NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/49036

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49036 talk.religion.misc:21754 alt.atheism:21836
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: choice question
Sender: The_Doge
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 20:01:36 GMT
Lines: 54

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>}People use the constitution for too much.  It is a foundation, not
>}the end all.  If people want abortion legal or outlawed, pass a law.
>}Don't try to read it into the constitution.  Of course I would never
>}last as a judge, if the constitution doesn't make a reference to it,
>}it isn't in the constitution.  A horrible attitude I know, but it is
>}real life.
>
>Perhaps it escaped you Mark, but all things are legal until someone
>passes a law making them illegal.  I suspect you should check out
>"real" sometime, as in "real life."
    Let's be charitable (c'mon, it can't hurt just this once!) and note
that what we really have here is a philosophical difference between the
Statist and Individualist mentalities.  To the Statist (Mr. McCollough, in
this case), the default option is that the individual has no rights except
for those specifically granted in the Constitution ("if the constitution
doesn't make a reference to it, it isn't in the constitution").  This has
come to be referred to as "strict constructionism" by the political right,
which is generally hostile to individual rights and feels that the State
should control individual behavior as much as possible (hence their love
of censorship laws, laws regulating sexual behavior, and other regulations
of the individual citizen's intimate private behavior).
    To the Individualist, on the other hand, all rights reside in the
individual unless specifically ceded to the State for the protection of
society as a whole.  And the individualist assumes that we should be very
conservative about ceding those rights.
      If you read the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a
whole, I think it's pretty obvious that the folks who founded this country
were more individualists than not.  That's why the ninth amendment states
that individual rights extend beyond those mentioned specifically in the
other amendments (conservatives don't seem to like this amendment much;
Robert Bork once stated that he regarded it as an "ink blot")
    Final note: yes, there are factions on the political left that could
be called Statist as well, most noteably the anti-porno feminists (as
opposed to other types of feminists) and gun-control zealots.  IMHO, the
real political division in this country is no longer "liberal" vs
"conservative" but rather Statist vs Individualist; the party system just
hasn't caught up yet.
    Sorry if this is A) too long and B) too calm.  Those of you who
prefer self-righteous preaching and extended flame-fests may feel free to
add me to your kill files.  If you have rn, just add these commands:
/clavazzi@nyx/h:j
/chuck.lavazzi@launchpad/h:j

The_Doge
ObQuote:    "Freedom is an indivisible word.  If we want to enjoy it,
and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone, whether they
are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not.."
    -- Wendell Wilkie, 1943