I took the liberty of opening another thread, because this is definitely beyond the scope of the last. :o) Items in italics I added to clarify for those who may not have read the thread he's referring to. Here's the springboard:
Posted by Jeffery Francom (Jfrancom)
Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 02:51 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it just me, or do others find it very difficult to keep their posts on this topic (abortion) brief?! I apologize if I am too verbose! I really have tried to keep the length of my posts down, while also trying to explain my perspective etc.
I took great interest in Brian's comment that (summarizing) perhaps this issue (abortion) would have to be left out of any 'ideal' constitution because it is so divisive. (I hope that summary is accurate) That intrigued me for several reasons. Mainly because I feel he may be right... This issue could certainly prevent such a constitution from being widely accepted anywhere. Yet at the same time, it worries me.
The Founding Fathers seemed to have a similar dilemma. In their day, the slavery issue could have prevented ratification. They left it out in order to get the Constitution through. Yet in the end it still split the nation.
Could the founders have resolved the issue in another way that would not have led to the Civil War (which solved the issue, but in a manner that cost much blood as well as loss of some states rights. Was there a way they could have resolved the issue during the constitutional conventions and prevented the war?
If abortion was not covered somehow in the constitution of an ideal, would this issue have the same affect as the slavery issue so long before? Is there a better way to address it?
Thoughts? Opinions? Is that a separate thread? If so, is anyone interested?
Let the games begin . . . :o)
Very nice. I'm reminded of the statement by one of the "Founders" that the US Constitution would work only for a righteous people. I'm afraid that if we try to accomodate the pro-abortion element we will be in trouble from the start. Not that that solves the problem. Sorry I cannot contribute a solution.
Thanks to Patriots Mother for moving this to a new thread. I think the majority of the people on this list probably agree with most of the issues. And yet there are certainly a handful of issues that are very difficult to reach consensus on... Even among generally like-minded people.
I think their is value in looking at those who came before us (the founding fathers) and trying to identify *their* divisive issues, compare and contrast them with our issues, consider better solutions that may have prevented problems, and so forth. We have the benefit of hindsight - which (though rarely really 20/20) is usually much clearer than foresight!
The founder’s situation on the slavery issue really does have many parallels with the situation with abortion issue in several ways:
- Most people’s opinion was firmly and inflexibly set.
- There was no simple way to create a compromise because the affects were absolute.
- In each case, to not decide was / is to decide... In other words, not prohibiting the act (slavery or abortion) would be viewed as a complete loss to one side.
- In each case both sides viewed it as a matter of personal rights. This one concerns me because good people would be willing to fight for personal rights. That is one of the dangers of not addressing this issue.
Let me point out that at the same time, there were also differences in the issues... the point is not to equate the two issues… only to consider them for possible solution. If prohibiting abortion is right or wrong, it is most definitely not because slavery is wrong... Each issue must stand on it's own "two feet."
Can anyone think of some other divisive issues that the founders of our nation (or another nation) encountered that could also serve as a springboard for ideas?
Many Thanks,
Jeffery Francom
There is one caution I would raise about trying to resolve the abortion issue--from a lesson learned by the slavery "resolution". As I mentioned in the other thread, the "Federal" issue was tied directly to the slavery issue. So, by eliminating slavery, we also eliminated the right to leave the Union.
In my opinion, any solution to the abortion issue, must not be done on a Federal level. It must be resolved at the state level--unless there is a Federal acceptance of the right of states to seceed.
Let the states learn this lesson for themselves. Perhaps if we allowed states to learn right from wrong in the slavery issue, it would have taken much longer to get where we are, but at least the constitution would have been much more intact, and good honrable people would be able to choose the conditions they would live under, rather than living under federal compulsion.
AB,
I agree with you regarding the unfortunate resultant loss of the right to succeed that came with the civil war.
At the same time, if a government cannot prohibit the "ownership" of one human without that person's consent then, in my estimation, the government is not "Ideal" by any means. To be ideal, an individual’s rights could only be taken away (in cases where an individual was found guilty of attacks on the rights of others) after due process, a fair and proper trial, and other constitutionally guaranteed rights. If these do not apply to all - then they are an illusion.
It is my belief that the right to succeed is significant indeed - but that fundamental human rights are of greater import. The problem that I have with leaving it to the states is demonstrated in the fact that some of the states were enforcing laws that went contrary the very core of individual liberty. Consider that if the states have the right to take away individual rights without consent and without justification then the *individual* should be permitted to succeed from the state and retain their freedom. The “slaves” were not given this option.
If the federal government hadn't taken a stand, many thousands more people would have been born and died with the government itself endorsing the denial of all of their fundamental rights.
Is it not within the just power of the government to protect the fundamental rights of individuals (the "slaves" in this case) against usurpation?
I can't help but wonder if there might have been another way; an option where freedom to succeed might have been preserved - while at the same time, prohibiting the absolute denial of the fundamental rights of individuals.
A minor presidential candidate back in those days proposed that the federal government sell some of their lands to reimburse the former slave "owners" for the slaves would be freed. This seems a reasonable option as the purchase of the slaves –had- been legally endorsed at the time they were "purchased." (Otherwise it is almost an ex post facto issue.) Perhaps with such a solution, the people in the south would have had less resentment and resistance that the war might have been averted... Not a perfect solution, but better than any ideas *I* have!
Thoughts?
Jeffery
An "Ideal" state can only be effectively instituted among a group of moral and basically like-minded individuals whose membership is completely voluntary.
So how do we keep out those who don't fit that criteria? The answer is that we don't "keep" them out, we help them choose to excuse themselves! It's the cockroach principle--if you don't want to see any cockroaches, keep the lights on. Since immoral people are more comfortable in "dark" places, let's create an ideal state with plenty of "light"!
By emphasizing the word "state" we could possibly function under a federal-type union with other states, but if those other states are not "like-minded", then we simply have another form of what the United Nations is so desparately trying to create--with power-hungry individuals leading the charge.
Anyway, the point is, we should establish a set of voluntary guidelines, upon which citizenship in this state is contingent. If you wish to be in a particular state, you will obey certain laws and principles.
Truth will ultimately prevail on its own--we only need to create an atmosphere which nurtures its expression, then allow the counterfeits to crumble from within--we don't have to try and solve everything ourselves. Granted, this approach requires much more faith and patience (two attributes worth developing) than the alternative and will appear to many as if we are ignoring a moral obligation, however, if we are to succeed, we must resist the temptation to over-govern.
If we attempt to enforce or even create a panacea that once-and-for-all settles the question of man-made governments without significant divine intervention we will fail in our goal.
I think what Joel is trying to do is establish a criteria for willing, like-minded individuals to voluntarily choose to become governed by, rather than establishing any particular set of rules to be imposed upon the minority.