What can Presidents do about Abortion? Nothing!

[kerrin]

McCain says he's a federalist in the context of Abortion. What does he mean?

Federalism's History
The Federalist party (1792-1816) was original founded on desire for a fiscally sound and strong nationalistic government. Before the party the "federalists" where those that wanted ratification of the proposed Constitution of the United States—uniting the states around one constitution.

But what does McCain mean when he says he's a federalist? Especially in the context of Abortion?

New Federalism
According to the Bush Administration "New Federalism" is the term for anti-federalism or the transfer of certain powers from the the federal government to the states. It's almost the opposite of the original "federalist" ideals—a strong central government centered on the constitution. Bush's "New Federalism" was brought about by the desire to undo FDR's new deal, which expanded the federal government's power (it had nothing to do with Abortion).

He didn't say "New Federalist" he said he is a "federalist." So who is McCain identifying with? What does this have to do with abortion?

The Republican's View
McCain essentially is saying that while he would like Roe vs. Wade overturned it's up to the states to deal with. What can the states do in a federalist government? Amend the Constitution, which is very difficult and on the abortion issue will probably never happen. Essentially McCain is saying Abortion is nothing he can deal with.

So why elect him on this issue?

Oh, The Supreme Court Nominees
This is really an non-issue also. If the USSC could overturn Roe/Wade it would have done so already. 7 out of 9 justices were appointed by Republicans. "Bad appointments" not withstanding the court gave Bush, formally a true conservative, Florida in 2000 in a 5 to 4 vote. That 5 to 4 vote should be sufficient to overturn Roe/Wade if it was in fact unconstitutional. It's difficult to prove that Abortion is unconstitutional. The constitution protects the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of an individual U.S. citizen. An amendment is necessary to declare the "unborn" a citizen who's life is under the protection of the federal government. McCain cannot do anything about Abortion.

Disagree? Am I missing something? Let me have it.

[eric]

I think your semantic analysis is dead-on; I also happen to think it's irrelevant.

From the standpoint of personal liberty, any woman should be free to destroy her offspring while still in the parasite phase.

I do have a problem with paying for said medical procedure from public funds, however. Though, the reactionary part of my psyche does feel compelled to mail a wire hangar to any woman deeming termination of her pregnancy a necessity, but is unwilling or otherwise unable to pay for the necessary medication/procedure to terminate her own "mistake."

That said, I'm increasingly intrigued by the anecdotal evidence (made known to me via Freakonomics) linking the availability of easy, legal abortion with the forward-looking crime rates. Perhaps it really is a worthwhile socioeconomic investment to continue proliferating such a thing that, on its cute little fetus-face, is counter to my admittedly-heartless/libertarian base belief of what government should be permitted to spend taxpayer-sourced revenues on.

Discuss!

[kerrin]

This "debate" is laden with irrelevant concepts and terms. One in particular that I can't stand is 'life begins at conception and must be protected.' If that was true the advocates of this concept must ensure that all fusing of sperm and ovum must be protected. Naturally there are many, many fusing of sperm and ovum that do not become an zygote and even zygotes that don't make it to implantation. So these advocates should also have government spend tax dollars and write laws ensuring that all fused human sperm and ovum have a chance to live. Or, ultimately, government should supervise all human reproductive activities that potential could result in new human life. ;)

Though, the reactionary part of my psyche does feel compelled to mail a wire hangar to any woman deeming termination of her pregnancy a necessity, but is unwilling or otherwise unable to pay for the necessary medication/procedure to terminate her own "mistake."
You are a kind-hearted man! What about mailing a pill, save on shipping.

I'm increasingly intrigued by the anecdotal evidence (made known to me via Freakonomics) linking the availability of easy, legal abortion with the forward-looking crime rates.
Yes. That evidence is intriguing. The problem I have with drawing conclusions from such observations over a period of time is that it uses inductive reasoning, which is the same reason environmentalism's conclusions should not be definitive. I would rather advocate we allow the free market to decided if this is a worthwhile socioeconomic investment.

[eric]

This "debate" is laden with irrelevant concepts and terms. One in particular that I can't stand is 'life begins at conception and must be protected.' If that was true the advocates of this concept must ensure that all fusing of sperm and ovum must be protected. Naturally there are many, many fusing of sperm and ovum that do not become an embryo and even embryos that don't make it to implantation. So these advocates should also have government spend tax dollars and write laws ensuring that all fused human sperm and ovum have a chance to live. Or, ultimately, government should supervise all human reproductive activities that potential could result in new human life. ;)

I think the cutoff for "viability" is semi-debatable, but I don't really care enough one way or the other. I think the only reasonable statement there is that if the new being can be separated and be sustained externally, it meets the criteria for "viability." But, since technological advances make that a moving target, I'm most comfortable with the 'parasite phase' terminology.


