Brett Kavanaugh Has A Troubling Record On Religious Liberty

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam

I think you need to take up your beef with God, not the law.   The law puts all choice in the hands of the woman because the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth is all hers.   Why do you think that is unfair given the biology involved?  Do you think that permitting the man as a legal matter to share in the decision will reduce the number of abortions?   As I suggested above, I think the opposite is true - too many abortions occur precisely because of the decision made by the man (to abandon his partner or directly threaten her to take care of her problem.)

God didn't write Roe v Wade.  My argument isn't against biology, my argument is against what the law says.  And if you're going to argue that the law merely reflects facts of biology, you're going to re-open the homosexual marriage question in a way that will not work to your advantage.

I think a fair statement of your argument is that pregnancy is borne solely by a woman so that woman has the sole right to decide whether to continue it.  On the assumption that the child can be overlooked (an assumption I don't grant), then it's not unreasonable to associate the decision with the burden.

The law holds a man solely accountable for financial support.  The law does not require a mother with custody of the child to maintain any particular level of income; the man alone bears a quantified financial burden.  If we argue that solely bearing the burden gives one the moral right to reject it, then we should argue that consistently.  That a man who rejects that burden harms the child is unquestionable; a woman who aborts the child harms it to an existentially greater degree.

[Bigun]

God didn't write Roe v Wade.  My argument isn't against biology, my argument is against what the law says.  And if you're going to argue that the law merely reflects facts of biology, you're going to re-open the homosexual marriage question in a way that will not work to your advantage.

I think a fair statement of your argument is that pregnancy is borne solely by a woman so that woman has the sole right to decide whether to continue it.  On the assumption that the child can be overlooked (an assumption I don't grant), then it's not unreasonable to associate the decision with the burden.

The law holds a man solely accountable for financial support.  The law does not require a mother with custody of the child to maintain any particular level of income; the man alone bears a quantified financial burden.  If we argue that solely bearing the burden gives one the moral right to reject it, then we should argue that consistently.  That a man who rejects that burden harms the child is unquestionable; a woman who aborts the child harms it to an existentially greater degree.

@HoustonSam

Can you please fill me in on what actual LAW the Roe vs Wade holding created?

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam
Why do you think that is unfair given the biology involved?  Do you think that permitting the man as a legal matter to share in the decision will reduce the number of abortions?   As I suggested above, I think the opposite is true - too many abortions occur precisely because of the decision made by the man (to abandon his partner or directly threaten her to take care of her problem.)

I've not been entirely fair to your question here.  I have no reason to believe that the number of abortions will be reduced if fathers have legal influence over the abortion decision, and I'm not trying to suggest that.  But neither do I envision the father as either abandoning the woman or coercing her, although some will.  There are men who would like to become fathers and would be good ones, but are denied that opportunity, after conception, by women who don't want to become mothers.

I'm opposed to legal abortion, but what I'm really arguing is against the law simultaneously giving women a unilateral right and men a unilateral accountability.  If abortion were illegal I would favor draconian laws that pursued men to the ends of the earth to fulfill financial obligations to mother and child.  But given that a woman is legally protected in unilaterally making a decision on the (faulty) basis that the decision is about something she bears alone, I will not refrain from arguing that the law should recognize the same decision principle for the man.

[Jazzhead]

The law holds a man solely accountable for financial support.  The law does not require a mother with custody of the child to maintain any particular level of income; the man alone bears a quantified financial burden. 

The law is intended to be equitable;  both the man and woman share in the burden of supporting the child.   The man provides money, to be sure, but the woman's burden includes changing the diapers,  making sure the kid goes off to school and does his homework, and a myriad of other tasks -tasks that are so time-consuming that they often directly prevent her from working and earning a meaningful income.  The man could share in these responsibilities, but he chooses to be absent.   Given that reality, the law requires him to pay money.  Am I supposed to be sympathetic that this is his "sole" responsibility?   I'd say he's gotten off easy!   

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam

Can you please fill me in on what actual LAW the Roe vs Wade holding created?

My understanding is that of the layman.  However that understanding is that Roe struck down laws against abortion nationwide.  Rather than creating a law, Roe ended law; perhaps more correctly stated, Roe created a federal law which prevented state laws.  My further understanding is that Roe allowed for no regulation of abortion whatsoever, but that later decisions, I think Planned Parenthood versus Casey, did allow for regulation of abortion within state law.

Many have argued recently that Roe will never be overturned, but that regulation permitted under Planned Parenthood v Casey will limit abortion severely in some states.  As a question of fact I suspect that is correct, but my personal credentials to make such a prediction are rather thin.

[Jazzhead]

  But given that a woman is legally protected in unilaterally making a decision on the (faulty) basis that the decision is about something she bears alone, I will not refrain from arguing that the law should recognize the same decision principle for the man.

