Although, it is worth noting there was no government concern about abortion in the United States until people became concerned about the safety and the qualifications of the various providers in the 1880's. Attempts to outlaw the practice didn't come until even later.
I was thinking about who pays for the continuance of the debate. Abortion on demand is settled law and practice in the United States and it keeps showing up in the courts at great public expense as the result of the actions of various state legislatures. The defense of the settled law and practice falls on the shoulders of private individuals and organizations at great expense. But the attack on settled law and practice is financed by state treasuries. Why? How did we get to a point where all taxpayers are required to pay for attacks on settled law and practice? In addition, when Roe challenged Wade , Wade and the state of Texas defended themselves at taxpayer expense and Roe was privately financed. You could certainly say the Texas law was settled and accepted practice. What sense does this reversal of who pays the bill make? Why do the taxpayers get stuck with the tab no matter what side they're defending, insurgency or settled law and practice? Without partisan accusation I don't really have an answer for that. I can't think of another example of that circumstance. The anti-choice people have hijacked the various state treasuries. When you think about it it's kinda odd no matter what side you're on.
Sides. The debate has gone on for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks talked about it. Was it a violation of the Hippocratic Oath? They didn't discuss it as a matter of law . It just was and they wondered about the morality. It pretty much stayed that way until the Christian Church came along. That's when they started talking about penalties. Even those penalties were ecclesiastical rather than civil although they carried a great deal more weight than they do now. Morality was a separate realm from secular authority. That's an interesting concept we might better follow today. Render unto Caesar etc. The medieval authorities seemed to think morality was separate from secular consideration. It is worthy of note the Church did have a power to administer punishments including corporal punishments. Think Spanish Inquisition. If you really wanna go deep you can think about Sharia Law.
So, as I followed the reading on the subject, this struck me. It seems to me, as the concept of individual rights of man began to develop so did the concept of secular, governmental limitation of those rights. It doesn't seem reasonable to me secular authority has a legitimate role in questions of morality but where do you draw that line?
So, in actuality, it's an ancient debate and there is a serious question if it's a subject for government at all. Interesting, but why do we keep getting billed for it?
I was thinking about who pays for the continuance of the debate. Abortion on demand is settled law and practice in the United States and it keeps showing up in the courts at great public expense as the result of the actions of various state legislatures. The defense of the settled law and practice falls on the shoulders of private individuals and organizations at great expense. But the attack on settled law and practice is financed by state treasuries. Why? How did we get to a point where all taxpayers are required to pay for attacks on settled law and practice? In addition, when Roe challenged Wade , Wade and the state of Texas defended themselves at taxpayer expense and Roe was privately financed. You could certainly say the Texas law was settled and accepted practice. What sense does this reversal of who pays the bill make? Why do the taxpayers get stuck with the tab no matter what side they're defending, insurgency or settled law and practice? Without partisan accusation I don't really have an answer for that. I can't think of another example of that circumstance. The anti-choice people have hijacked the various state treasuries. When you think about it it's kinda odd no matter what side you're on.
Sides. The debate has gone on for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks talked about it. Was it a violation of the Hippocratic Oath? They didn't discuss it as a matter of law . It just was and they wondered about the morality. It pretty much stayed that way until the Christian Church came along. That's when they started talking about penalties. Even those penalties were ecclesiastical rather than civil although they carried a great deal more weight than they do now. Morality was a separate realm from secular authority. That's an interesting concept we might better follow today. Render unto Caesar etc. The medieval authorities seemed to think morality was separate from secular consideration. It is worthy of note the Church did have a power to administer punishments including corporal punishments. Think Spanish Inquisition. If you really wanna go deep you can think about Sharia Law.
So, as I followed the reading on the subject, this struck me. It seems to me, as the concept of individual rights of man began to develop so did the concept of secular, governmental limitation of those rights. It doesn't seem reasonable to me secular authority has a legitimate role in questions of morality but where do you draw that line?
So, in actuality, it's an ancient debate and there is a serious question if it's a subject for government at all. Interesting, but why do we keep getting billed for it?
No comments:
Post a Comment