Journal pudge's Journal: Mainstream 6
Brit Hume: "Would you consider someone that though Roe v Wade was improperly decided by the court, does that place someone outside the mainstream, in your view?"
Dianne Feinstein: "In my view it does
Hume did not ask about someone who would overthrow Roe, he asked about someone who thought it was improperly decided. Heck, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the greatest champions of legal abortion rights, has said that Roe was improperly decided, that the court should not have made the law, but let the political process play out.
Just because you think it was improperly decided -- as many legal scholars of all stripes and beliefs do -- does not mean you want to overturn it.
Further, just because you want to overturn it, does not mean you would. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, but wouldn't support doing so, because it would cause war. More recently, some gay rights advocates opposed trying to use the courts to force gay marriage on society, because of the inevitable backlash. Be patient. Let society change. It had already changed so much in the last 15 years in favor of acceptance of homosexuality
But they couldn't resist. They could not wait for society to change. They tried to change society, and now, guess what? Gay marriage is now more illegal in the U.S. than it ever has been before.
And mark my words, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion will become a part of most state Constitutions in this country, and the anti-abortion cause will be set back decades. Society is not ready for it, and you can't force things like that on society.
I am as opposed to abortion as almost anyone. But I am not in favor of "overthrow[ing] Roe at this point in time." Even if Alito still believes Roe was wrong, and even if he believes abortion is evil and should be abolished, who is to say whether Alito would overturn Roe, even if he could (which he couldn't, since there are five solid votes for Roe right now)?
Which brings me to the word "mainstream." George Bush got more votes for President than anyone in our history. And he said he would nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas during that campaign. And Scalia and Thomas were two of the votes dissenting from the Casey decision that reaffirmed Roe. If a person such as this is not mainstream, then the word mainstream has no real meaning, beyond "what I personally believe, and believe that everyone else should believe."
Part of the problem is probably that her measurements don't measure what she thinks they measure. There's several different things here: disagreeing with Roe, thinking it should be overturned, and being willing to overturn it. When you take a poll about whether Roe should be overturned, most people will likely answer based on whether they think it should be overturned now, and the answer is surely, mostly, no. But if you ask people if they think we should work toward the "eventual abolition" of abortion -- to borrow from Lincoln -- a lot more people would say yes, including many people who call themselves pro-choice.
Is that mainstream?
An historian viewpoint (Score:1)
Re:An historian viewpoint (Score:1)
Zheng He being fired by the Emperor and the subsequent introversion of Chinese society represented a HUGE step backwards for China.
The Taliban was a GIGANTIC leap backwards for ANY society. If not for the 9/11, they would have ruled indefinitely.
If al-Qaeda and the islamic terrorists get what they want in the end, it will be the single biggest step backwards into history the world has ever experienced. And there are far too many people who WANT to give them what they wa
Re:An historian viewpoint (Score:2)
If you're a historian, you're a really poor one. The parallels between abolition and the anti-abortion cause are far stronger: you have a vocal and committed religious minority working toward providing human rights to a group that is not recognized as having those rights, slowly changing society, even in the face of legislative and judicial acts ag
Re:An historian viewpoint (Score:1)
That said, you're misunderstanding me if you think I support abortion. I don't like it much than you. But the point where I'm against anti-abortionists is that I think that repression is not going to solve the problem -- the solution to reduce the number of abortions down to 0.001 is, in my opinion, orphanages
Re:An historian viewpoint (Score:2)
That could not be more false. The primary defense of slavery was economic, and the secondary defense of it was philosophical (that it was not morally prohibited, that it was required by some vague natural order). Religion was used by some to justify slavery, of course -- just as religion today is used to justify abortion -- but very few cared about such arguments, let alone believed them. Bottom line, slavery was about m
Re:An historian viewpoint (Score:3, Informative)
Religious or moral argurments never prevented new technologies or new freedoms, and it seems that religion and morals adapt to society changes (or die) rather than the contrary.
You seem really confused. From a religious standpoint, I am persuaded that it is my Christian duty to allow people to abort if they choose. From a legal standpoint, I am convinced that it is the government's duty to outlaw abortion. If you'd like to really understand the issue, I suggest you educate yourself as to the non-reli [l4l.org]