« Fathers and Daughters | Main | Monday »

November 14, 2005

Notes from Ferdy - I've Got Mail: Sam Alito and Abortion Rights

by Ferdinand T Cat

I got the following message in the mail today, and thought it was a good starting point for a discussion.

Where does Sam Alito get off thinking he has any power over a WOMAN'S right to choose in a democracy?

There are really two answers to this question, depending on how you read it. In both cases, however, I am making the logical assumption that a woman's right to choose is a marketing term for abortion.

The first way to look at this question is exactly as stated. In the Roe v Wade decision, the Supreme Court asserted that abortion was an aspect of the constitutional right to privacy. As the Supreme Court is final arbiter of constitutional rights, any Supreme Court Justice gains a portion of the power to decide in what circumstances that right applies.

My own research into Alito's decisions as a judge leads me to believe that his priority is the letter of the law, not his personal feelings. Therefore, it is possible he would support overturning Roe v Wade if he believes it's based on an incorrect reading of the constitution. There is some reason to believe he feels that way; however, overturning Roe would have the effect of devolving the power to control abortion rights on the States. The correct question is therefore

Where does Sam Alito get off thinking he SHOULDN'T control a woman's right to choose in a democracy?

The answer is: it is a consequence of his belief in the proper role of the judiciary.

The problem is, I don't think I'm answering the question my correspondent really intended to ask, and that brings us to the root of why we never make any progress in this discussion. As a pro-lifer, it's easy for me to see that the pro-choice position follows from a belief that a fetus is not a human life. Why can't the pro-choicers see that our position follows from the opposite belief? Instead, we have all these goofy phrases-- emergency contraception, reproductive health, right to choose-- whose only purpose is to trick conservatives into thinking we're talking about something other than killing an unborn child! It's offensive.

An even if this woman DOES think that conservatives can be fooled by another sleight-of-word trick, what sort of insanity persuaded her into thinking she could fool a cat?

It really rubs me the wrong way.

Respectfully submitted,

Ferdinand T. Cat

Trackposted to A Woman's Right to Blog Outloud, The Public's Right to Interesting and Funny News, The Real Teen's Right to be On the Right, A Man's Right to a Tar Pit, The Third World's Right to a County, The RIght of Committees to Correspond, Jo's Right to a Cafe, Basil's Right to Blog, Mudville's Right to a Gazette, The Mary Hunter's Right to Bacon Bits, and A Bright Man's Right to be Early.

# At Mon 6:35 PM | Permalink | Trackback URI | Comments (3) | More Notes from Ferdy

Trackback Pings

Comments

I just cannot understand why abortion is the alpha & omega of the universe. Wars, riots, starvation, women being murdered in socalled honor killings and the only blankety blank thing we can worry about is maybe just maybe some woman might not be able to kill her child.


Posted by: Maxnnr at November 14, 2005 7:46 PM

I think its really more evidence that abortion is truly a negative whether the left wants to admit it or not.

I'll never forget what Alan Keyes said once regarding Bill Clinton's declaration that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." "The last time I checked, the only thing that's good when its rare is a steak."

Only the real nuts are going to openly advocate for abortion. Smart liberals realize its something evil to most people. Even most pro-choicers won't have much to do with an abortionist, because instinctively we know this whole business is distatesful.


Posted by: Adam Graham at November 14, 2005 7:51 PM

One of the things that bothers me most about the present state of Law on this issue is the inherent contradictions.

If for the sake of debate I stipulate that the fetus is indeed a part of a woman's body, with no individual legal identity, then how can we have charges such as Fetal homicide?]

If a woman or a man for that matter should lose a leg in an accident the person responsible cannot be charged with leg homicide,

Indeed the term homicide has specific legal definitions. It is the termination of a HUMAN life and parental consent is not sufficient grounds for homicide,

If Fetal homicide can stand under the Law, then any physician who commits an abortion should be charged with it.

Our medical science has outstripped our Law and that needs to be addressed.


Posted by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 14, 2005 8:52 PM

HTML is not allowed in comments; however, if you put in a raw URL (http://www.somewhere.com/page.html) it will automatically be converted to a link.. Also, it is likely your comment will not appear unless you refresh the page manually after posting it.

Post a comment