaken to Bush & Co. and their wicked ways...

Alethinos

Unfortunately for property owners, they can't control their property by simply ingesting a pill.

Comment 2, Michael, great point!!!

Yah, that comment threw me for a minute. Thatr said, I think that Michael's basic point is valid. A lot more people will likely be impacted by Kelo than by Roe being overturned in the long run. As I said earlier even if Roe is overturned abortion won't go away for any but a very few people, whereas if Kelo marks the beginning of a trend we're all well and truly screwed. The right to hold property is fundamental to liberty.

Dave

Roe is a less important decision because it involves one unique situation, pregnancy. There is no slippery slope argument to be had. One living being growing inside of or attached to another doesn't happen very often (could have some implications to Siamese twins perhaps)

Kelo on the other hand is a dangerous and broad attack on personal property rights that could be used as a precedent in a variety of other cases.

Great post though! Reading through the comments I see how true your post was. Abortion is one of those issues that we can't make reasonable compromises because of the loony extremists on either side.

I think a lot of people would be satisfied if we compromised by banning late term abortion and allowing the morning after pill (leave parental notification to the individual states). Most people don't seem to have a problem getting rid of a ball of cells but get squeamish at the thought of killing a fully developed baby. Late term abortion are very rare anyway and the law would need exceptions for health, deformities, etc., but the compromise would solidify majority support for the procedure.

Stop being sensible, RedTard. No one loves a non-extremist.

Dave

Thanks for all the comments everyone.

T A Dodger, thank you for the clarification as well. And here are the reasons that I still feel that your question is overly simplistic.

(1) Roe was not just about a woman's control of her body. It was also about an embryo or fetus's life. And it raises a number of other issues that must be resolved before the case can completely be resolved: Does life begin at conception? If not, when does it begin? Is an unborn baby simply an extension of its mother's body? If so, when does it cease to be? If not, does its mother have the right to treat it like one? Does a mother have absolute custodial right over an unborn baby? If so, do those rights include the right to terminate the life of that unborn baby?

There are questions in there that we don't have a solid, rational/scientific answer for. And until we do, the case cannot really be resolved.

(2) As I said, Roe pertains only to women who are able to get pregnant. Kelo pertains to women, men, children, young and old, fertile and not.

(3) Finally, as Dave Nalle points out (correctly, too - and I don't agree with Dave very often, so you know I'm not just bullshitting here), overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT severely diminish a woman's right to control her own body. The popular belief that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal, is wrong. It would simply allow states to make abortion legal or illegal. At least 30 states would keep abortion legal, and a woman in one of the other (at most) twenty states could still receive an abortion in one of the 30.

I don't think I finished that last thought....

the difference in my reason number 3 is that under Kelo (and even not under Kelo), nobody can very well dig up a plot of land and move it to another state in order to maintain their right to control their property.

I understand what you're saying Michael, and maybe we're talking past each other here.

You seem to be saying that Kelo has a bigger impact by virtue of affecting a larger number of people.*

I think Roe affects a much more fundamental right.

Both of those things could very well be true.

In response to your number 3, some states are passing laws to forbid state and local governments from making the sort of land grabs that Kelo declares constitutionally acceptable. So hopefully Kelo's effects, like those of overturning Roe, can be limited by legislative action.

This is from the Washington Times:
A swift and dramatic backlash is underway in the states, several of which have already passed laws limiting the power of eminent domain. ...lawmakers introduced other legislation in both houses of Congress overturning the ruling at the federal level. ...leadership aides predicting it's not a question of if, but when, lawmakers sack the high-court decision."
"Sixty-eight percent of registered voters favor legislative limits on the government's ability to take private property away from owners. Public support for limiting the power of eminent domain is robust and cuts across demographic and partisan groups. Sixty-two percent of self-identified Democrats, 74 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans support limits.


*Of course... I'm really uncomfortable with this being used as a reason to say that any bad government action or individual crime is less important than another, since so many really horrible things disproportionately affect women or minority groups. For instance, I'm not ok with saying petty theft is a bigger problem than rape, just because rape tends to happen to women and theft can happen to anyone.

Also consider, to overturn Roe the court would probably find that there is no constitutional right to privacy. That would mean no constitutionally protected right to birth control, no constitutional right to make decisions about sex inside or outside of marriage, etc. The constitutional implicatins could very well be far reaching, and here in the south, the states would almost certainly not step in.

The states where women are most likely to be poor and thus have difficulty going to another state are the places where abortion would be illegal after Roe.

Sorry this post ended up being so long!

Also consider, to overturn Roe the court would probably find that there is no constitutional right to privacy.

That's jumping to conclusions, though, T A Dodger. And conclusions that are pretty far down the slippery slope. I think this debate really only works when we stick with the issue at hand.

You seem to be saying that Kelo has a bigger impact by virtue of affecting a larger number of people.

That was my number 2 point, yes, and it goes to Kelo's being more far-reaching.

You addressed my points 2 and 3, but you didn't address my first point, which I put first because I felt it was the most important: that Roe is not merely about a woman's right to choose. It is also about the life and death of an unborn baby. (Which affects, one could argue, an even MORE fundamental right than the woman's right.)

I hate to tell you this, Michael, but I just browsed through your prior BC postings and I don't see much there that I disagree with. We may be closer than you think. Be afraid.

Dave

Michael,

I skipped over your first point because I thought a big abortion debate would pull this thread off topic. Suffice it to say, I think the right of a woman to control her body is clear, even if you accept that life begins at conception.

I also think that it isn't cental to this topic. We're not talking about the relative wrongness of upholding Kelo and overturning Roe, we're talking about their relative impact. When I think about which would affect me more deeply, the government taking control of my uterus or the government taking my property, I find that the answer is simple.

Saying that overturning Roe would be the same as the government taking control of your uterus is a bit of an overstatement. You still have the choice of whether to invite any guests to visit the uterus, so unless the government is going to mandate insemination you still retain reproductive control.

Dave

No matter how good your birth control is, there is a chance that sperm will meet egg.

Living an entire life without sex is not a real choice.

I love this though:

You still have the choice of whether to invite any guests to visit the uterus

"Ortho Evra: your womb's way of saying "No Solicitors Welcome"

It works for nuns, TAD.

Dave

At least in theory.

I still say that telling women, "the only way to maintain control over your own body is through a lifetime of celibacy" is unconscionable.

I still say that telling women, "the only way to maintain control over your own body is through a lifetime of celibacy" is unconscionable.

Nobody actually said that here. However, it was sort of implied -- sort of.

On the other hand, T A Dodger, your own implication that abortion is just another means of contraceptive...not particularly conscionable, either.

Why is abortion not just an other means of contraception Michael? It seems to me that it is, in that all forms of contraception prevent or reduce pregnancy...

Contraception is meant to prevent contraception before it starts. Abortion terminates an already-conceived life.

I don't understand what you mean Michael.

I'm not saying you can use aboriton to prevent pregancy. So I'm not saying it's contraceptive. If I were saying abortion = contraception, I dont' think that would be unconsciounable as much as just inaccurate.

It's really unclear what you're objecting to here.

I was rather under the impression that contraception was simply a way for people to manage their family planning. As such, abortion is just another technique for achieving that entirely legitimate and respectable aim.

No.
Contraceptives prevent conception.
What you're describing, alienboy, is Birth Control.

Interestingly, anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is technically also contraception, since the medical definition of conception is implantation of the fertilized egg.

T A Dodger, I want you to know that I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this discussion.

The real point I'm trying to make here is that the abortion debate is far more nuanced than either side lets on.

The right sees it only as an issue of the life or death of the unborn child.

The left sees it only as an issue of the woman's control of her body.

The truth is, both the mother and the fetus play an important -- maybe even equal -- part in this debate.

Any viewpoint that takes in ONLY the rights of the mother, or only the life of the fetus, is inherently flawed and incomplete (at best).

T A Dodger: I find your distinction to be technically correct but such a fine distinction as to be, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. The end result is the same.

MJW: I must respectfully disagree. The issue is do people have the right to decide for themselves if they want to have a child or not. If a woman decides it's not right for her, for whatever reason, the debate ends right there. Period.

I understand your viewpoint, alienboy, and to some extent I share it.

But the reason I share it is because I do not have a definitive answer on whether life begins at conception, or at birth. Nobody has that definitive answer, which means it's a personal decision. And I don't feel comfortable interfering with personal decisions.

On the other hand, if we could definitively say that life begins at conception, there would indeed be serious ethical complications.

Which is I don't agree that the debate ends right there, period.

Oh, my God. Anthony Grande agrees that there are more important issues than abortion? What the Hell is the world coming to?

MICHAEL J: I don't see the debate as to where or when life begins to be remotely relevant to the abortion debate.

If some people want to live their lives and not avail themselves of abortion or other possibilities offered to us by new technologies, that is their right.

If others do in fact want to use some technology to improve their own lives, what on earth does that have to do with anybody else at all?

People who oppose abortion can deploy whatever specious arguments they like, but the bottom line is they have no right whatsoever to interfere in the lives of others.

Anti-abortionists offend every sense of freedom that there ever was through their deranged efforts to force their own quaint views onto others.

Debate over.

I don't see the debate as to where or when life begins to be remotely relevant to the abortion debate.

I don't understand how you don't see its relevance.

For example, as you say,

People who oppose abortion can deploy whatever specious arguments they like, but the bottom line is they have no right whatsoever to interfere in the lives of others.

