Wednesday morning

[jtfanclub]

It seems to me today that both parties may again be be undergoing a change of personality. I am thinking, in both cases, this might be all to the good.

It's weird, ain't it? In 1988 or so, there were one group of Republicans, and Democrats were just 'everything left over'.

 

Now there's at least 3 groups of Republicans...

1. Fox News Republicans, always for war, never saw a spending increase or tax cut they didn't like, pro Federal power (such as warrantless wiretapping and Gitmo torture). Talk a lot about abortion, but don't seem to actually care about it. Pro gun control. Generally against 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants. Example: Guilliani.

 

2. Religious Right Republicans. Care a lot more about flag burning and banning abortion outright than they do about other issues. Very anti Federal power, heavily anti gun control. Believe in tax cuts but not spending increases. Very against 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants. Example: Huckabee.

 

3. Financial security Republicans. Against tax cuts unless combined with spending cuts. Believe strongly in cutting spending and balancing the budget. Very anti Federal power, but go either way on state level gun control and the war. Pro 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants. Consider abortion a 'states rights' issue. Example: McCain.

 

For a while, #2 seemed solidly in charge, then #1. Now McCain's winning, and he's decidedly #3. 3's love him, 2's will vote for him but aren't sending in money, and 1's would rather see a Democrat win.

 

Democrats actually have a platform now, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It mostly involves a bigger, more powerful Federal government (federalized health care, Pro Choice regardless of state, increased gun control) but unenforcable restrictions against it (no warrantless searches, no torture).

 

I'm in favor of smaller federal government, period. I don't mind mandating that businesses give their employees health care, but I don't want it run by the feds. I'm against warrantless searches and torture, but also against gun control. I think NAFTA is insane, but so is the 'war on drugs', particularly on marijuana. The candidates I was closest to in the election were Bill Richardson and Ron Paul, in that order.

 

If I were to try to split the Democrats into groups, I'd have trouble finding examples. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John Edwards all had the same basic viewpoint. Guys like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson couldn't get enough votes to qualify as a group.

[kenberg]

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial ...

No, I was asking why abortion is controversial, it seems to me that killing babies is not a controversial topic.

 

More precisely, why is abortion such a dangerous topic in the US elections but not so much elsewhere (maybe it is in some other countries too, I don't know).

I confess I don't really know what European practice is, either country by country or overall. Let me suggest an extreme possibility: If a mother is put in jail for, say, twenty years for killing a baby one week after birth but is able to abort one week before the expected birth with no explanation required I, myself, would find that a bit weird. Assuming that this is not European policy (is it?) then I would also assume that they have somehow worked out some sort of compromise system. Is this so?

 

 

As Mike has said, part of the issue here is that the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to decide these matters for us and tell us that their authority lies within the Constitution. You don't have to be a Fundamentalist for this to make you a little uneasy, even if you feel, as I do, that decisions about abortion should be largely left to the pregnant woman.

[helene_t]

If a mother is put in jail for, say, twenty years for killing a baby one week after birth but is able to abort one week before the expected birth with no explanation required I, myself, would find that a bit weird. Assuming that this is not European policy (is it?) then I would also assume that they have somehow worked out some sort of compromise system. Is this so?

In general, the later the stage of the pregnancy the more difficult it is to get abortion. I think in most countries it becomes very difficult after the 20th week.

 

It is controversial in some European countries, in general the catholic ones. In Netherlands the abortion law was made less liberal with the formation of the present government because a religious party was require to secure the government's parliamentary majority.

 

A mother killing (or removing if you like) a fetus one week before the expected birth would not happen because she wouldn't be able to do it by herself. I would expect the surgeon getting a prison term but significantly less than the homocide rate. I could easily be wrong. It is a somewhat hypothetical case.

 

FWIW I feel quite uncomfortable by abortion but weighting all the cons and pros I think it's most practical to leave the decision to the pregnant woman.

[TimG]

A mother killing (or removing if you like) a fetus one week before the expected birth would not happen because she wouldn't be able to do it by herself. I would expect the surgeon getting a prison term but significantly less than the homicide rate. I could easily be wrong. It is a somewhat hypothetical case.

What about 2 weeks? 3 weeks? 2 months? 3 months?

[Winstonm]

Roe vs Wade is a court case that found abortion legal based on rights ( I think privacy rights but someone could double check). It is not a law passed by Congress or the states.

 

Abortion rules, legal or illegal or those yet to be determined rules (and there are many) are set by unelected judges rather than by elected politicians. This is really the crux of the issue.

 

You have a highly controversial issue that is ultimately being settled in the courts by unelected judges rather than through some forced political compromise through elections.

 

 

I simply have to challenge these comments.

 

First of all, Roe Vs Wade did not find that abortion was legal. The Supreme Court, in Roe vs Wade found that the federal and state abortions laws at that time - statutes that had already been written by elected representatives - were unconstitutional.

 

The abortion laws were statutory, meaning they were legislative laws, thus created by e-l-e-c-t-e-d representatives. The legality of these statutes was challenged and eventually the Supreme Court agreed to hear it in Roe vs Wade.

 

That's the way this Republic is supposed to work. Statutory laws are written by elected representatives and then the judicial system determines the legality of the laws. But to say that abortion was legalized by unelected judges is false - those judges simply ruled on the legality of laws as written by elected representatives.

 

This does not mean the Supreme Court is perfect - one of the gross embarassments in U.S. history was the Supreme Court finding in favor of the seperate but equal doctrine, thus legalizing racial segregation.

 

But Roe vs Wade is not in this category of embarrassing S.C. moments. And to claim that unelected judges make abortion law is misleading.

[han]

A mother killing (or removing if you like) a fetus one week before the expected birth would not happen because she wouldn't be able to do it by herself. I would expect the surgeon getting a prison term but significantly less than the homicide rate. I could easily be wrong. It is a somewhat hypothetical case.

What about 2 weeks? 3 weeks? 2 months? 3 months?

See below:

 

If a mother is put in jail for, say, twenty years for killing a baby one week after birth but is able to abort one week before the expected birth with no explanation required I, myself, would find that a bit weird. Assuming that this is not European policy (is it?) then I would also assume that they have somehow worked out some sort of compromise system. Is this so?

In general, the later the stage of the pregnancy the more difficult it is to get abortion. I think in most countries it becomes very difficult after the 20th week.

 

It is controversial in some European countries, in general the catholic ones. In Netherlands the abortion law was made less liberal with the formation of the present government because a religious party was require to secure the government's parliamentary majority.

 

A mother killing (or removing if you like) a fetus one week before the expected birth would not happen because she wouldn't be able to do it by herself. I would expect the surgeon getting a prison term but significantly less than the homocide rate. I could easily be wrong. It is a somewhat hypothetical case.

 

FWIW I feel quite uncomfortable by abortion but weighting all the cons and pros I think it's most practical to leave the decision to the pregnant woman.

[P_Marlowe]

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial ...

No, I was asking why abortion is controversial, it seems to me that killing babies is not a controversial topic.

 

More precisely, why is abortion such a dangerous topic in the US elections but not so much elsewhere (maybe it is in some other countries too, I don't know).

Abortion is a controversial topic in Europe as well:

- Ireland, there was a huge outcry as a woman

wanted to travel to England or the Netherlands

to get an abortion

- And I am pretty sure it is in Italy and Poland

as well

- In Spain or in Portuagal it was illegal, and they

wanted to change this (in the last 5 years9

- ... and in Germany, the controversy may have

ended with 1993, with a judgement of the german

supreme court, but the paragraph 218 still exists

and makes abortion in general illegal, the paraph

spells out, in which cases and under which

conditions a woman may request one

 

So to answer your question, in countries with a huge

catholic presence, you will have a lot of opponents,

because of religious believes, ... and those religious

believes are the same reasons, abortion is a

controversial topic in the US as well.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

More precisely, why is abortion such a dangerous topic in the US elections but not so much elsewhere (maybe it is in some other countries too, I don't know).

The US is an outlier in any number of ways

 

1. We're pretty much the only large developed economy that takes religion seriously

 

2. We're pretty much the only large developed democracy that maintains the death penalty

 

3. We're pretty much the only large developed economy that considers Evolution controversial

 

4. We're still fighting over abortion (However, the Economist ran an interesting article a couple monthes back about the renew process for abortion access bills in the UK)

 

Personally, I think that item one is driving a lot of other behaviours

Not sure what the root cause of this U.S. deviation is. My officemate who has been living in the U.S. for some years said that religious communities play a major role for new immigrants (international as well as inter-state) who would feel lonely, and also financially insecure, without a local social network. Having a religious network appears to be practical in a country with huge geographical mobility and the lack of secular social security.

 

When I moved to Lancaster the first thing I did was to google on "Lancaster" plus various keywords associated with local social networks that might help me building up a local network (bridge, esperanto, gay/lesbian, theater, walking). Migrating usually makes me focus on such things for some time. If I were religious, migration would surely have made me focus more on religion. And churches were easy to spot even before the internet era.

 

There have been attempts to create humanist, skepticist or atheist social networks that could play the same role as a religion, but it's difficult. A tea-drinking circle consisting of people who only share the fact that they don't do a particular thing (in this case, believing) is not particularly inspiring.

 

Btw, Europe has not always been "modern" in those political/moral areas. I think it dates back to the marxist/flowerpower revolution of the 60s. Marx and flowerpower is largely dead, but having experiences such a moral turnover makes the younger generation not believe in moral absolutism. Here, the revolution affected everything, not only universities and elite culture but also mass media, the educational system, even religion. I think the revolution of the 60's went less deep in the US than in Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, maybe some can shed some light on the hows and whys. I was very young myself (born 66) and don't know much about the World outside Europe so this is just my usual armchair philosophy B)

[Winstonm]

I think the revolution of the 60's went less deep in the US than in Europe.

 

Having lived through that era, I wouldn't call the 60's and early 70's revolutionary here in the U.S - it was more mass disillusionment. The youth of America learned that they did not live in Camelot.

[kenberg]

Like Helene, I have to say correct me if I am wrong. However I am pretty sure that it was during my lifetime (1939--) that you could not buy condoms in some European countries. So it seems there has been substantial change.

 

 

As to the religious turmoil here, it has many aspects. At the risk of really not knowing what I am talking about, it is my understanding that many Jews, when they left places of persecution such as the then Soviet Union, if they did not want to go to Israel then they felt the most welcome in the US. I am not Jewish, but I have been told this by people who are. One can understand deep emotional reasons for not choosing Germany, but for the most part they don't choose France either. I get the idea that there is a welcome here that is not found elsewhere. And I repeat, no I am not Jewish and so yes, I may not know what I am talking about. If I am even close to being correct then the US/EU comparisons on religious matters are not all unfavorable to the US.

 

 

But of course what gets people going is the Christian Right's strong showing in politics. I grew up in a neighborhood of Protestants, Jews, and Catholics. The Catholic kids went to parochial school, the Jewish kids were unavailable for play on parts of Saturday because they went to Hebrew school, and that was about all people saw in differences. Anyone who went on talking at length about his religion was considered something of a nut.

 

I will say that when I pulled away from the church in my teens I kept a low profile. When I was around 5 I figured out about Santa, got my mother to confirm this, and then told all my playmates that there was no Santa. Someone's big sister cam around and said there was a Santa and if I kept saying there wasn't she would beat the crap out of me. I took this lesson to heart.

[mike777]

In Europe how did Abortion become legal and how are the continuing and never ending abortion rules worked out? Is it through elections and voting or the courts?

 

In Europe as for religion and attending weekly religious services, I understand there is a direct correlation between immigration and increased attendence. It will be interesting to see how increased immigration affects abortion and other issues in Europe.

[TimG]

In Europe how did Abortion become legal and how are the continuing and never ending abortion rules worked out?

Wouldn't it be the other way round: How did abortion become illegal in some places (and not others)? Wouldn't the default be that something is legal if it is not expressly made illegal?

[Winstonm]

In Europe how did Abortion become legal and how are the continuing and never ending abortion rules worked out?

Wouldn't it be the other way round: How did abortion become illegal in some places (and not others)? Wouldn't the default be that something is legal if it is not expressly made illegal?

You are correct. Statutes create illegality.

 

Is it through elections and voting or the courts?

 

Laws are statutory, thus cannot be created by the courts.

[mike777]

In Europe how did Abortion become legal and how are the continuing and never ending abortion rules worked out?

Wouldn't it be the other way round: How did abortion become illegal in some places (and not others)? Wouldn't the default be that something is legal if it is not expressly made illegal?

I assume the Church ruled Europe on this issue during the dark ages. Called it banned if you do not like illegal.

 

Call it abortion rights if you prefer that to legal.

 

edit

 

Of course many seem to be shocked when I point out that decisions by the Supreme Court have often been ignored throughout USA history.

 

But in any event my main question was how did the law or custom or right of abortion come about in modern Europe?

[hrothgar]

But in any event my main question was how did the law or custom or right of abortion come about in modern Europe?

Why do bother posting questions like this when the relevant information is readily available on the Internet?

 

Do you somehow believe that any of the members of this list are subject matter experts?

 

Are you too lazy to type abortion + history in Google?

[helene_t]

In Europe how did Abortion become legal and how are the continuing and never ending abortion rules worked out? Is it through elections and voting or the courts?

Lol, as Winston pointed out, courts do not settle such issues over here. A lawyer is just another service provider and a judge is just another government clerk. I understand this is slightly different in the US :angry:

 

Such things are decided by parliaments, often after pressure from the medical lobby and women's rights movements (the latter having substantial influence on social democrat governments or at least used to have). Of course some churches, especially the catholic church, exercises the reverse pressure, but eventually the popular majority pro abortion will be decisive.

[Winstonm]

But in any event my main question was how did the law or custom or right of abortion come about in modern Europe?

 

This looks like three seperate issues. How did the social mores appear (customs)?

How did mores influence subsequent statues (laws)? What influece if any did mores have on interpreting laws (rights)?

 

I believe Mike is right that mores certainly influence the creation of statutes, and further that superior and supreme courts have the responsibility to determine if the statutes are valid law as written.

 

How this all ocurred in Europe, though, would probably take a 10-volume set to answer properly.

[helene_t]

superior and supreme courts have the responsibility to determine if the statutes are valid law as written.

In Denmark, no court has such a mandate. The ministry of justice has an office for determining the validity of laws before they get passed, but that is certainly not a court. Cannot speak for other countries, but it is extremely rare in (Western) Europe that a court decides on the validity of a law.

[Winstonm]

superior and supreme courts have the responsibility to determine if the statutes are valid law as written.

In Denmark, no court has such a mandate. The ministry of justice has an office for determining the validity of laws before they get passed, but that is certainly not a court. Cannot speak for other countries, but it is extremely rare in (Western) Europe that a court decides on the validity of a law.

So in those areas the laws more accurately reflect social mores I would think - or the will of the rich and powerful, whichever is most influential.

[luke warm]

But in any event my main question was how did the law or custom or right of abortion come about in modern Europe?

Why do bother posting questions like this when the relevant information is readily available on the Internet?

not speaking for mike here, but i think it's pretty obvious, it's always been obvious (to me at least)... mike posts things like this to make people think... few of his questions are really for the purpose of gathering information

Do you somehow believe that any of the members of this list are subject matter experts?

i'll go ahead and finish usurping his right of response... no, but thinking about it might make some *more* expert

[cherdano]

I'm hoping that Obama is able to pull this out. While Clinton captured the majority of the delegates that were available yesterday, it felt more like an Obama victory to me.

Apparently this is not even true. I just read the claim that Obama won slightly more delegates than Clinton on Super-Tuesday.

 

Does anybody know whether this is correct? I suppose the number e.g. on CNN include superdelegates that have pledged to support one of the candidates?

[kenberg]

But in any event my main question was how did the law or custom or right of abortion come about in modern Europe?

Why do bother posting questions like this when the relevant information is readily available on the Internet?

not speaking for mike here, but i think it's pretty obvious, it's always been obvious (to me at least)... mike posts things like this to make people think... few of his questions are really for the purpose of gathering information

Do you somehow believe that any of the members of this list are subject matter experts?

i'll go ahead and finish usurping his right of response... no, but thinking about it might make some *more* expert

If I may also usurp Mike's right to respond, I am truly interested in hearing from Europeans, and from knowledgeable Americans about how this emotional issue is dealt with outside of the US. For example, if I understand Marlowe correctly the German Supreme Court played a strong role in the resolution (if indeed there has been a resolution). If I am at all right about how things are done in the UK (I may not be) the legitimacy of their laws does not get tested for adherence to any fundamental document analogous to our constitution. Precedent plays a stronger role there than it does here, so a ruling that banning abortions is unconstitutional is not an option. I suppose that this makes the resolution take a different path.

 

At any rate, I think most every society asserts some sort of right, under some circumstances, to interfere with the options of a pregnant woman. There would, for example, probably be some support for dealing with excessive alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman. There may be laws about this on th books for all I know. Societies have to hash this all out somehow and an international forum such as this allows us a glimpse of the solutions found elsewhere.

 

Granted, there are people who believe God has told them, on almost all issues, what is right and it is their duty to jam this down the throats of the rest of us. Some religious leaders have far more influence than any rational society would grant them. Put them aside. This still leaves us with the issue of how to balance the rights of an adult woman against society's right to insist on some minimum level of responsible behavior. Most people should be left free to pursue their own lives on the basis of their own moral choices. Not all people.

 

So anyway, I'm interested in European solutions.

[kenberg]

I'm hoping that Obama is able to pull this out.  While Clinton captured the majority of the delegates that were available yesterday, it felt more like an Obama victory to me.

Apparently this is not even true. I just read the claim that Obama won slightly more delegates than Clinton on Super-Tuesday.

 

Does anybody know whether this is correct? I suppose the number e.g. on CNN include superdelegates that have pledged to support one of the candidates?

Honestly, I vote this coming Tuesday in the Maryland primary and I find the business extremely confusing. I like to think I am not a total idiot but I look at the sample ballot in dismay. I have to choose between Obama and Clinton. OK that I can handle. Then I have two more lists of people I have, for the most part, never heard of. I have to choose two from the list of women and three from the list of men/alternates. They each have Clinton or Obama by their names. I do not know if a delegate with Clinton by his/her name is legally bound to stay with Clinton through multiple convention votes, must vote Clinton on the first vote but may subsequently switch, or perhaps he just thinks he might vote for Clinton but then again he may not.

 

Usually by the time the race gets to Maryland everything is settled and so I can happily ignore such questions. If CNN has figured it all out maybe they can tell me.