What's bewildering about your Roe v Wade mention is not that you take a side in it, but that you present it as an example where a reaction to injustice has gone so far that the other side has responded. But where did Roe v Wade go too far? The problem with your argument is that it is essentially the same argument SCOTUS made: to wit, the…
What's bewildering about your Roe v Wade mention is not that you take a side in it, but that you present it as an example where a reaction to injustice has gone so far that the other side has responded. But where did Roe v Wade go too far? The problem with your argument is that it is essentially the same argument SCOTUS made: to wit, they said that abortion was an issue that should balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn child, and acted as though Roe v Wade had tilted the pendulum too far towards the rights of the mother by allowing abortion. This is a straw-man argument, as it ignores that the Roe v Wade decision WAS the effort to balance those rights. The justices chose "fetal viability" as the point at which the rights of the unborn child exceed those of the mother carrying it. In other words, if the unborn child could not survive unassisted outside the womb then the mother's rights are the stronger rights, but if the child could be expected to survive then it's rights become supreme. This is the definition of a reasoned decision. The problem of the continued assault on abortion rights is that those who oppose abortion believe (or claim to) that ALL abortion is evil, and therefore there is no pendulum on which to balance here.
Then, more confusing still is your conclusion to this point. You write "I'm in favor of the state not deciding about abortion...." and follow that up with "...is not incompatible with the overturning of Roe vs Wade. That literally said 'the federal government has no say in that matter.'" But the STATE government does. I'm not sure what semantic game you are playing here. Are you arguing that state governments represent the individual's right to choose? I would argue a) that in modern American history that the governments which have oppressed individual's rights have overwhelmingly been state governments as opposed to the federal government; and b) living here in Texas I don't think many people feel that they have a choice about abortion as the state has not only made it illegal but allowed for enforcement of this policy by allowing citizens to sue other citizens with an incredibly stacked legal process in their favor (a technique borrowed from the Fugitive Slave Act, one of the worst legal acts ever passed in the history of the United States).
I recognize that this line is, essentially, a throwaway example in a much longer thought-piece, but your decision to defend this makes me confused as to what your whole point is.
Can't speak for Thomas here, but I read the Roe vs. Wade comment as an example for a reaction to progressive forces, since their successes/influence motivated a strong movement/pressure to select conservative judges which had an effect later in e.g. this decision. I don't think Thomas makes a moral judgement here, it is purely descriptive.
I'm not entirely sure now, but I've interpreted this as Tomas saying "there should be a law legalizing abortion, so individuals would have the right to choose".
I agree with your take on the issue. A rational decision about having an abortion would take into account the balance of the rights of the mother vs the rights of the unborn child. The underlying question though is: who should have the power to make or guide that decision? The Federal Government? State Governments? The church? Or the individual people most affected by the consequences of that decision?
Finding a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the rest of society to have a say in that decision might be a clearer way of looking at it. The irony of course is that the Right used to be the anti-government power party that championed the rights of the individual!
I was confused by this as well. Perhaps Walter's and Laurent's more charitable perspectives are accurate but I found Thomas' statements to be contradictory or at best incomplete.
What's bewildering about your Roe v Wade mention is not that you take a side in it, but that you present it as an example where a reaction to injustice has gone so far that the other side has responded. But where did Roe v Wade go too far? The problem with your argument is that it is essentially the same argument SCOTUS made: to wit, they said that abortion was an issue that should balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn child, and acted as though Roe v Wade had tilted the pendulum too far towards the rights of the mother by allowing abortion. This is a straw-man argument, as it ignores that the Roe v Wade decision WAS the effort to balance those rights. The justices chose "fetal viability" as the point at which the rights of the unborn child exceed those of the mother carrying it. In other words, if the unborn child could not survive unassisted outside the womb then the mother's rights are the stronger rights, but if the child could be expected to survive then it's rights become supreme. This is the definition of a reasoned decision. The problem of the continued assault on abortion rights is that those who oppose abortion believe (or claim to) that ALL abortion is evil, and therefore there is no pendulum on which to balance here.
Then, more confusing still is your conclusion to this point. You write "I'm in favor of the state not deciding about abortion...." and follow that up with "...is not incompatible with the overturning of Roe vs Wade. That literally said 'the federal government has no say in that matter.'" But the STATE government does. I'm not sure what semantic game you are playing here. Are you arguing that state governments represent the individual's right to choose? I would argue a) that in modern American history that the governments which have oppressed individual's rights have overwhelmingly been state governments as opposed to the federal government; and b) living here in Texas I don't think many people feel that they have a choice about abortion as the state has not only made it illegal but allowed for enforcement of this policy by allowing citizens to sue other citizens with an incredibly stacked legal process in their favor (a technique borrowed from the Fugitive Slave Act, one of the worst legal acts ever passed in the history of the United States).
I recognize that this line is, essentially, a throwaway example in a much longer thought-piece, but your decision to defend this makes me confused as to what your whole point is.
Can't speak for Thomas here, but I read the Roe vs. Wade comment as an example for a reaction to progressive forces, since their successes/influence motivated a strong movement/pressure to select conservative judges which had an effect later in e.g. this decision. I don't think Thomas makes a moral judgement here, it is purely descriptive.
I'm not entirely sure now, but I've interpreted this as Tomas saying "there should be a law legalizing abortion, so individuals would have the right to choose".
I agree with your take on the issue. A rational decision about having an abortion would take into account the balance of the rights of the mother vs the rights of the unborn child. The underlying question though is: who should have the power to make or guide that decision? The Federal Government? State Governments? The church? Or the individual people most affected by the consequences of that decision?
Finding a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the rest of society to have a say in that decision might be a clearer way of looking at it. The irony of course is that the Right used to be the anti-government power party that championed the rights of the individual!
I was confused by this as well. Perhaps Walter's and Laurent's more charitable perspectives are accurate but I found Thomas' statements to be contradictory or at best incomplete.