Why is abortion a political question??

[Steerpike]

Yes, and exactly!!! There are currently 7 of the 9 supreme court justices appointed by Republican Presidents!!! Yet, Republicans still claim they can overturn this decision and nothing has been done!!!

Just because Justices are appointed by Republicans doesn't mean they'd vote to overturn Roe. Many conservative Justices would probably uphold it under principles of stare decisis, whether they were personally pro-life or not.

The idea that having GOP-appointed Justices is going to lead to the inevitable overturning of Roe is just another example of how politicians use the issue as a wedge.

 

[JohnStOnge]

The underlying basis for political efforts in this regard is articulated by the Embryology text I used in college many years ago:

The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual."

Arey, L. B. Developmental Anatomy, 7th ed. Philadelphia and London, W.B. Saunders Company, 1974.

That text also includes a figure depicting "...the life span in man..." as divided into "Prenatal life" and "Postnatal life." It starts at "Fertilization," continues through "Embryo," "Fetus," "Newborn," "Infancy," "Childhood," "Adolescence," and "Adult."

The point is that one of the premises of Roe v. Wade, that no one can really say when life begins, is a lie. We know very well when life begins for a member of our species. If it weren't for our desire to maintain a policy we find convenient, we would have no problem with that question at all. There is no doubt about it.

What's ironic is that "pro choice" people accuse "pro life" people of trying to impose their beliefs on others while the most aggressive imposition of belief associated with the issue is practiced by the "pro choice" advocate. They argue the point that they have a "right" to set up their own criteria with respect to what makes a member of our species sufficiently developed to merit a right to continue its life, declare that certain living members of our species don't meet those criteria. They presume the right to "believe" that other members of our species are not "human" or "persons" then have them killed on the basis of that subjective belief. And, most of the time, to have them killed as a mere matter of convenience.

 

[biglin]

You're absolutely right, Steerpike.

Abortion is a MORAL question and people of ANY political persuasion can be pro-life or pro-choice.

I'm the archetypal swing voter and would probably vote Republican slightly more often than Democrat if I was a US citizen but of course you vote on a range of issues and not just one.

I'm not naive enough to think that judges - whoever appoints them - can't have political bias but I do think that on the whole most of them try honestly to interpret the law as they see it to the best of their ability regardless of their politics.

 

[DC42]

Yes, but I don't think the ruling will ever be reversed!! 7 of the 9 current supreme court justices were appointed by Republican Presidents!! The supreme court will NEVER be more lopsided than it is now... and they've done nothing to reverse the ruling!!! Yet, the GOP candidates still use this to sway votes!! I don't see it!!!

I think that there are four Justices on the Court right now, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, who could concievably vote to essentially reverse Roe v. Wade. In fact I think it likely that they would if given the opportunity. It only takes five. One can never be sure of how a Justice will vote but the odds of ending up with a Justice who would vote to overturn the decision are obviously better if a Republican appoints one than if somebody like Obama does. It would've been hard for McCain to appoint one who would be obviously likely to do it because there's a Democratic Senate. But I think if you kind of research and recall what's been going on the past few years you'll note that abortion "rights" advocates were quite concerned about the possibility of the Court tipping on that issue.

Realistically, it would take both the election of a Republican President who opposes Roe v. Wade and substantial Republican control of the Senate to create a situation where that President could nominate someone who is almost certain to be willing to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. The odds are against that but nothing is impossible. Many things can happen to change the political winds. But you have to be willing to treat it as a political matter for it to happen.

All good points!!! I just constantly hear people from the right relying on this issue, when in my opinion, there are many more important issues at hand!! I'm from the south, and if i asked someone why they voted Republican, guaranteed the some first things they would say is that Reps. are pro-life and against gay rights.... Neither of these issues even cross my mind when considering who to vote for...hints why I asked the question!!! Thank you, very well thought out response!!!

Another question, are the other three Republican appointed justices not as coservative as the four you mentioned??

 

[JohnStOnge]

The idea that having GOP-appointed Justices is going to lead to the inevitable overturning of Roe is just another example of how politicians use the issue as a wedge.

The idea that something like the "abortion" issue is a "wedge" created by politicians is nonsense. If you want a real contrived "wedge," look to something like the standard populist demagougery about how the rich, who pay way more than their fair share of the taxes already, need to be taxed even more.

Politicians do not drive the abortion issue. The large minority (currently) that seeks to fundamentally change current national policy on abortion is not made up of people who are very passionate about the issue and they are not of that mindset because politicians talked them into it. If no current politicians were indicating sympathy to their point of view, they'd be looking at finding some who will.

In fact, I went to a luncheon a few weeks ago that had to do with a new strategy for grass roots organization to populate both Houses of Congress with "pro life" persons who would pursue a strategy of taking jurisdiction over the abortion issue away from the Supreme Court unless the Court chooses to claim original jurisdiction. They are looking at this clause from Article III of the Constitution:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Right now, the Supreme Court has ceded original jurisdiction in most matters including something like abortion. And it could decide to assert original jurisdiction in abortion cases, I think, because a state would normally be a party to the matter. But Congress has the power, if it chooses, to take appellate jurisdiction away from the Supreme Court. That would create quite an interesting situation.

Of course, the odds of these people succeeding in taking over Congress are very long. But it's an example of how it's not a situation where you just say, "Oh well, the Court controls it so there's no political recourse." Beyond trying something like the angle described above, there's always amendment to the Constitution. Again, that's a thing that looks to be a very long shot right now. But it's something that can be effected through the political process. And one SURE as heck isn't going to effect change by giving up.

 

[Steerpike]

[

The idea that something like the "abortion" issue is a "wedge" created by politicians is nonsense. If you want a real contrived "wedge," look to something like the standard populist demagougery about how the rich, who pay way more than their fair share of the taxes already, need to be taxed even more.

I didn't say they 'created' it, I said they 'use' it as a wedge issue. And they do. They also use class (as you suggest), race, and many other issues.

 

[JohnStOnge]

You're absolutely right, Steerpike.

Abortion is a MORAL question .

Many, many political questions are moral questions. Human rights is a moral question. Within that, slavery is a moral question. Murder is a moral question. Theft is a moral question. Our government imposes morality when it says that an employer cannot discriminate against a prospective or current employee based on race or sex. So on and so forth. Many, many laws are an expression of morality. In fact, I think the overwhelming majority of them are.