From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Slavery and the Civil War (was Re: Quayle on abortion)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:52:27 GMT

cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>I would hesitate to throw the decision to the scientific community 
>>because they haven't displayed much more unanimity on the subject of 
>>abortion than the general population. The whole idea of an objective 
>>scientific ruling may be an oxymoron.

>I'm reasonably confident that nothing will make the issue go away, no
>matter how it gets decided.  I also submit that *whatever* happens, a
>decision will have been made.  Does it not make sense to use the best
>information we have as a basis for that decision, rather than religious
>dogma?

    Well, I would say that it's up to each individual to decide what they 
want to use to base their decisions on. Personally I prefer to hear the 
relevant evidence rather than reading some pre-packaged religious solution 
from a 2000 year old moral code, but I would say that this discussion is 
not so much about what each person thinks is the best way to make the 
decision as it is about whether we're going to allow citizens to have any 
input on the subject. I confess I'm leery of the idea of turning over this 
decision to a body of political or scientific elitists.

    Maybe you could assuage my concerns if you would specify who you 
believe should make the decision if not the American public via the 
existing system.

>>    However, it seems to me that what Steve is describing is something 
>>different - get all the pro-life and pro-choice people together and have 
>>them *all* participate in the vote. And, as occurs elsewhere in our system, 
>>the voting parties would have to agree to be bound by the results of the 
>>vote. The big question in my mind is how you get people to agree that the 
>>results of the vote would be binding- maybe if we incessantly bombard 
>>people with usenet articles they'll give in...

>The only thing that comes close to what you seem to advocate in our
>system is a referendum.  And of course, such a vote would have to 
>withstand constitutional scrutiny, because, as you suggest, neither
>side will abide by the outcome if they lose, IMO.

    Not at all. I'd say that if we give 'em just a few jillion more abortion 
posts we'll have both sides begging for a settlement...

>  They'll take it
>to court, as they should be allowed to do.  That is the *key* idea
>that our system of government is built upon: that the majority cannot
>and must not be allowed to dictate simply because they are the majority.

    Right, but that's precisely why I would say that a referendum is a 
reasonable place to start. Within our system there are checks and balances 
which will prevent the majority from dictating. A referendum doesn't result 
in a law; those come from Congress. And anything that eventually comes out 
of Congress is subject to veto by the executive and review by the courts.
I don't see how a nationwide referendum is a threat unless you assume that 
it's going to overthrow the current system.

    After all, at this point we don't even know which side really *is* the 
majority (if either; IMHO I would say that the people in the middle ground 
are more numerous than those standing in the extreme positions at either 
end).

    I've heard Rush expressing the view several times recently that 
increased polarization and confrontation isn't a bad thing, which IMHO 
would just give even more power to extremists on both sides without 
necessarily providing a solution that anyone in the middle ground would 
care to live with. To me the ideal solution would be a referendum which 
discredits the extremists on both sides of the aisle by revealing that the 
people in the middle of the debate are tired of hearing what either of 
them have to say. I'm at a loss to understand why extremists aren't already 
completely discredited, but with people like Rush urging them on I suppose 
the extremists think they're something pretty special (despite their utter 
inability to reach any solution whatsoever).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu