emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
rightwinger asked in another thread:
Gay marriage is not a constitutional right
The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?
============================
The arguments I have found to explain this in conservative terms:
5. The same way conservatives believe in
"limited federal govt and not intruding in people's personal decisions," this argument has been used by Republicans like former TX Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to explain prochoice to conservatives.
4. Rudy Guiliana made a similar argument, explaining that on Constitutional principles, prolife beliefs cannot be imposed through govt but must respect the beliefs of other citizens equally.
3. I have used a comparison with the death penalty, that just because a lot of the same Catholic groups oppose the death penalty, similar to opposing abortion, and argue these should be banned as choices,
doesn't mean all opponents agree to ban it:
(a) many people believe that the death penalty does not have to be banned, but can be avoided by preventing murder and the focus should be on that anyway. So the choice of the death penalty can still exist legally,
while people can still oppose it from ever being used.
(b) and the same with the choice of abortion, which does not have to mean supporting abortion.
People can work toward preventing and eliminating abortion without banning it,
similar to the death penalty.
2. Prolife activism that works effectively to prevent abortion by education and offering better alternatives
WORKS WITHOUT ANY LAWS BANNING ABORTION.
The same way Prolife advocates are NOT forced by law to believe abortion is not a choice and should be ended and prevented, EVERYONE should have equal freedom to CHOOSE that as Prolife people do.
In fact, I argue that this approach is SUPERIOR because when people CHOOSE freely,
that works more EFFECTIVELY than forcing people against their will which I argue doesn't work anyway.
It just makes people MORE defensive and this conflict becomes counterproductive, destructive and wasteful.
1. By Separating the funding and policies, this would solve several problems at once
instead of wasting resources fighting to interfere or impose on each other's beliefs.
Why not have separate tracks and options to fund
* right to life and free market health care including faith based charities that count for tax deductions
* right to health care and prochoice programs
so people can organize with likeminded members of similar beliefs and set up their own terms of programs.
This could also solve the problems with
* disagreement over marriage and social benefits
So if liberals don't want to pay for war/defense or the death penalty,
they can pay for health care with their allocation of tax dollars.
And conservatives who believe federal govt should cover national security
not nationalized health care, can fund that and not support social programs that
violate Constitutional beliefs in limited federal govt and states' rights.
0. Special note: because of complications in the laws where focusing on pregnancy and abortion targets women as affected by legislation more then men,
this is where I would propose to focus on holding both men and women equally
responsible for the decision not to have sex if pregnancy or children are not wanted.
Instead of banning just the abortion which affects women disproportionately more then men,
why not focus on banning sexual abuse and relationship abuse that otherwise causes it.
Any act that results in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children
or unwanted abortion can be considered a violation of policies against
relationship abuse that threaten to harm the HEALTH and safety of the people involved,
if people agree to such a policy such as on a local level
of campus communities or civic neighborhood associations and ordinances.
Since it isn't clear who is at fault for the abuse, or if it's mutual, I would recommend counseling be required to resolve any complaints of abuse or threat to health and safety. So this can be very broad *if communities agree to common standards and process of resolving complaints*, and can also cover drug addiction or other forms of abuse deemed a danger or threat, without criminalizing it but still requiring counseling -- if that's what the communities agree to adopt as a health and safety ordinance to prevent abuses, bullying, coercion, rape and other threats to personal health and safety BEFORE they result in crimes.
To answer rightwinger's question: YES this DOES take working on one on one local levels.
The decision and ability to change and correct abusive behavior only works on that level.
There is no shortcut by legislating from the top down, but people have to agree on standards and process to follow and enforce, from the grassroots local level up, not the other way.
Gay marriage is not a constitutional right
The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?
============================
The arguments I have found to explain this in conservative terms:
5. The same way conservatives believe in
"limited federal govt and not intruding in people's personal decisions," this argument has been used by Republicans like former TX Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to explain prochoice to conservatives.
4. Rudy Guiliana made a similar argument, explaining that on Constitutional principles, prolife beliefs cannot be imposed through govt but must respect the beliefs of other citizens equally.
3. I have used a comparison with the death penalty, that just because a lot of the same Catholic groups oppose the death penalty, similar to opposing abortion, and argue these should be banned as choices,
doesn't mean all opponents agree to ban it:
(a) many people believe that the death penalty does not have to be banned, but can be avoided by preventing murder and the focus should be on that anyway. So the choice of the death penalty can still exist legally,
while people can still oppose it from ever being used.
(b) and the same with the choice of abortion, which does not have to mean supporting abortion.
People can work toward preventing and eliminating abortion without banning it,
similar to the death penalty.
2. Prolife activism that works effectively to prevent abortion by education and offering better alternatives
WORKS WITHOUT ANY LAWS BANNING ABORTION.
The same way Prolife advocates are NOT forced by law to believe abortion is not a choice and should be ended and prevented, EVERYONE should have equal freedom to CHOOSE that as Prolife people do.
In fact, I argue that this approach is SUPERIOR because when people CHOOSE freely,
that works more EFFECTIVELY than forcing people against their will which I argue doesn't work anyway.
It just makes people MORE defensive and this conflict becomes counterproductive, destructive and wasteful.
1. By Separating the funding and policies, this would solve several problems at once
instead of wasting resources fighting to interfere or impose on each other's beliefs.
Why not have separate tracks and options to fund
* right to life and free market health care including faith based charities that count for tax deductions
* right to health care and prochoice programs
so people can organize with likeminded members of similar beliefs and set up their own terms of programs.
This could also solve the problems with
* disagreement over marriage and social benefits
So if liberals don't want to pay for war/defense or the death penalty,
they can pay for health care with their allocation of tax dollars.
And conservatives who believe federal govt should cover national security
not nationalized health care, can fund that and not support social programs that
violate Constitutional beliefs in limited federal govt and states' rights.
0. Special note: because of complications in the laws where focusing on pregnancy and abortion targets women as affected by legislation more then men,
this is where I would propose to focus on holding both men and women equally
responsible for the decision not to have sex if pregnancy or children are not wanted.
Instead of banning just the abortion which affects women disproportionately more then men,
why not focus on banning sexual abuse and relationship abuse that otherwise causes it.
Any act that results in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children
or unwanted abortion can be considered a violation of policies against
relationship abuse that threaten to harm the HEALTH and safety of the people involved,
if people agree to such a policy such as on a local level
of campus communities or civic neighborhood associations and ordinances.
Since it isn't clear who is at fault for the abuse, or if it's mutual, I would recommend counseling be required to resolve any complaints of abuse or threat to health and safety. So this can be very broad *if communities agree to common standards and process of resolving complaints*, and can also cover drug addiction or other forms of abuse deemed a danger or threat, without criminalizing it but still requiring counseling -- if that's what the communities agree to adopt as a health and safety ordinance to prevent abuses, bullying, coercion, rape and other threats to personal health and safety BEFORE they result in crimes.
To answer rightwinger's question: YES this DOES take working on one on one local levels.
The decision and ability to change and correct abusive behavior only works on that level.
There is no shortcut by legislating from the top down, but people have to agree on standards and process to follow and enforce, from the grassroots local level up, not the other way.
Last edited:
