I am vigorously opposed to abortion. I think it is a grave (yet, forgivable) sin in all but very rare circumstances, involving rape, incest and the life of the mother. I think the doctrine of the church is completely clear on this. I also think that Church doctrine, when understood, does not allow for one to be "personally against" abortion, while maintaining that it should be legal in order to protect "freedom of choice".
That all said, I will not base my vote solely on the abortion issue for at least two reasons.
First, I'm not convinced McCain is as committed to the issue as some may think. I recognize that he has a track record of anti-abortion votes. I also acknowledge that he has made the standard claim -- made by all Republicans seeking the nomination -- that he will appoint another "Scalia". I have read press articles, however, that lead me to believe that he does not like to discuss the issue, and does not want to make it a centerpiece of his campaign. That makes me think that it is not a super-important issue to him.
This impression is under-girded by McCain's history of not advocating for conservative judicial nominees who were on the record as believing that Roe v. Wade was bad law. I'm speaking of his involvement with the infamous "Gang of 14" -- a group of Republican and Democratic senators that banded together to prevent the filibuster of Bush's nominees in the senate, as well as the procedural mechanism threatened by the Republican leadership (a/k/a the "nuclear option"), which would have allowed them to avoid such filibusters and appoint the nominees. As a result of the actions of the Gang of 14, several qualified anti-abortion nominees were not confirmed. If McCain was a true believer, why did he do this?
Second, I believe that at this point in time -- over 30 years after Roe v. Wade was decided -- the president has little control over the abortion jurisprudence of the country. For at least the last 16 years, I have heard how each election is "the most important ever" because it could effect abortion rights. Nevertheless, there have not been any landmark changes in abortion jurisprudence since at least 1988. (I recognize that there have been cases dealing with it since then). All of the cases decided for the last 20 years, have applied the Roe v. Wade framework.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that a certain appointee to the Supreme Court will even vote to over turn Roe v. Wade, if given the chance. Look at Reagan (O'Connor and Kennedy) and Bush I (Souter), both of whom appointed justices who voted to uphold the Roe v. Wade framework. It goes to show that, despite the promises of the politicians, getting the Court to overturn a landmark decision that has been in place for 30-plus years is a difficult proposition, and will be come more difficult as the years pass. (It is much more likely that the conservatives on the Court will leave the decision intact, and try instead to narrow its impact over time. Some commentators have suggested that this is Chief Justice John Robert's intent.)
In light of this history, I feel that, while both sides use the abortion issue as a means to rally the base and fundraise, it is likely that neither candidate really believes that he will be able to do anything about the state of the law. I hope that I might be wrong about this, but I'm not sure enough about it to base my vote for the presidency entirely on it. I think there are a number of other issues that deserve attention.
RZA
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Here's why the candidates' stances on abortion will not determine my vote in this election. . .
Posted by cobrakaidojo at 8:52 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
RZA,
Unfortunateley, your "legal" analysis lacks a discussion on the moral nuances and logical future outcomes that are attached to abortion which could be significantly influenced by the persons elected to appoint judges that will, in fact, rule on existing and yet to be determined outcomes. It is incredible to think that you actually believe that "there have not been any landmark changes in abortion jurisprudence since 1988. . .". It's not just about Roe v Wade, although that does represent the beginning down the slippery slope on which we are presently sliding. It's also about the heinous procedure known as partial birth abortion, parental consent issues, privacy issues, and the incredible position that Obama took in the Illinois legislature to not protect the new born from a botched abortion, which for all intents and purposes amounts to infanticde. The whole culture of the protection of life (you know our belief in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", etc) may be at risk in a society that is inclined to consider euthanasia and genetic engineering in future legal considerations. With all of our advanced technolgy why don't we just consider eliminating all the unborn "undesirables" because they have perceived defects or abnormalities? I mean where does it all lead to and what is the end result of not fighting for a culture of life in our society? Should we be forced by the government, as in China, to limit the number of our offspring? Of the seven children we had which one didn't deserve to be born? We must choose the pathway of the future morality for our society through our elected officials and I respectfully recommend that you reconsider the importance of the negative trends in our society to not respect the fundamental right to life. We must make sure we demand from our judges at the top of our voices to know more than just what their "secret" intents are. They must declare themselves on this most fundamental societal issue.
RMB
As I said, I agree that abortion is very wrong. I also see your point about Obama not fostering a culture of life.
My analysis about the jurisprudence is correct, however. There simply has not been major change in the analysis used by the Supreme Court to decide abortion cases for the last twenty years. The partial birth abortion cases that the Court has decided more-recently were based on the the Roe v. Wade / Casey framework. As long as the Roe framework is still applied by the Court, there may decisions that offer minor tweaks in either direction, but there won't be the dramatic changes in the law that we agree need to happen.
Thirty years of history has shown that presidential elections have not effected the change in the law as promised by various candidates.
I also note that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will only have the effect of leaving the abortion question up to the states. States on both coasts and some northern states will continue to allow abortions based on their current political make-up.
oh my gosh! everyone has such an opinion. jon is oddley quiet tho...is this discussion over your head? j/k!
it is over mine! i do think that even if the law does not change, how a candidate thinks and holds this issue is vital to their character. regardless if they make changes or are even able to, the fact that they believe in an unborn child's right to life directly says something about their morality and integrity.
We all abhor the practice as passionately as you, Dad. My position is the Church's position, which is also RZA's position. RZA highlights that if you've voted for Reagan, Bush Sr., or Bush Jr., then you've assisted in upholding Roe v. Wade. Each of these conservative presidents has appointed Justices who have refused to overturn the decision.
It is right to be passionate in opposing Roe v. Wade but it is clear that supporting pro-life presidents has gotten us no where in abolishing the practice. This is why it shouldn't be the only issue in deciding for whom you will vote.
I believe that the means for abolishing abortion only partially lay in changing the law. Once the law is changed, states will assert their right to legalize abortion AND people will seek "back-alley" abortions regardless. It is clear that a moral shift must occur. Be a role model for kids whose parents are absent; be open about sex education--including abstinence and contraception; promote adoption and other support services in your community, as the Church does. Basically, make your community better by being involved in it. This is the broad and obvious answer, but one that does not get enough attention from the left or the right. I also believe that this is the answer the Church would give.
Here is a more crude version of my argument that represents more of how I feel about it: those seeking abortions are, by in large, teenage girls of low socio-economic class. These girls' parents will continue to be absent and idiotic; the males in these girls' communities will continue to not help the situation; and people in this socio-economic class will remain ignorant but for those of us charged by a moral duty, coming to their rescue, and helping them make choices that won't lead to the need for abortions.
Dad's points regarding what abortion portends for the future are interesting and, through time, will probably prove to be prophetic.
I still do not see an adequate response to the "slippery slope" we are on with Roe v Wade.
Of course everyone is against abortion, and I too agree with the exceptions defined by the Church as rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but I do not see a sufficient committment in your arguments to the importance of eliminating the nuances and logical outcomes of abortions as I described.
It is not just about "abortions", it is also about what flows from abortions, where they lead us to, and what type of society we want to be.
I cannot think of anything more important, and it gives me pause to think such a contradiction to the culture of life is not of utmost importance to you in this election.
How do you then propose that we arrest this troubling trend if not through our elected officials and their judicial appointments, or is it truly of so little consequence to you in relation to taxes, the war in Iraq and other issues, which, in my view, pale in comparison to the long-term effects of disregarding a culture of life in our society?
Dad
Post a Comment