Posted on 08/09/2004 2:20:27 PM PDT by neverdem
Academically, the "slippery slope" argument is considered a logical fallacy; it’s the unsubstantiated belief that one action will inevitably lead to a worst-case conclusion. In politics - which is seldom logical - the "slippery slope" is used with wedge issues, trumpeting the undeniable disaster that will follow any compromise on a matter of morality. It’s used to inflame and manipulate voters, to encourage distrust and the fear of mutual concession.
So let’s turn down the flame and apply some common sense to two such topics - gun rights and abortion rights. First, the guns.
The Second Amendment, in its awkwardly worded entirety: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The ultimate question - is this right conferred to the people, or to the state? - has never been resolved by our highest court, despite recent efforts to force their hand: "The Supreme Court passed up a chance…to rule on the Bush administration’s assertion that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear firearms." (NewsMax.com, 6/11/2002)
In the absence of such judicial clarity - and accepting that the Supreme Court has generally upheld federal gun laws - the issue of private gun ownership could be effectively addressed by the United States Congress. One reasonable approach might look something like this:
Consider firearms as the rough equivalent of a motor vehicle. Both require a degree of maturity and skill for proper operation. Both face concerns over safety and lawful application, since both are potentially deadly weapons. Both have restrictive provisions for their use (such as age, criminal background, drug abuse, etc.). Using the template of a driver’s license, we could explore federal legislation on firearms that would involve a test-based license - one for simple ownership, with a more extensive test for a concealed-carry permit. These exams - uniform, and nationally administered - would encompass knowledge of gun safety, gun laws, and a shooting-range assessment of minimal skill levels.
An effort at such legislation would no doubt be attacked from both sides. Advocates of gun rights would claim that such testing is an abridgement of the Second Amendment; that the tests would not be devised or administered fairly; that the licensing records would be used as a ‘national registry’ for eventual gun seizure by a restrictive federal government. Gun control supporters would reject any law that endorses private gun ownership, even if its intent is to ensure responsible gun ownership; they would insist that such an action would see a soaring rate of handgun deaths.
And, perhaps, that’s our cue: The merits of such a compromise might indeed be measured by the volume of the outrage from both extremes.
Philosophically, the debate regarding abortion is more complex than that of gun ownership. The basic question, however, is pretty straight-forward: At what point, if any, do the rights of a fetus supercede a woman’s rights?
There are three basic categories within the anti-abortion population. The first group opposes abortion under any circumstances. They believe that life begins at conception, and the right to life of a fetus takes precedence over all other concerns - including the life of the woman. Their beliefs, and efforts, are aimed at making abortion illegal, period. Within this group - a small percentage, one hopes - are those who find it heroic to murder doctors who perform abortions.
The second group opposes abortion in all cases, except when the woman’s life is endangered. This is a quantum leap from the first tier, since the rights conferred to the fetus have become negotiable. One may disagree with the position, but at least it shows an attempt to rationally reconcile conflicting values. The third group - those who would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest - have staked out a bizarre corner in the debate. Their moral interest is not in the fetus itself; instead, they would use pregnancy as a punishment for willful sex - a woman is only eligible for an abortion if she didn’t consent to the act. Those that support abortion in these cases are - from their logic - inflicting the death penalty on the fetus itself, as if it were a guilty party to the means of its own conception.
The flip side of the argument, succinctly stated by Judith Jarvis Thompson ("A Defense of Abortion," Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971): "…nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments…for nine months, in order to keep a person alive."
Even in the face of such a emotional issue, surely there is some common ground to at least begin a discussion. If, to the pro-lifers, abortion is the ultimate evil, shouldn’t their efforts - concurrent with encouraging anti-abortion legislation - also entail broadening birth control knowledge and availability? Even if they find this morally distasteful, surely it is a minor sin when weighed against its greater good - the minimizing of abortions. In addition, to be true to their values, they should be supporting scientific efforts to expand contraceptive reliability.
