Where is the line?

fishin said

Quote:

Abortion is, and has been, a hotly debated issue for some time. No surprise there to anyone. There have been several comments on this very board about Roe v. Wade being overturned, appointment of public officals and their views on abortion, etc.. and generally there is a large contingent that gets crazed any time anyone with an anti-abortion stance is mentioned for any public office. How is that not suppression? The general public is largely split down the middle on the issue yet one side is attempting to dominate the issue by eliminating (or preventing) any dissenting voice from gaining government office.

There is a significant liberty difference between these two positions that is perhaps part of what sozobe is intuitively responding to.

On the one hand, the 'pro-choice' position tells no one what they should do nor does it disallow anyone from doing what they believe is their personal right to do.

On the other hand, the 'pro-life' position does put limits (in varying degrees dependent upon the range of positions held) on the above liberties.

0 Replies

Well, if we want to dig into the abortion issue (which I don't think is the idea here..) I could shoot holes through those statements with relative ease.

But, the issue of "liberty" is one of perspective. Who gets to decide who's liberties should be protected? Who's liberties are more important? The basic principle within the US is that your right to anything stops when it interferes with with anyone elses rights and vice-versa. Yet people on any side of any issue want to do exactly that. They want the government to step in and interfere with someone else's rights. That IS the sole function of government. Every law passed interferes with someone's rights.

The competeing ideas of which rights should be protected under which circumstances and for whom is the whole grey area wrapped up in one big ball.

0 Replies

fishin

To say that every law interferes with someone's rights isn't a helpful way to think of this matter.

Liberty is NOT a matter of perspective (unless you perhaps want to argue that you ought to have the liberty to own slaves and treat them however you wish and that this liberty is equal to the slave's desires in the matter) even if how we perceive it shifts through time.

Political liberty is the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. We lack liberty where we are prevented from attaining a goal (by other humans). We are coerced where others deliberately interfere within those areas where we would otherwise act. Mill said, "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way."

0 Replies

As far as lines go, I find it ironic and enlightening that blatham would be the first one kicking me off this site if I engaged in personal invective against someone, (oh! the horror! nasty words!)

Yet he states that political liberty is the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others.

I beg to differ, Liberty IS a matter of perspective.

0 Replies

max

I'm gratified that you appreciate so astutely the awesome power of the Forum Guide position here at a2k...our roles are (as you know) two-pronged - helping with relevant links/assistance and mass murder. Since outfitted in this crew cut and freshly creased Guide uniform, I note that my own dear mother quivers at my arrival. You've got a good eye.

Even so, your claim above regarding liberty is a wee short on rationale.

0 Replies

You DO look good in that brown shirt, and how do you get your jack boots so shiny?

0 Replies

By the way, one need not have to OWN slaves to see that Liberty is relative, you need only look at things from their perspective.

Your quote, (I assume from the movie, "The Parent Trap"? I loved that movie!) defines freedom as an individual matter.

What you consider freedom I may not, and what fishin' considers freedom we may not, etc. ad nauseum.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

To say that every law interferes with someone's rights isn't a helpful way to think of this matter.

Whether is it helpful or not, it is a fact that can't be disputed. Quite possibly, it is the central issue in any discussion of liberties. And is the question of those laws not the very foundation of the question at hand? What liberties have been effected by any US President where laws were not put in place, circumvented or reinterpreted? In the question at hand, GW Bush, many would point to the USA Patriot Act. Was that not a law that moved the lines?

Quote:

Political liberty is the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. We lack liberty where we are prevented from attaining a goal (by other humans). We are coerced where others deliberately interfere within those areas where we would otherwise act. Mill said, "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way."

This is very nice.. Although it is nothing but a rephrasing of exactly what I said.... Note the words "can act", "prevented" and "coherced".

Laws can very well be (and are) used to limit the range of activities where people "can act". People are "prevented" from doing things by those laws and if they disagree with those laws they may very well feel "coherced".

But what they feel is based on their perspective. Which takes us all the way back around to Liberty being a matter of perspective... Isn't that were I started?

