# Let's amend the Constitution to ban abortion opponents! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109 "2010-09-17T18:01:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/1 "2010-09-17T18:01:14Z")
In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=578292) about Christine O’Donnell candidacy, \*\*Whack-a-Mole[/b asserts that she is objectively unqualified for the position, because she’d use her ideology in office: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think it objectively disqualifies her because she would push her ideological dogma on the country. Or FFs did not want to roll that way. If they did then where does ideology stop? Don’t like Muslims? Let’s get an amendment to ban that religion (you’d need an amendment currently to ban abortions so the comparison could be made). This just astonishes me. I had tried to draw a line between a position you disagree with, something that disqualifies her from ever getting your personal vote, and OBJECTIVE disqualification, like not being 30 years of age or a resident of the state in question. My point was that while anyone can – and many do – feel as though abortion positions will drive one’s personal vote, I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone claim that a politician who wishes to make abortion illegal should be objectively disqualified from seeking office. So I asked: > [@Bricker](#): > > …would you support an amendment to the Constitution that said, “Any person supporting the criminalization of abortion shall be disqualified for any office of the United States or any state?” On the face of it, that seems absolutely incredible to me to even consider such a restriction. Of course you may strongly disfavor limiting reproductive rights… but would you literally claim that a politician who wanted to make abortion illegal simply can’t be elected, that they should be considered disqualified from an objective standpoint? Since this topic had broader implication than “2010 Elections,” I have reproduced the dialog here. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/2 "2010-09-17T18:18:16Z")
More specifically the argument was about abortion from rape or incest. O’Donnell says she would not allow those exceptions. They are far less mainstream. No, a person should not be DQd for having any abortion stance, pro or con. But are there stances that should exempt them? If they want to put Muslims in concentration camps, should they be allowed to run? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/3 "2010-09-17T18:19:52Z")
I don’t think he’s saying that she legally is ineligible to become Senator (unless your proposed amendment passes). He’s making a moral argument; that someone who holds her views is morally unsuitable to hold public office. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/4 "2010-09-17T18:27:46Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I don’t think he’s saying that she legally is ineligible to become Senator (unless your proposed amendment passes). He’s making a moral argument; that someone who holds her views is morally unsuitable to hold public office. So “moral” = “objective?” See, in my little neck of the woods, when someone is making a moral argument, he usualy says, "Morally, . . . . " Not “Objectively, . . . . .” Because it’s really hard to claim that morals are objective, especially this particular area of morality. So if he is really making the moral argument, I have no problem. I disagree, but I get it. But I don’t see how that’s possible, given the repeated use of the word “objective.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/5 "2010-09-17T18:28:50Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > More specifically the argument was about abortion from rape or incest. O’Donnell says she would not allow those exceptions. They are far less mainstream. > No, a person should not be DQd for having any abortion stance, pro or con. But are there stances that should exempt them? If they want to put Muslims in concentration camps, should they be allowed to run? Yes. We solve that problem by not voting for them when they run. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/6 "2010-09-17T18:31:47Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > If they want to put Muslims in concentration camps, should they be allowed to run? Of course they should be allowed to run. People run on crazier platforms every day, and we don’t vote them into office. What troubles me about it though, is that we _have_ put people in camps and it wasn’t really that long ago, and well, how did that happen? And can it happen again, if we elect enough people into office who want it? And just because the majority says so, does that make it ok? But that is a different kettle of fish. There are politicians out there every day who scream their dogma about religion, abortion, what have you. I grit my teeth and vote for the other girl - teeth gritted because she probably isn’t any better. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/7 "2010-09-17T18:41:51Z")
I posted in the other thread but will summarize here: First **Captain Amazing** is correct on what I am on about. I know she is legally eligible to run. As to the rest we could suppose a prospective Senator wanted to legalize pedophilia via an amendment to the constitution. It is legal to do that and in **Bricker-land** that the person is morally bankrupt does not objectively disqualify the person for office. I think it does (albeit obviously the person is not legally barred from running). YMMV ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/8 "2010-09-17T18:46:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I posted in the other thread but will summarize here: > > First **Captain Amazing** is correct on what I am on about. I know she is legally eligible to run. > > As to the rest we could suppose a prospective Senator wanted to legalize pedophilia via an amendment to the constitution. It is legal to do that and in **Bricker-land** that the person is morally bankrupt does not objectively disqualify the person for office. > > I think it does (albeit obviously the person is not legally barred from running). > > YMMV And I know you know she’s legally eligible to run. But since you said, “So yeah…I’d say O’Donnell’s vision is as anathema to US ideals and as Gestapo as can be thus objectively disqualifying her from office. **Or it should anyway** ,” it seems you’re saying it SHOULD legally disqualify her to run. Neither is a pedophile candidate objectively disqualified to run. Certainly he or she is personally disqualified; under no circumstances would I cast my vote his way. Or maybe I don’t understand how you’re using the word “objectively.” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/9 "2010-09-17T18:50:30Z")
I thought that it was a fundamental basis of the government of this country that if the entire moral code of the populace changed, it could via election of representatives and amendments and the like reconfigure the government to match the public’s expectations of it. This being an alternative to government change via armed insurrection. I mean, isn’t this the whole _point_ of allowing constitutional amendments? For an example, suppose if persons who disliked slavery had been disallowed from participating in government? What then? So yeah - let any loon run. If they start getting elected, that isn’t due to a problem in the government; it’s due to a problem in the _populace_. In which the proper solution is to seek to educate the populace, to flee to Canada, or elect somebody who will take care of the problem with the populace for you, perhaps by legislating to get all anti-choicers sent to death camps or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/10 "2010-09-17T18:59:06Z")