That relates directly to the "where life begins" debate. If life begins at conception, for example, than a parent who receives an abortion is interfering in the life of the unborn child.

The fetus is not an irrelevant consideration in the abortion debate. The fetus is actually kind of a central consideration.

MICHAEL: We'll have to agree to disagree here.

I stand by and repeat the two statements you quoted above. The whole "where life begins" argument is irrelevant and designed to manipulate people emotionally.

An unborn child has no life to take into consideration.

I stand by my position as well: the jury is still out on whether an unborn child has life to take into consideration.

Therefore neither claim, that it does or doesn't have such life, is an illegitimate one.

Hence you are correct, Alienboy. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I meant a life in the sense of an inter-linked series of consecutive events that happen to somebody already on the planet.

Therefore, the mother has a far stronger claim to life that far outweighs those of an unborn child and her views are paramount.

Furthermore, your scenario would only be relevant if we were considering compelling women to give birth regardless of all other conditions than the existence of a state of pregnancy. That would be morally repugnant in so many different ways.

So, yes, we may agree to disagree but you still have to re-think the implications of your argument.

As pre-emptive action is all the rage in the USA these days,let's have the pregnancy police in every bedroom in the country, monitoring for signs of life and taking into custody all pregnant women until after delivery of the child.

So, yes, we may agree to disagree but you still have to re-think the implications of your argument.

Alienboy, if we're going to agree to disagree than there is no reason for us to continue this discussion. It seems here that you do want to continue it until I concede to you.

Which is what I wrote in my #45, which you then responded to, yes?

I don't really care what you choose to believe, Michael. You have the right to believe anything you like, but I will, Grissom-like, contain myself to the evidence and the facts...

In comment 45, you said we would agree to disagree and reaffirmed your position.

In comment 46, I confirmed that we should agree to disagree and reaffirmed mine.

I don't see the problem there.

Bear in mind that we're not enemies here. As I said, I support abortion rights. I'm just looking at both sides of the issue.

Hey,

I only have a second, so I'll ge quick, and elaborate more later.

The question of whether of fetus is alive or not at conception is irrelivant, I think. The answer is obvious: yes. Even the single-cell bacteria who live in our bodies are obviously life, even when they are of a type that depend completely on their host to survive.

The question is: does this organism (the fetus / embryo) deserve rights?

If the answer is yes, the question becomes:

Does a person have the right to use another person's body, against that person's will, to keep itself alive?

The answer to the first of these two questions is unclear, but I think the answer to the second is an obvious "no."

oooh. baby as parasite. nasty.

i think the question really is this: when does the fetus become more than just a clot of cells? when does it become a sentient being? pretty early, i would assume...

i figure that as long as a fetus is just malformed genetic information, it's fair game. god, that sounds horrible. once it has gained some form of conciousness, the idea becomes a bit distasteful.

back to it--> based on what wikipedia has to say on the subject, it seems that somewhere between the 8th and 10th week of pregnancy, the "embryo" becomes a "fetus." those are just terms... but by this time, the brain and nervous system are highly developed (maybe functioning) and all essential organs are developing. hands and feet, mouth and all that. i suppose that this is somewhere in the latter half of the first trimester... from what i know, we aren't sure when hunger or pain can be felt, but it would seem that once the brain is this highly developed... you know?

as a man, i feel that i only have a small role in this argument. but, i also feel that women who claim this is 100% their problem and 100% their decision are wrong. i would be mortified if any baby of mine were aborted without my knowledge... in truth, i would actually like to be blissfully ignorant of the situation... and i would hope to be part of the decision-making process.

oh, and TAD's "I'm not ok with saying petty theft is a bigger problem than rape, just because rape tends to happen to women and theft can happen to anyone" comment surely simplifies the argument, but it certainly is true.

"Does a person have the right to use another person's body, against that person's will, to keep itself alive?"

That line of reasoning seems to lead to a sensible compromise. If the baby is infringing it should be evicted, not receive the death sentence. If it is developed to a point where it can live on it's own without serious defects it should be delivered and put up for adoption. If it is early in the pregnancy and cannot survive on it's own it should be aborted.

Of course that would never satisfy the fringes. Those loons on the left would pull a screaming baby out at 8 months 27 days into the pregnancy and bash it's head in with no remorse. Those on the right would deny the morning after pill to a mentally retarded 12 year old who had just been raped by her HIV positive father.

It's those people who destroy the debate and squash any reasonable compromise.

RedTard: Your rollercoaster logic has me applauding wildly in your first paragraph and booing and hissing loudly when you completely go and lose it in your second.

Good ending mind you ;-|

Michael, you are right on the money. But there is nothing sexy about nine judges in black robes. Throw abortion in as an issue, and you sell papers because sex sells. It's all that simple.