0 Replies

max

Adjust your monitor...by shirt is sky blue with pink epaulets and brings out my lovely eyes to great effect.

The quoted line is from JS Mill, and the preceding lines paraphrased from Isaiah Berlin (Two Concepts of Liberty).

I don't want to hijack sozobe's thread and turn it into a discussion on liberty, but I think the subject quite relevant to her anxieties regarding this administration particularly. Those of us who were mature adults when the Nixon/Kent State/Ed Meese years rolled through (or we can look at the McCarthy era) understand that civil liberties can be jeopardized by a reigning political class who have a bent towards paranoid interpretations and an easy preference for ideological uniformity (eg., the US is a Christian country).

I think you ought to put more thought into the liberty matter, max. We may each have different preferences regarding which areas of our lives others ought to keep their noses (and constraints) out of, but our legal and philosophical traditions push for maximal liberty.

Let's take what goes on in your bedroom. Laws until recently existed (some still may exist) which sought to constrain what you might get up to there, eg., oral sex. Are you willing to argue that there is an EQUAL liberty right for your neighbors to constrain your oral sex compared to your liberty right to do as you wish in pursuit of a fulfilled personal sex life?

I'll assume that your answer here would be 'no', unless of course you are Bill Bennett or Cokie Roberts posting under a pseudonym (though I confess I may have this wrong and Cokie is into the long leather boots and bum paddles thing).

The threat to such liberty, that is, to a maximal interpretation of liberty, seems to stem from the conviction or urge towards conformity of ideas and behavior. Dictatorial systems demand it, and so it is not too difficult to devise a shorthand method for ascertaining whom we ought to be anxious about and where to look for the evidence.

0 Replies

fishin

Just saw your post. I'm not sure we are in the same conversation, or we are and think we aren't. Laws are the most specific instantiation of community constraint...the codified instrument of constraint (though, of course, as in the charivaris of early North American history, all sorts of constraints can be effected even without codification).

But address my last post to max and we'll see if we can narrow down what we might be disagreeing about, if anything. Keeping in mind sozobe's initial question because she brought the cookies.

0 Replies

Well, you went into the oral sex thing with max and I'm not famaliar with any rationale of those who support such laws so I can't comment on those in regard to the issue of liberty.

But, earlier you raised the question in regards to the abortion debate and stated "On the one hand, the 'pro-choice' position tells no one what they should do nor does it disallow anyone from doing what they believe is their personal right to do."

From that it appears that your view is that there is maximal liberty because women are unfettered to make a choice. But, the other extreme perspective is that that choice is murder. Both views are based on the perspectives of the people at opposite ends as to the status of the fetus. So while you may see maximal liberty for the pregnant woman, the anti-abortion side sees NO liberty for the fetus. In fact they see the fetus as being killed without any say in the matter - an extreme limitation on that fetus's liberties...

In the abortion case the issue is one of who's liberties take priority, the woman's or the fetus's, and the line seems to be pretty well drawn along the view of whether or not the fetus is a person. But.. if you word the abortion question slighty differently the line moves greatly. There is a small contingent that thinks there should be NO abortions allowed and another small contingent that believes in the woman's absolute right to an abortion. If you ask "Should ALL abortions be made illegal the number of people saying "Yes" is very small. If you asked "Should the woman's right to an abortion be absolute?" the number saying "Yes" is also very small.

The overwhelming number of people are in the mddle of that debate and would take the position that there is SOME right for the woman to choose but that right can be, and should be, limited in various ways. (I don't know of anyone that would support a womans right to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months and 25 days...). As a result the liberties of both the woman and the fetus suffer infringement.

So, to bring this back to Soz's question.. Where is the line.. What restrictions on the woman's rights are acceptable and where do we cross that line? And would not any restrictions either way be a matter of law as they are right now? Aren't those pushing the laws in either direction doing so based on their perspective?

0 Replies

fishin

Try to address the first issue as it can be quite clarifying. Such laws do exist still. An address to this issue, or any other like it, will bring us closer to sozobe's question than the abortion issue.

