[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]Last I checked, members were nominated by the President and approved by a body of representatives, but I get your point. Personally, I want an even spread of convictions and beliefs on the Supreme Court. Mix them up. They shouldn't all be rabidly biased for either side. Their job is to interpret the law, not to place moral judgment on it, so both positions on abortion need to be represented.
As for upholding Roe vs. Wade, I consider that a vital part of an equal society. Men can run away and hide from unwanted pregnancies, women cannot. Therefor the right to an abortion should at least be an existing option (though if it ever becomes the only one something needs to be done, and fast). No birth control method is 100%.ChiliDragon
I have an ongoing fight with bias and diversity of opinions. I mean, does the fact that there's no supreme court justice that supports pardoning convicted killers with no evidence to support the pardon mean there's an anti-murder bias? Yes, but we accept that as a good thing. I like your second paragraph more, that's sorta how I look at just about any legal issue. Should there be a moral dispute? Absolutely, talk about it until the cows come home. From a legal perspective, though, I see no reason why one group's definition oflife should be forced on the entire population, therefore I don't really support having diversity of opinions when it comes to whether or not abortion should be legal. But if you were more saying that judges should see the moral issue, see the privacy issue, and use even heads to determine what exactly the law should protect, I agree.
I'm not sure if there should be moral dispute, but there should absolutely be a debate. Everyone deserves to be heard, and every side of an issue should have a fair chance to make their case. If they squander that chance, that is on them, but the chance needs to be there. That is a cornerstone of democracy and equality. The basic idea of the Supreme Court is to gather up the best legal minds available and put them in the same room, ask them to consider all angles of an issue and then make the best ruling, based on the law and on what is best for society as a whole, so they need access to all side of the issue, not just the ones that are most convenient or politically correct. I think we are in agreement, I just didn't express my opinion very well in my first attempt. Painful workdays combined with vodka after work have that side effect ;)I'm trying to remember if you were in the last abortion topic I posted in. I gave an example of an exercise a teacher of mine once did where we gace our stance, pro or anti-abortion, and then gave reasons why and deeper explanation. It turned outwe basically all had the same driving reasons, views on morality, etc., even though our replies to the initial question varied. I'm sorta trying out a philisophical assumption that everyone basically has the same moral code in terms of intentions and the only differences are in terms of how we view that code should be carried out, which is where I think things become muddled. So far it's working out well.
Anyways, part of my response about whether there needs tobe a debate or not is simply because I'm an ever-increasingly jaded person when it comes to politics and political arguments, especially in terms of value positions like this. You can call it a debate, but that's pretty generous. It's only really a debate in the most basic sense of the word. Take presidential debates for example. Do they debate purpose or execution? No, one side stands up there and says, "we need to cut taxes," and the other says, "we need those taxes," and they just award the point on the issue ex post facto based on how the viewing public felt about their response. That's exactly my problem, how they felt. Now if they accepted the logic or not, but how they felt.
Go back to this abortion issue, why do anti-abortionists feel they need to criminalize abortion? They're obviously not going to have an abortion, so abortion won't effect them. What they do, however, is personalize other people's decisions and take it upon themselves to institute some sweeping change for moral advocacy or whatever you want to call it. I just think most, if not all, of these moral debates do not belong in the legal arena. Like I said, the law is in place to promote equality, not to institutionalize morals. I think democracy is going a step too far when people can use it to advocate their agenda at the expense of other people's rights, and I think that should be the pillar of any political debate, who does it effect, how does it effect, and what solution benefits both sides the most. Not how do I feel, not what do I think is right, not think of the children. I just think there's way too much sentimentality on our politics. Politics is a business of pragmatism, it needs to stay that way. I don't know if it was this thread or the other thread, but I'll frame it this way once more, abortion is a choice that people make based on their morality about what actually constitutes life. If the government bans abortion it is no longer a matter of choice, they're deciding morality for the people. With abortion legalized people are free to make that choice for themselves. I think that's as far as the legal debate needs to go. We can't legislate morals, period.Our purpose is to protect the rights and freedoms of all our citizens and we are not to discriminate against people with certain beliefs, done. In the legal sense, I don't see why it needs to go farther than that.
In a moral sense, fine. People have been debating morality forever. If not for moral debate abortion might not be legal, or it might seeing as how it was legal in the first place. Like someone else said, morals change and evolve. We do have to accept that, but what I think is ridiculous is trying to constantly amend the laws to keep up with changing morality. We should strive our hardest to keep laws that are as value-free as possible, that protect as many opinions and views as possible, and to still protect basic freedoms. Beyond that you risk weilding power in an arbitrary manner. Besides, all these constant debates over moral issues are a tremendous drain on the system and a detraction from real issues that need to be dealt with. Do you know what issues most voters said they were concerned with during the 00 and 04 elections? Value issues. During the 08 elections? The economy. I think we need to reprioitize how we use our legal system and democratic rights, put these value issues to rest, and focus on real, honest debate and discussion over economic issues that effect our everyday lives. Maybe if we had done that four or eight years ago we might not be in this mess right now.
Log in to comment