Even though such "decision principle" will likely lead to more abortions?    If a man can unilaterally decide to refuse to support a child,  won't that compel many women to abort?   

[INVAR]

So we see here the explanation of how 'equality' is arbitrary given how and whom stereotypical blanket behaviors need to be applied to the evil man, so as to make the woman 'more equal'.

[HoustonSam]

The law is intended to be equitable;  both the man and woman share in the burden of supporting the child.   The man provides money, to be sure, but the woman's burden includes changing the diapers,  making sure the kid goes off to school and does his homework, and a myriad of other tasks -tasks that are so time-consuming that they often directly prevent her from working and earning a meaningful income.  The man could share in these responsibilities, but he chooses to be absent.   Given that reality, the law requires him to pay money.  Am I supposed to be sympathetic that this is his "sole" responsibility?   I'd say he's gotten off easy!

@Jazzhead I continue to admire the humanity in your reasoning, but you argue here as if law should assume that all men abandon their homes and no man has ever lifted a finger to help with child care.  The hypothetical case we are considering, a father who abandons the mother and child, is not the only case, in fact I suspect it represents a minority of cases, and should not constrain our entire understanding of justice.

[HoustonSam]

Even though such "decision principle" will likely lead to more abortions?    If a man can unilaterally decide to refuse to support a child,  won't that compel many women to abort?

It might.  But the law has already established that abortion is completely acceptable.  So as a legal principle, what difference does it make?

The position you're taking suggests that the law should give women the unilateral decision but then *use* coercion against men to influence women in the decision.  "Mom, you can do whatever you want.  Dad, I really don't want her to abort so I'm going to hold you financially accountable for 18 years to encourage her not to abort."

Is it really the case that abortion is a right, and we're going to influence how a woman exercises that right by exercising legal coercion against a man?  We're going to influence how one person exercises a right by acting against *a different* person?

Not only does your position overlook the humanity of the child being aborted, it overlooks the independent humanity of the man.  Apparently men are simply a means to an end, to be coerced or not as mere parameters to influence women, with no independent value as ends in themselves.

[Jazzhead]

It might.  But the law has already established that abortion is completely acceptable.  So as a legal principle, what difference does it make?

The law doesn't establish that abortion is "acceptable".   It is merely establishes the right of the woman to decide her future for herself.   Even Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal AND RARE.   I have never argued a moral case in favor of abortion.   It is merely a possible product of a woman's liberty. 

The position you're taking suggests that the law should give women the unilateral decision but then *use* coercion against men to influence women in the decision.  "Mom, you can do whatever you want.  Dad, I really don't want her to abort so I'm going to hold you financially accountable for 18 years to encourage her not to abort."

Well, sure.  If men couldn't be legally compelled to support their kids, then women would have even greater incentive than they do now to abort.  The hope is that the woman will exercise her choice by doing the right thing.  And the biggest influencer in that regard is the man.   Marry the woman!  But if the man wants to avoid marriage (and it is his liberty to do so),  then the least that can be expected is that he will financially help support the child.   

[txradioguy]

If a man can unilaterally decide to refuse to support a child

Your low opinion of women and your view they are not able to keep their legs closed is surpassed by your consistent and continually false narrative that men automatically refuse to pay child support.

You're creating a false narrative and a false sense of reality to continue your support and defense of abortion.

[HoustonSam]

The law doesn't establish that abortion is "acceptable".   It is merely establishes the right of the woman to decide her future for herself.

By definition that means the law establishes that abortion is acceptable.  I don't suggest that "acceptable" is a legal term, I'm talking about ontological meaning.  If the law permits an act, then that act is acceptable under the law.

Or is there some concept in the law that an act can be legal but unacceptable?

Even Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal AND RARE.   I have never argued a moral case in favor of abortion.   It is merely a possible product of a woman's liberty. 

Understood, I have never seen you argue here that you favor abortion, and you have taken a moral position against it.

"Safe, legal, and rare" is just a slogan which actually demonstrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the "pro-choice" position.  If it's legal, why should we care whether it's rare?

[Jazzhead]

"Safe, legal, and rare" is just a slogan which actually demonstrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the "pro-choice" position.  If it's legal, why should we care whether it's rare?

@HoustonSam

To the contrary, if liberty is to be exercised, it is PARAMOUNT that it be exercised responsibly.   Liberty is not license,  and I certainly don't want to see the abortion right exercised in a vacuum of moral responsibility.   And while I oppose the State's coercion of reproduction,  I have no problem whatsoever with, say, state subsidization of contraceptives to encourage family planning.   And, of course, pro-lifers of all political stripes do yeoman work supporting women in unfortunate situations understand and access alternatives to abortion.  And, last but not least,  I appreciate those who espouse moral values when it comes to sexual relationships, including sexual fidelity and responsibility (including abstinence when appropriate).  That's why long ago I changed my mind to support same-sex marriage.  Gays were literally killing themselves with their behavior.   There is nothing more effective than the covenant of marriage in encouraging monogamy and responsibility and the rejection of the bathhouse lifestyle.   

