With taxes, the thing is, I get far less benefit then what I pay in. I work 5 months out of the year for the benefit of others, and get little to no benefit in return from that labor. In other words, I agree that the gov't should not be able to tell you what to do with your own body, but 'we' (and by we I mean the U.S.) don't hold that as a fundamental right. And I've yet to see a good, logical, coherent distinction between income taxation and abortion on the grounds you cited.
If Roe v. Wade had been decided in a 5-4 decision (never good. It indicates a deep division) that abortion was prohibited by the Constitution, then I'd still be calling for it to be overturned. We're getting into territory of what the Constitution /is/ however, so I'm going to try to tread lightly.
The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate abortion and therefore it should be a matter for the state. I don't think the restriction of abortion, esp. if it were the hodge-podge we'd have if each state decided for itself is immoral per se. It's like murder. I think we'd both agree that murder is wrong. There is, however, no federal law against murder. But every state has some law against it.
It's exactly that no room for compromise, that both sides of the debate honestly believe that their side is the only moral one, that this should be left to the states. As I said before, we aren't imposing on the woman a financial burden that we don't impose on others if it were to be outlawed.
So we're left, essentially, with imposition of risk. A pregnancy, however, is not an imposition that anyone is forcing on a woman, save in very, very rare circumstances. According to Alan Guttmacher Institute research, of the abortions performed in the US, .3 to .9% are from pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. So the numbers of women where the pregnancy was completely out of the woman's control is less than 1%. Further, I believe something like 70% of the U.S. believes that abortions under those circumstances (incest, rape, to save the life of the mother) should remain legal. It's unlikely any state would pass a complete ban. So I just don't buy the 'it's unethical to prohibit it argument' on the grounds you cite. Further, abortion where the mother's life was in danger has been legal since well before Roe, even in states that otherwise heavily regulated it.
As for the thing with the child support, the case I'm thinking of were where a divorce occured and it came out during the divorce that the wife was cheating from pretty much the beginning, w/o the husband being aware. He finds out during the divorce that the child wasn't his, that he'd been deceived. The judge essentially ruled that the child's need to be supported was more important than any right the man might have. There are, of course thousands of cases where men are forced to financially support children they didn't want. I don't think one can be consistent and argue that the mother has the right to decide she doesn't want to be responsible right up until the birth, but that the father is commited the instant the procreative act is completed.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 07:51 pm (UTC)If Roe v. Wade had been decided in a 5-4 decision (never good. It indicates a deep division) that abortion was prohibited by the Constitution, then I'd still be calling for it to be overturned. We're getting into territory of what the Constitution /is/ however, so I'm going to try to tread lightly.
The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate abortion and therefore it should be a matter for the state. I don't think the restriction of abortion, esp. if it were the hodge-podge we'd have if each state decided for itself is immoral per se. It's like murder. I think we'd both agree that murder is wrong. There is, however, no federal law against murder. But every state has some law against it.
It's exactly that no room for compromise, that both sides of the debate honestly believe that their side is the only moral one, that this should be left to the states. As I said before, we aren't imposing on the woman a financial burden that we don't impose on others if it were to be outlawed.
So we're left, essentially, with imposition of risk. A pregnancy, however, is not an imposition that anyone is forcing on a woman, save in very, very rare circumstances. According to Alan Guttmacher Institute research, of the abortions performed in the US, .3 to .9% are from pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. So the numbers of women where the pregnancy was completely out of the woman's control is less than 1%. Further, I believe something like 70% of the U.S. believes that abortions under those circumstances (incest, rape, to save the life of the mother) should remain legal. It's unlikely any state would pass a complete ban. So I just don't buy the 'it's unethical to prohibit it argument' on the grounds you cite. Further, abortion where the mother's life was in danger has been legal since well before Roe, even in states that otherwise heavily regulated it.
As for the thing with the child support, the case I'm thinking of were where a divorce occured and it came out during the divorce that the wife was cheating from pretty much the beginning, w/o the husband being aware. He finds out during the divorce that the child wasn't his, that he'd been deceived. The judge essentially ruled that the child's need to be supported was more important than any right the man might have. There are, of course thousands of cases where men are forced to financially support children they didn't want. I don't think one can be consistent and argue that the mother has the right to decide she doesn't want to be responsible right up until the birth, but that the father is commited the instant the procreative act is completed.