Surely, to the pro-choice faction, there is leeway on the question of the "Intrauterine Cranial Decompression" procedure (termed, by the pro-lifers, "partial birth abortion"). Allowing for certain exceptions - when the woman’s life is endangered, or when the fetus suffers from serious genetic defects - couldn’t an agreement be reached that, at some point late in the pregnancy, the woman has sacrificed the right to "abortion-on-demand?" After all, every "right" - including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms - has its legal limits.
Those on the extreme edges of both these controversies will find all attempts at compromise unacceptable. For the rest of us - living in an increasingly polarized America - finding common ground on such divisive issues may be the key to our survival. There is a limit on how much damage a foreign terrorist can inflict on this nation. Unfortunately, there is no such limit on the damage we can do to ourselves.
Charles Cutter can be reached at http://cuttersway.com.
© Copyright 2003 by Magic City Morning Star
Oh, btw, drivers licenses are issued by the state in which you live, not by the federal government. What does the U.S. Constitution have to do with it?
BS, they've generally ducked the issue. The last time they ruled on it was 1939, and then they ruled that a lower court should not have taken judicial notice that a short barreled shotgun is the sort of arm useful for contributing to a well regulated militia and thus one protected by the second amendment. They didn't rule that it wasn't you understand, just that the lower court erred in ruling that it was, without taking any evidence on the matter. In that ruling they, at the very least, implied that militarily useful weapons, are so protected. They rejected the government's contention that the second amendment did not protect the rights of individual members of the group "the people". They've never ruled on the 1986 ban on new production machine guns for civilian use for example, nor on the current assault weapons ban, nor on the equivalent ban of any state.
Name a case, post 14th amendment, where the U.S. Supreme Court actually heard the case and ruled that the second amendment did not protect the RKBA against state government infringement AND that are still "good law". Presser comes to mind, but that one ruled that the first right to free assembly and petition (other than to Congress) is also not protected, and for the same reason. That is no longer "good law".
I wasn't quoting you directly, or I would have used quotation marks.
You implied the right to keep and bear arms, more honored in its breach, and effectively, made a privilege, because it's never been incorporated by a specific SCOTUS decision.
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) -- "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982) -- "The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the proposition that the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms."
MILLER v. TEXAS, 153 U.S. 535 (1894) -- "In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) -- "... the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons ..."
Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876)(Jefferson Circuit Court)
"It is manifest from the language of the article, and from the expressions of these learned commentators, that the arms which it guarantees American citizens the right to keep and to bear, are such as are needful to, and ordinarily used by a well regulated militia, and such as are necessary and suitable to a free people, to enable them to resist oppression, prevent usurpation, repel invasion, etc., etc."
"This article, however, is a restraint upon federal, and not upon State legislation."
And of couse the 9th Circuit Cout has been quite outspoken. They have held that the second amendment does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.
Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U. S. 912 (1996); San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 11121 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1999); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003).
The right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right. Now, whether or not (and how) that right is protected by the state is another matter. Of course, we can say the same for any other fundamental right -- the right to keep and bear arms is no different.
Bumpkin alert..
No state has the 'right' to infringe upon the peoples rights to life liberty or property, without due process of law.
If you stretch an analogy to an extreme, you can compare the two. E.g., if the mugger just wants my wallet, and promises that he almost certainly won't kill me if I give it up, does that make shooting him no longer an act of self-defense?
MHGinTN wrote:
the physician already acknowledges she is treating two individual alive humans, not just the one giving life support.Good point. This then raises the question as to whether society can force a women to provide life support services when there is no (currently) viable alternative way to provide these services.
Even if the pregnancy doesn't pose an threat to the mother's survival, can society force one person to provide life support to another, even when the risk to their life in doing so is minimal?
Can we force a parent to donate part of their liver to their child? After all, fatality rates among donors in "living-related liver transplantation" are relatively low.