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam
To the contrary, if liberty is to be exercised, it is PARAMOUNT that it be exercised responsibly. 

Yea, verily.  People have the absolute liberty to engage in intercourse, or not, as they see fit, free from government interference.  I'll join with you in defending this principle anytime, and I agree fully that this liberty should be exercised responsibly.  That responsibility includes being prepared to accept the consequences of intercourse, for both parties.

Granting one party to that event a unilateral right, while holding the other party accountable unilaterally, *does* encourage license, license by the party granted the unilateral right.  Your innate sense of compassion, which I take seriously and admire, leads you to invoke the example of a woman abandoned by an irresponsible man.  But there are other examples of women who have abortions, simply for convenience, sometimes without the man's knowledge.  I join you in wishing those women would not do so, but when we wish to influence one person by coercing another we don't usually consider that "equality before the law."  It more closely resembles a hostage situation.

Finally, when we carry out this policy in order to reach the moral ends we desire (reducing the number of abortions), we are without question using the law as an instrument to encourage our own, personal and private, sense of morality, a morality that others might not share.  In other contexts you are strongly opposed to laws which serve to impose one person's moral beliefs on another.  Why do you wish to impose your moral beliefs about abortion on others, men and women, by coercing men?  I'll ask again, if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, then as a legal issue why does it matter whether there are more or fewer abortions?

[Bigun]

Yea, verily.  People have the absolute liberty to engage in intercourse, or not, as they see fit, free from government interference.  I'll join with you in defending this principle anytime, and I agree fully that this liberty should be exercised responsibly.  That responsibility includes being prepared to accept the consequences of intercourse, for both parties.

Granting one party to that event a unilateral right, while holding the other party accountable unilaterally, *does* encourage license, license by the party granted the unilateral right.  Your innate sense of compassion, which I take seriously and admire, leads you to invoke the example of a woman abandoned by an irresponsible man.  But there are other examples of women who have abortions, simply for convenience, sometimes without the man's knowledge.  I join you in wishing those women would not do so, but when we wish to influence one person by coercing another we don't usually consider that "equality before the law."  It more closely resembles a hostage situation.

Finally, when we carry out this policy in order to reach the moral ends we desire (reducing the number of abortions), we are without question using the law as an instrument to encourage our own, personal and private, sense of morality, a morality that others might not share.  In other contexts you are strongly opposed to laws which serve to impose one person's moral beliefs on another.  Why do you wish to impose your moral beliefs about abortion on others, men and women, by coercing men?  I'll ask again, if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, then as a legal issue why does it matter whether there are more or fewer abortions?

 

Great post!

[Jazzhead]

Granting one party to that event a unilateral right, while holding the other party accountable unilaterally, *does* encourage license, license by the party granted the unilateral right.

Yes, the woman has a unilateral right to decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, but that decision has no bearing on the man's financial accountability in the legal sense.  The man is only  accountable if the woman decides to keep the baby and raise it.  Of course, as a practical matter, the man knows full well that the most efficient way to avoid accountability is to pressure the woman to abort.   But even if he fails to do so, he still has no accountability unless and until the woman makes a second decision - to keep and raise the child.   

In many circumstances, that decision is made in concert with the man.  Indeed, the man wields an exorbitant influence at both decision points - as noted above, his support (or lack thereof) greatly influences the decision to abort.  But if the decision is made to continue the pregnancy,  the man's influence again looms large - back in the day,  cultural mores dictated that the pair would marry, and nowadays he can skedaddle so long as he is willing to pay child support, or so long as the child is given up for adoption. 

None of this seems unfair from the man's perspective.   He is responsible for his actions, the same as the woman,  and his response effectively influences the fact and measure of his accountability.   

Finally, when we carry out this policy in order to reach the moral ends we desire (reducing the number of abortions), we are without question using the law as an instrument to encourage our own, personal and private, sense of morality, a morality that others might not share.  In other contexts you are strongly opposed to laws which serve to impose one person's moral beliefs on another.  Why do you wish to impose your moral beliefs about abortion on others, men and women, by coercing men?  I'll ask again, if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, then as a legal issue why does it matter whether there are more or fewer abortions?

My preference is for abortion to be as rare as possible, in accord with my moral beliefs.  But the law is concerned with imposing financial accountability, not moral beliefs.   The woman's right to terminate a pregnancy is exercised in accordance with her own circumstances and moral beliefs, not the State's.  That decision has no impact on the man's obligations.     It is only when she decides to raise the child is the man's obligation of financial support triggered.  At that point, both man and woman are equally responsible to support the life that's been brought into the world.

