Absolutely Adequate wrote:Well, first, I think -to avoid trouble - you should refer to the procedure by the name given to it by doctors: "intact dilation and evacuation." The name "partial-birth abortion" is a term that already swings the debate one way. It implies that the procedure involves giving birth to a baby and then hitting it on the head. That's quite misleading.
IDE won't fit in the title, and if I abbreviated it, no one would know what I was talking about. I did call it IDE in the OP, though.
I think we could agree that both names are equally deceptive.
Absolutely Adequate wrote:I wonder if liberterians have it right: to leave it up to the states. I have to go teach class, but here's something from andrewsullivan.com that sums up the argument concisely:The alleged logic of overturning Roe v. Wade is, for many libertarians, that it will throw the issue back to the states. There, states will rapidly use the legislative process to come to a compromise that makes the majority of people within their borders roughly happy, and both the pro-choice and pro-life groups will lose much of their energy.
This argument has a lot of appeal. As one of my colleagues at The Economist pointed out, Europe had the same conversation as America about abortion in the sixties and seventies. The difference is, European countries either passed laws, or submitted the question to referendum. Even those who weren't happy with the outcome felt the process by which it had been reached was legitimate. In America, neither group feels that the Supreme Court's process was morally legitimate--or at least, I infer that pro-choicers do not, since they seem to view an attempt to ban abortion by exactly the same process as a completely illegitimate usurpation of power by conservative ideologues.
Besides, the more local a problem is, the less anger it generates; American pro-lifers do not, after all, head over to England to hold their candlelight vigils, nor do pro-choicers fly to Germany to protest the country's near-complete (de jure, though not de facto) abortion ban.
I was hoping someone would say that. Would it really quell the nationality of this debate? I mean, if the Supreme Court just says, "Listen, states. This is in your court. Do as you see fit." Will that work? If so, I am all in favor of that.