WFTR wrote:
While pregnancy is definitely a special case that is hardly analogous to any other situation, it is a fact that parents are required by law to sacrifice their liberty and property for the benefit of their children, at the risk of being charged with negligence if they don't. There's no justification for allowing parents to "choose" to kill a child - either before or after birth.A woman can give her newborn child up for adoption for just about any reason. She can just say "take this kid away right now, immediately, I cannot support this child". In the case of a women who just became pregnant, would you suggest that the state tell her "you're going to have to wait nine months, compromise your health, and possibly die, but then, after you give birth, you can give up the newborn"?
I agree 100% that this analogy is stupid when you talk about a late-term abortions, but I posit that it has some merit in relation to arguments against RU486, etc.
I look for articles that are provocative, but in getting two for one here, I was just lucky.
"Intrauterine Cranial Decompression"??
Well, isn't that nice? They've finally come up with a nice medical term for "sucking the kid's brain out".
(Sorry to sound so crude but that's literally what the term does mean.)
Second, we have a well established tradition in law and ethics that affords protection to the alive innocent, even if it imposes severe requirements upon someone else (father's are forced to pay child support for infants they have no choice to abort in order to avoid obligation of life support, creating the ridiculous special right of females to use sex for financial support but allowing them to also choose serial killers to terminate an arrangement/obligation).
There is no legal tradition that suggests that a parent can be forced to give up part of their liver for a child, that an individual can be forced to donate blood.
Jarvis Thomson's "famous violinist" argument dates back to 1971, I won't explain all the gory details here, but it is a strong analogy with the right of self-defense.
While I disagree with you, I appreciate your trying to bring some thoughtful discussion to the abortion topic. We both make some fine distinctions around this issue, and I followed the thread and read your "famous violinist" analogy. I'll try to answer your questions to me by working at least to some extent with your own analogy.
I agree with you that no person should be forced to give life support to another person just because "fate," "chance," or "bad luck" threw them together. Likewise, no person should be forced to give life support to another person because the other person used force or fraud to get into a position to receive life support. If the "famous violinist" has hooked himself to my kidneys without permission, I'd not wait nine months to be rid of him even if it meant his death. This situation is why I wouldn't punish a rape victim or her doctor for aborting the child conceived during rape.
On the other hand, I disagree with your notion that a woman shouldn't be responsible for the child conceived during consensual sex. Your article suggests that pregnancy is analogous to someone leaving a window open to enjoy a breeze and having a burglar enter through the open window. I think this analogy is badly flawed when applied to abortion. The burglar is entering the home with criminal intent. The burglar is guilty of doing harm the moment that he enters the home, and the resident has reason to believe that he or she is in imminent danger. Using lethal force against the burglar is a reasonable act of self-defense. Conversely, the unborn child does not come into existence by his or her own choice. The unborn child does not come into existence as a result of his/her own criminal or malicious intent. Furthermore, in spite of the ranting of some proponents of legalized abortion, a normal pregnancy is not a significantly greater health risk than abortion. Using lethal force against the unborn child is not a reasonable act of self-defense. Finally, the writer of that web page suggests that an innocent person may innocently wander into one's home. I can't imagine an innocent person innocently entering through a window left open for the breeze, but let's assume that a door was open and someone entered because he thought it was another person's home. Unless this innocent intruder did something else that represented a reasonable threat, a resident who killed the innocent intruder without cause would be criminally liable.
I'll take your home visitor analogy a step further. A person is at work when a burglar enters his home, falls, and is injured in a way that he can't be moved without risk to life. As far as I'm concerned, the resident of that home has the right to insist that the burglar be taken out of the home even if movement kills the burglar. The resident didn't ask to have the burglar in his home, and anything that happens to the burglar is the burglar's problem. On the other hand, if the resident invited a friend to visit, and the friend falls and suffers the same injury, the resident does not have the right to insist that the friend by removed at risk of life or permanent injury. When one invites someone to visit, this risk, however small, is one that the resident must bear. If the event happens, then the resident must accept the consequences. The analogy to pregnancy should be obvious. By consenting to sex, a woman is accepting a risk that no matter how many precautions she takes, an innocent person may become dependent on her for life support. If that event occurs, she's obligated to provide that support.