 

[HoustonSam]

None of this seems unfair from the man's perspective.   He is responsible for his actions, the same as the woman,  and his response effectively influences the fact and measure of his accountability.   

As was the case with your co-counsel Oceander and me, you and I are at the point of talking past each other.  I am satisfied that I've stated my position as clearly and fully as I can;  although I find your logic flawed I respect your sincerity and your humane pragmatism.

[Jazzhead]

Thanks, @HoustonSam , I appreciate our discussion and you're as good an adversary as I've got on this board.   I think that ruminating about the details and entrails of all this is interesting, so I'm disappointed you say you've said enough. 

The problem with this issue that is the hardest thing to get past is that the moral and legal implications of abortion are quite different things.   From a moral perspective, from a Christian perspective, from the perspective that the little bugger just might have a soul,  the practice of abortion is a horror, and exacts too high a price for it to be morally justified in the vast majority of circumstances.   

But the choice, the liberty interest, must nevertheless be preserved as a legal matter.   

Not all share the moral perspective of a Christian:  the matter of abortion - during that time the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother to survive -  is a matter of personal conscience.  A question of conscience must be addressed human to human.  Neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, congregant to congregant,  father to daughter: wise experience passed down to the young and scared.

It cannot be imposed by the State, not at the cost of denying a woman the right to determine her destiny (in more ways, perhaps, than one).   I know how you believe the fetus is a baby.   You're on your own, sir, with the rare gift of persuasion you possess.   The State can play no role in adjudicating this matter of conscience.   And you know what?  It will make the persuasive task of the Christian easier when only the moral issue must be addressed.     

[HoustonSam]

Thanks, @HoustonSam , I appreciate our discussion and you're as good an adversary as I've got on this board.   I think that ruminating about the details and entrails of all this is interesting, so I'm disappointed you say you've said enough.   

Oh I'll be back ........................

I think I've seen here that you are a Scotch drinker.  As it happens I'm enjoying some Glen Garrioch right now, brought back by a travelling colleague who owed me a favor.

My toast to shared ruminating :  No quarter in argument, no bitterness in sentiment.

[Sighlass]

Yea, verily.  People have the absolute liberty to engage in intercourse, or not, as they see fit, free from government interference.  I'll join with you in defending this principle anytime, and I agree fully that this liberty should be exercised responsibly.  That responsibility includes being prepared to accept the consequences of intercourse, for both parties.

Granting one party to that event a unilateral right, while holding the other party accountable unilaterally, *does* encourage license, license by the party granted the unilateral right.  Your innate sense of compassion, which I take seriously and admire, leads you to invoke the example of a woman abandoned by an irresponsible man.  But there are other examples of women who have abortions, simply for convenience, sometimes without the man's knowledge.  I join you in wishing those women would not do so, but when we wish to influence one person by coercing another we don't usually consider that "equality before the law."  It more closely resembles a hostage situation.

Finally, when we carry out this policy in order to reach the moral ends we desire (reducing the number of abortions), we are without question using the law as an instrument to encourage our own, personal and private, sense of morality, a morality that others might not share.  In other contexts you are strongly opposed to laws which serve to impose one person's moral beliefs on another.  Why do you wish to impose your moral beliefs about abortion on others, men and women, by coercing men?  I'll ask again, if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, then as a legal issue why does it matter whether there are more or fewer abortions?

Well put...

[Hoodat]

To the contrary, if liberty is to be exercised, it is PARAMOUNT that it be exercised responsibly.

Except of course when it comes to the liberty of people to come together to choose how to mold and shape their society through the implementation of a collective moral code.  Because in that regard, you don't believe in liberty at all.

And while I oppose the State's coercion of reproduction,

The state is not coercing reproduction.  They never have.  It is simply a lie you keep repeating.

I have no problem whatsoever with, say, state subsidization of contraceptives to encourage family planning

As a member of society, do you believe you should have a voice in deciding whether or not your State chooses to subsidize contraceptives?

[Hoodat]

And after the child is born, both woman and man are equally obligated to pay for the support of the child so long as it is alive, until and unless their parental rights and obligations are formally cut off by an adoption.

Based on what?

[Jazzhead]

Oh I'll be back ........................

I think I've seen here that you are a Scotch drinker.

Guilty as charged.  (Although tonight I'm sipping bourbon.}   

As it happens I'm enjoying some Glen Garrioch right now, brought back by a travelling colleague who owed me a favor.

My toast to shared ruminating :  No quarter in argument, no bitterness in sentiment.

Glenn Garrioch is excellent tipple!   It reminds me of Craigellachie,  an unpeated Speysider with a meaty cast to the malt.   


I return your toast