That’s a really interesting point. Does anyone know what the state punishments were for abortion pre-Roe?
I don’t. But it’s also interesting that he considers women who have abortions to be “victims”. Why, they shouldn’t worry their pretty little heads about such weighty issues!! Obviously, it is only men who can think clearly about the subject. All those female hormones, you know. And they just get out of control once a pregnancy begins!
ETA: I don’t consider Huckabee to be overtly sexist, but that position certainly rests on a presumption of their being an intellectual difference between men and women when it comes to certain issues.
back to the OP
would a majority of Americans possible want this lunatic to be their president ?
Well, Huckabee is not electable with is current set of views on abortion, and he appears not to realize that, so I hope he gets the nomination. Then the election truly will be a case of {Any Democrat} wins.
Depends. Most Americans think abortion laws in the US are too lax, so to the extent that Americans realize a president has very little control over abortion policy, then they might be OK with voting for him even if they don’t share his views. And overturning Roe v Wade wouldn’t make abortion illegal-- it would just turn the matter back over to the states. A few states might ban the procedure, but even in a conservative state such as SD, a recent effort to pass such legislation was defeated by a public referendum.
In short, it’s a complicated issue.
How do his views differ from GW Bush’s views? He got elected twice, and although he probably wouldn’t win a third time, it wouldn’t be because of his abortion views.
I thought he meant “victims” of rape or incest. But I agree it’s unclear from that quote.
And it has been discussed before: Rape Babies deserve to die?
See the thread I linked to above, or this one: Why should incest be an exception for pro-lifers?
I don’t think it’s unclear. Russert never brought up the “rape or incest” issue. He was just talking about abortion.
Roe v. Wade should absolutely be repealed.
Even if you believe that abortion is wise public policy, it’s simply not a matter of federal interest. A decision that finds a federal constitutional right to abortion is wrong.
If Roe were repealed, the matter would rest with the states, where it belongs.
Aletrnatively, if we truly believe that a national right to abortion is wise public policy, then we should attain it honestly: amend the Constitution.
That makes them, what, in their late 70s? If so, it’s not as if they’ll ever have to make the choice whether or not to have one (or make it again). I wonder, too, if people become more conservative in this area as they age.
Why isn’t it? I’m sure you have a good argument, i’m just interested in knowing what it is. I don’t think someone could say so certainly from the anti-abortion side as much as the pro-side, anyway.
Forget about abortion. Just tell the people that this guy wants to slap a 30% sales tax on all your purchases, and watch the fun. I know the niceties of the Fair Tax proposal, but that would be the sound bite people remember.
Unless the abortion doctor is a woman.
Do you believe all supporters of substantive due process are dishonest?
When a man uses a woman’s reproductive organs without her consent, it’s called rape.
When a fetus uses a woman’s reproductive organs without her consent, it’s called pro-life.
I think a lot of the contemporary literature on abortion is pretty interesting precisely because it focuses on the question of even if the fetus has a right to life, does it have the right to use another person’s bodily resources for continued survival? As I said above, a pro-lifer could say no in the case of rape, as the mother gave no consent, but could argue that voluntary intercourse involved some sort of implied consent on the part of the mother to have a fetus take up residence in her womb. Not that I endorse this (I don’t even endorse the claim that the fetus has a right to life). But this is how you can be pro-life and support a rape exception. It’s not necessarily inconsistent.
All supporters, in every instance?
No.
But remember what history has shown us: substantive due process was used to strike down maximum hours worked laws for bakers once upon a time. It could just as easily be used to enforce a total prohibition against abortion – all it would take is a finfing that unborn babies have a due-process right to life that abortion infringes.
Because substantive due process is such a malleable concept, I believe it is unsuitable as an analytical tool in many, if not all, situations. The role of the legislature should be sweeping public policy changes; the judiciary should be the ones that interpret the plain text created by the legislature and apply it to the specific facts of cases.
It’s not dishonest to take the opposite view, but it IS dishonest to start with a pre-determined result, and then massage substantive due process to get you there. In the case of Roe, I believe that’s what happened.
Ah, that’s clearer. Thanks.
I’m not convinced that Roe was a pre-determined outcome, but I think reasonable minds can differ.
In my view, the court ought to revive the Ninth Amendment to further ground it’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence in text, but the outcome is basically the same: there are some liberties fundamental to a democracy that cannot be lightly infringed upon. I don’t think it is an incredible stretch to say that control over reproduction is one such liberty and I’m not convinced that one needed to have reached that result dishonestly. There was a whole host of cases leading up to Roe that compelled the result. Do you think *Griswold *is also dishonest?
For an evangelical baptist pastor? That’s that’s the position I would expect, really.
The pro-life position is essentially this: the fetus is a person. If it’s a person, it has a right to life, and that right to life is not contingent on any criteria (including rape or incest).
I’m not saying I share that view, just that it’s not necessarily illogical.