To answer your specific question about RU486, I disagree with this drug because it kills an unborn child that the woman knows is there. I agree that there can be some ambiguity about whether a fertilized egg that hasn't implanted is really a person. However, by the time a woman knows that she's pregnant, I believe that the unborn child inside her is already a person. I don't have a big problem with a true "day after" pill, but RU486 is just a chemical abortion directed at a child that the mother knows is there.
Bill
"A woman can give her newborn child up for adoption for just about any reason." First, you are naive to believe that...Actually, in the USA, 47 states have enacted "safe haven" laws. Generally these laws allow the mother to anonymous "give up" a newborn, less than seven days old, with no legal penalty.
Anyone in the U.S. who wants to get in touch with a safe haven can call 1-877-796-HOPE (1-877-796-4673).
Who is naive?
I was not aware that 47 states have safehaven laws. Thanks good news. It is, however, naive to believe that women and girls will opt for safehaven for something they've been taught to perceive as a blob of not yet human tissue. The laws condoning the slaughter of alive unborn children have far more weight in our sadly secular society when it comes to selfish pregnant females. Additionally, our secularized society isn't putting money where the aid to pregnant women would encourage shying away from hiring what a significant noise in society characterizes as 'good guys' just because they gladly slaughter the unborn for a fee with the full protection of society's law behind their serial killing. Perhaps naive was too gentle ... you appear willing to defend the holocaust of the innocent unborn, as if it is either or, either women die from pregnancies or they are given carte blanc to hire the alive unborn killed for any reason.
Perhaps naive was too gentle ... you appear willing to defend the holocaust of the innocent unborn, as if it is either or, either women die from pregnancies or they are given carte blanc to hire the alive unborn killed for any reason.Please do not put words in my mouth!
I never said either or -- I've said that the state needs to strike a balance between the rights of the woman (who risks her health and life) and the rights of the developing child -- as the unborn child develops towards physical independence from the organs of the mother, the state must give his rights greater weight. As set down in law, this may very well mean carte blanc early in pregnancy, and strict ban on any intentional harm to the unborn child later in pregnancy. This isn't what you want to hear, these are not the "total ban on anything abortion-like" laws the hardcore "pro life" lobby wants to see passed, however more than a "a significant noise in society" supports such an approach to this difficult topic.
Over and over again I read responses to my posts over the past few days which appear to take the position that anybody who does not agree with the position that America must have a total ban on abortion from the moment of conception forward must be an evil monster who endorses euthanasia, eugenics, and mercy killing -- painting all who disagree as the devil, sometimes literally.
To bring this back on topic, back to the question of self-defense, Brian Elroy McKinley has an interesting essay on this:
not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person. Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death. This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supersede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger?5. Does it have human rights?
Yes and No.
A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth.
If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy.
Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world.
It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscious human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice.
Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue....
6. Is abortion murder?
No. Absolutely not.
It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.
Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.
But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgments and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.
It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.
It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.
"The ultimate question - is this right conferred to the people, or to the state? - has never been resolved by our highest court, despite recent efforts to force their hand: "The Supreme Court passed up a chance…to rule on the Bush administration’s assertion that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear firearms." (NewsMax.com, 6/11/2002)"
I just couldn't read on after this part. The Bill Of Rights have always and will always relate to the rights of the individuals. This is our system and no court can change this. Our government governs by the consent of the people, not the other way around.
Let's say we forget the "potential person" verbiage.
You wake up tomorrow after a night of heavy drinking, and find that there is now a midget with a genius IQ living in your abdomen, intricately interconnected with your own organs.
She says you agreed to this sometime last night, and will need to hang out there for the next nine months. The only way to remove her would result in her death.
What do you do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.