You are a kind-hearted man! What about mailing a pill, save on shipping.

A pill is too easy. I don't think one can fully resolve/conclude a "mistake" with out learning something from it that will influence future behavior. Make them yank it out manually -- that'll learn 'em!


Yes. That evidence is intriguing. The problem I have with drawing conclusions from such observations over a period of time is that it uses inductive reasoning, which is the same reason environmentalism is wrong. I would rather advocate we allow the free market to decided if this is a worthwhile socioeconomic investment.

Yeah, already taken care of, in my opinion. Morning-after pill is easy and cheap now, yes? There are multiple proactive and reactive avenues to halting this particular natural process. The market has done its part...just frustrates me that the government wants to obviate the need for people to learn lasting lessons from their poor judgment. The net effect is that of breeding sociological dependency instead of breeding physiological dependents :p

[kerrin]

...I'm most comfortable with the 'parasite phase' terminology.
Makes sense. Where can I read up on this terminology and the scientific evidence for its substantiation? I am inclined to agree but haven't heard it's justification before.

A pill is too easy. I don't think one can fully resolve/conclude a "mistake" with out learning something from it that will influence future behavior. Make them yank it out manually -- that'll learn 'em!
Nice! I was being fatuous with my pill suggestion, but your response did give me a good laugh!

The net effect is that of breeding sociological dependency instead of breeding physiological dependents
Excellent point!

[eric]

Makes sense. Where can I read up on this terminology and the scientific evidence for its substantiation? I am inclined to agree but haven't heard it's justification before.

I honestly have no idea -- simply a "common sense gut feeling" thing for me. Anything after the natural delivery event commences (water breaking?) is murder. Everything prior to that, and said entity is still fully dependent upon the host/mother for oxygen delivery, yes? That said, any host/mother that makes a decision to terminate sufficiently far along the development process is rather creepy to me, regardless. I mean, still their call, but it's just as much my call to lump them into the "eek, get away from me" category.

[Anenome]

Actually, Kerrin, what he means is very clear. He believes it's a matter for the states to decide individually. That the Federal government shouldn't even be dealing with the question.

In the long term this is probably what will end up happening, as the current legal status of Roe is embarassing. It's just horribly bad law, from a legal perspective.

[kerrin]

Actually, Kerrin, what he means is very clear. He believes it's a matter for the states to decide individually. That the Federal government shouldn't even be dealing with the question.
I respect your opinion very much and welcome all insight you may have. My personal opinion is in light of this great social contract we have (the Constitution) we need an amendment if abortion is to be dealt with properly. I believe if, it is as you say, McCain wants this issue to be up to the states to decide this is the wrong way to deal with the issue. If Roe/Wade is overturned and the matter is left to the states we will see states that specialize in abortion...there will be vast cultural and social implications that would mean strong division in the 'united states.' Again, in my opinion, for the good of the unity of the states and the social contract an amendment must be ratified to solve this issue.

In the long term this is probably what will end up happening, as the current legal status of Roe is embarrassing. It's just horribly bad law, from a legal perspective.
The only problem I find with the legal ruling of Roe/Wade is that the court overstepped their judicial role and extended the social contract to include the "viable" without the consent of the people. Of course this would depend on your judicial philosophy as to whether or not you agree.

[Anenome]

I respect your opinion very much and welcome all insight you may have. My personal opinion is in light of this great social contract we have (the Constitution) we need an amendment if abortion is to be dealt with properly. I believe if, it is as you say, McCain wants this issue to be up to the states to decide this is the wrong way to deal with the issue. If Roe/Wade is overturned and the matter is left to the states we will see states that specialize in abortion...there will be vast cultural and social implications that would mean strong division in the 'united states.' Again, in my opinion, for the good of the unity of the states and the social contract an amendment must be ratified to solve this issue.


- Yep, it would lead to competition among states for whom has the best collection of laws and can attract the most wealth and the most citizens thereby. I really think 'law competition' would be a positive thing. If you don't like the laws in Nevada, for instance, you move to... wherever. In my mind we have far too homogeneous laws among the states. Lots of people have been leaving California lately but primarily because of the crazy taxation. I don't think this one issue alone being different among the states would be a big deal. It's the current situation with Gay Marriage and if abortion was added in, well there you have it. The Left doesn't like the idea of State law competition because it makes it far too hard to control the whole population at once. They target the federal and attempt to create law in large fell swoops, even though the Constitution forbids such things. It's gone so far that most laws passed by Congress are unconstitutional from a strict-contructionist / original-intent point of view. The 'General Welfare' clause is one of several used to justify essentially anything Congress decides to pass and its disgraceful.