Disqualifying people because of their beliefs is nonsensical because if you can get a sufficient number of people to agree to the rule that would enable disqualification you can bet your life that any person who would be disqualified would never get elected. Probably. Although such a scheme could be used to make it harder for people in later years to quickly change some aspect of society and to slow such changes down. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/11 "2010-09-17T19:03:55Z")
So basically bad choice of words on my part. If a person meets the requirements to be on the ballot they are by definition objectively allowed to run. That does not mean we would want them anywhere near the levers of government but that is something else. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/12 "2010-09-17T19:12:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > More specifically the argument was about abortion from rape or incest. O’Donnell says she would not allow those exceptions. They are far less mainstream. > > No, a person should not be DQd for having any abortion stance, pro or con. But are there stances that should exempt them? If they want to put Muslims in concentration camps, should they be allowed to run? > > Yes. > > We solve that problem by not voting for them when they run. When I agree with pal Bricker, I like to state so. I agree with pal Bricker. My political entertainment dollar would be significantly devalued if we didn’t allow morons to run for office. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/13 "2010-09-17T19:39:34Z")
Yeah, pretty clearly **Bricker** is correct here in as far as the word “objectively” is being used. I think I understand what **Whack** was going for, which is that some stances are so far outside of a person’s moral framework (and, perhaps, that of the nation as a whole) that that one stance or belief makes all other considerations irrelevant. To **Whack** , any candidate that expresses the belief that raped women should be forced to bear the fruit of that assault are automatically rendered unqualified _in his eyes_ to hold the office they seek. Put another way: some ideas and beliefs are so beyond the pale (to an individual or to a society) that the idea that they could hold levers of power is morally offensive. It is also a bit more problematic, as you addressed in that thread, for a candidate to an executive office to express dissatisfaction with the current law of the land, especially if they express a desire to overturn or ignore said law. For a potential legislator this is less of a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/14 "2010-09-17T19:59:10Z")
I thought the whole checks-and-balances system meant that if a nut got elected, he or she wouldn’t be able to do anything too radical, no matter what their personal beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/15 "2010-09-17T20:31:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I thought the whole checks-and-balances system meant that if a nut got elected, he or she wouldn’t be able to do anything too radical, no matter what their personal beliefs. Listening to the Rachel Maddow show last night she noted that there are 5 current candidates for senate who strongly oppose abortion under any circumstances (including rape and incest). That is 5% right there (if they all win which is admittedly unlikely) and while I doubt they will get abortion outlawed in the case of rape/incest they will certainly push hard for the strictest anti-abortion regulations they can get away with…considering most of the rest of the political-right have moved ever further right they may have a reasonable expectation of achieving some of that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/16 "2010-09-17T20:34:29Z")
Well, you’re just gonna have to trust your fellow citizens to backlash the shit outta these guys if they get elected and if they start making serious anti-abortion inroads (assuming of course the various courts don’t stymie them from the get-go and the president doesn’t veto their legislation and whatnot). ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/17 "2010-09-17T20:58:30Z")
I agree with **Bricker**. Qualifications for office should be based on objective requirements. The subjective part of the filter is handled by voting. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/18 "2010-09-17T22:02:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > I posted in the other thread but will summarize here: > > > > First **Captain Amazing** is correct on what I am on about. I know she is legally eligible to run. > > > > As to the rest we could suppose a prospective Senator wanted to legalize pedophilia via an amendment to the constitution. It is legal to do that and in **Bricker-land** that the person is morally bankrupt does not objectively disqualify the person for office. > > > > I think it does (albeit obviously the person is not legally barred from running). > > > > YMMV > > And I know you know she’s legally eligible to run. > > But since you said, “So yeah…I’d say O’Donnell’s vision is as anathema to US ideals and as Gestapo as can be thus objectively disqualifying her from office. **Or it should anyway** ,” it seems you’re saying it SHOULD legally disqualify her to run. > > Neither is a pedophile candidate objectively disqualified to run. Certainly he or she is personally disqualified; under no circumstances would I cast my vote his way. > > Or maybe I don’t understand how you’re using the word “objectively.” If I can throw my two cents in: The issue is in two parts. First, there is the issue that some beliefs make a person morally bankrupt. Slavery, KKK, NAMBLA, Neo-natzis. Secondly, if we agree that there are some beliefs that make a person morally bankrupt, then there is an _objective_ measure. So we could say that _objectively_ a person that runs on a platform to decriminalize pedophile priests is morally bankrupt, and thus not fit to serve in office. The question could also before phrased as, “should a person who is morally bankrupt be blocked from an election?” Then we’d have to try and decide if we can objectively measure the concept of morally bankrupt. Obviously, **Whack-a-Mole** proved this can’t work because he picked a topic which is NOT objectively morally bankrupt. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/19 "2010-09-18T05:31:13Z")
Isn’t this the argument the right wing has been using against Obama? He’s pushing his ideological dogma on the country, according to the wing nut bags. I don’t know what ‘objective’ is supposed to mean in this argument, but the only thing close to a non-legal disqualifier might be a candidate who promised not to uphold their oath of office. Even then, they would likely get some votes. Of course, who could have faith in the promise of someone who vows to break their next promise. That candidate doesn’t actually sound all that different from the rest. I guess that’s why the attacks on Obama work so well, except when they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109/20 "2010-09-18T06:57:40Z")
My subjective view is that an amazing number of people don’t understand that objectivity is hardly ever a human quality. For instance, it is dumb to expect a news reporter to be objective. Fair, yes. Objective, no. This thread is really a mildly annoying grammar/usage rant with an anti-abortion rights slant, said conclusion based on subjective but unimpeachable logic. I should run for office. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-amend-the-constitution-to-ban-abortion-opponents/554109.md?page=2)