From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:10:15 GMT

celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
>    Steve Tyree writes:
>>> Never sell your soul to Big Government !
>
>hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>
>>And especially to Big Goverment that has the audacity to support
>>individual rights, even if the majority should disagree.
>
> Like the rights of the unborn child.
>
> Look I was hoping to avoid debating abortion. This issue has been taking up
>a lot of net badwidth. When I saw the issue of government determining when
>life starts I thought I would enter the debate. I would prefer to debate
>the issue of Big Government determining when life starts without getting
>into the choice or abortion issue. Is that possible ?

It's possible, but it's difficult, because it's such an emotional issue.
I don't think there's been such an emotional issue in this country since
slavery, and it took the Civil War to finally resolve that one.

We have three scenarios:

1.  The Supreme Court looks at an abortion law, does some research, and
    comes up with a majority consensus on when life begins.  No law or
    regulation may grant life status earlier, nor deny it later.  This
    point may change has opinions and Supreme Court Justices change.
2.  The government calls for various scientific and philsophcal studies
    on the nature of human life, gets the results, comes up with a
    consensus which can be enacted two ways.  The easy way, through
    regulation, or the hard way, through legislation.
3.  A national referendum is help to amend the constitution.  The view
    on when life begins that gets the most votes becomes the law of the
    land.  No law or Supreme Court decision can change it, only another
    Constititional amendment.

Choice 1 is similar to Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court basically
set its own guidelines, although they only set a maximum level of
regulation, not a minimum.  Theoretically, this view takes politics
out of the equation, althogh in practice it has made the selection
of Supreme Court Justices more political than ever.  Remember, 
Eisenhower (a Republican) appointed William Brennan, one of the most
liberal Justices in history.  Would a current conservative dare to
nomiate a liberal, or would a current liberal dare to nominate a
conservative.  I think not.  Good in theory, bad in practice.

Choice 2 makes the issue much more political, but you would still have
the need to compromise to get a majority view.  The issue becomes a
real litmus test more Congressional candidates, just as it will be
for state congressmen if Roe v. Wade is overturned.  It might turn
Congress into more a of zoo than it already is, but you might see
better Supreme Court Justices because of it.  This might be a better
choice than Choice 1.

Choice 3 would turn into a free for all.  No compromise possible.  And
once the choice is made, there is no recourse, other than a another
constitutional amendment.  The simple fact is that the religion with
the most members would be able to impose their dogma onto everyone else.
Period.  Again, this is the tyranny of the majority.  The worst choice
of all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"