I understand clearly the element of the fetus in this question. It is the complexifier in the liberty questions with abortion. So let's leave it alone unless sozobe thinks we ought to go there more fully.

0 Replies

ps...though it could go off track too, depending on what we do with it, there is a very good piece by Dahlia Lithwick on the legal/constitutional issues related to the 'Choose Life' licence plates being offered by and increasing number of states...the issues are free speech, censorship, and separation of church and state... http://slate.msn.com/id/2078247/

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Try to address the first issue as it can be quite clarifying. Such laws do exist still. An address to this issue, or any other like it, will bring us closer to sozobe's question than the abortion issue.

I don't see how the issue of consensual sexual activity brings us any closer to Soz's question in regards to the Bush administration and the moving of lines... The issue is pretty much dead and I haven't seen any mention of it in any discussion of Bush policies or focus whereas the Abortion issue has been raised by both sides (pro and con), is rather lively on any given day and was specificly referred to in the opening post.

There is debate on that line moving right now...

0 Replies

Quote:

On the one hand, the 'pro-choice' position tells no one what they should do nor does it disallow anyone from doing what they believe is their personal right to do.

On the other hand, the 'pro-life' position does put limits (in varying degrees dependent upon the range of positions held) on the above liberties.

On the contrary, I think elements from both camps want to control the information with which women are provided to help them decide what to do when pregnant. Limiting information limits liberty.

0 Replies

tres: yes indeed "On the contrary, I think elements from both camps want to control the information with which women are provided to help them decide what to do when pregnant. Limiting information limits liberty."

0 Replies

Quick point, then I'll write up something more complete (not particularly on the abortion issue)...

there is the element you two are missing here of 'prescibed behavior' and it's relationship to liberty issues.

The pro-choice position does not tell a woman what she 'ought to' do, the other position does.

The pro-choice position does not try to limit access to abortion, the other position does.

But let's wait for sozobe's word on whether we should kick in on abortion or put it onto another thread (my preference, at least).

0 Replies

Other thread would be cool! Very Happy

0 Replies

Pro-choice position advocates freedom of fun.
Pro-life position advocates freedom of life.
What is more important?
I do not object to the people's right to have sex for fun, but I am for responsible approach of its participants to the possible consequences.

0 Replies

We could move into the abortion debate, and it is tempting because it is a solid issue whereas (I think) sozobe's question relates to something more general and likely much more difficult to define and discuss. But let me try.

sozobe began the thread with a stated anxiety about this present President and administration. She referred to a couple of events which had stimulated her thought in this direction:

Quote:

The Bush Administration announced that they have chosen Dr. W. David Hager to chair the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, a committee of 11 members that oversees contraception and abortion medications.
Dr. Hager is a conservative ob/gyn who has been known for relying on his religious beliefs to make medical decisions, such as only prescribing birth control to married women, and recommending prayers for headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Dr. Hager has strong ties to the Christian Medical Association and the anti-abortion group Focus on the Family. He is author of the book "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now".

Quote:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today named 11 new members to an advisory panel on reproductive health, at least three of whom oppose abortion or birth control on religious grounds.

sozobe said: it is partly the under-the-radar nature of it that freaks me out.

Unless I read her anxiety incorrectly, sozobe is growing concerned that the Bush administration may bring about a number of profound and pervasive changes in laws and policies with insufficient openness and opportunities for debate, and will do this over the wishes (if more folks knew, they wouldn't be happy) of too many citizens, and that they will do this not with some huge mandate but simply because they know better than the population what is right and good. At least, that is how she'd word it if she and I were the same person.

And I think this is a most appropriate anxiety and I wish more people had it. The troubling issues (I'll stick to internal issues, as opposed to others such as a growing militarism or environment matters, etc. ) are liberty issues.

Let's begin by making a differentiation. I don't consider that what's going on is a consequence of the Republican party being in charge. That is, I don't think this a consequence of Lincoln's party or even Gerald Ford's party being in charge. Or of conservative economic theorists. But I DO think it a consequence precisely of the present powers in the party, specifically the evangelical voice.

(damn..have to run...I'll post just this for now)

0 Replies

Where is the line?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know