Posted on 08/09/2004 2:20:27 PM PDT by neverdem
Academically, the "slippery slope" argument is considered a logical fallacy; it’s the unsubstantiated belief that one action will inevitably lead to a worst-case conclusion. In politics - which is seldom logical - the "slippery slope" is used with wedge issues, trumpeting the undeniable disaster that will follow any compromise on a matter of morality. It’s used to inflame and manipulate voters, to encourage distrust and the fear of mutual concession.
So let’s turn down the flame and apply some common sense to two such topics - gun rights and abortion rights. First, the guns.
The Second Amendment, in its awkwardly worded entirety: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The ultimate question - is this right conferred to the people, or to the state? - has never been resolved by our highest court, despite recent efforts to force their hand: "The Supreme Court passed up a chance…to rule on the Bush administration’s assertion that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear firearms." (NewsMax.com, 6/11/2002)
In the absence of such judicial clarity - and accepting that the Supreme Court has generally upheld federal gun laws - the issue of private gun ownership could be effectively addressed by the United States Congress. One reasonable approach might look something like this:
Consider firearms as the rough equivalent of a motor vehicle. Both require a degree of maturity and skill for proper operation. Both face concerns over safety and lawful application, since both are potentially deadly weapons. Both have restrictive provisions for their use (such as age, criminal background, drug abuse, etc.). Using the template of a driver’s license, we could explore federal legislation on firearms that would involve a test-based license - one for simple ownership, with a more extensive test for a concealed-carry permit. These exams - uniform, and nationally administered - would encompass knowledge of gun safety, gun laws, and a shooting-range assessment of minimal skill levels.
An effort at such legislation would no doubt be attacked from both sides. Advocates of gun rights would claim that such testing is an abridgement of the Second Amendment; that the tests would not be devised or administered fairly; that the licensing records would be used as a ‘national registry’ for eventual gun seizure by a restrictive federal government. Gun control supporters would reject any law that endorses private gun ownership, even if its intent is to ensure responsible gun ownership; they would insist that such an action would see a soaring rate of handgun deaths.
And, perhaps, that’s our cue: The merits of such a compromise might indeed be measured by the volume of the outrage from both extremes.
Philosophically, the debate regarding abortion is more complex than that of gun ownership. The basic question, however, is pretty straight-forward: At what point, if any, do the rights of a fetus supercede a woman’s rights?
There are three basic categories within the anti-abortion population. The first group opposes abortion under any circumstances. They believe that life begins at conception, and the right to life of a fetus takes precedence over all other concerns - including the life of the woman. Their beliefs, and efforts, are aimed at making abortion illegal, period. Within this group - a small percentage, one hopes - are those who find it heroic to murder doctors who perform abortions.
The second group opposes abortion in all cases, except when the woman’s life is endangered. This is a quantum leap from the first tier, since the rights conferred to the fetus have become negotiable. One may disagree with the position, but at least it shows an attempt to rationally reconcile conflicting values. The third group - those who would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest - have staked out a bizarre corner in the debate. Their moral interest is not in the fetus itself; instead, they would use pregnancy as a punishment for willful sex - a woman is only eligible for an abortion if she didn’t consent to the act. Those that support abortion in these cases are - from their logic - inflicting the death penalty on the fetus itself, as if it were a guilty party to the means of its own conception.
The flip side of the argument, succinctly stated by Judith Jarvis Thompson ("A Defense of Abortion," Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971): "…nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments…for nine months, in order to keep a person alive."
Even in the face of such a emotional issue, surely there is some common ground to at least begin a discussion. If, to the pro-lifers, abortion is the ultimate evil, shouldn’t their efforts - concurrent with encouraging anti-abortion legislation - also entail broadening birth control knowledge and availability? Even if they find this morally distasteful, surely it is a minor sin when weighed against its greater good - the minimizing of abortions. In addition, to be true to their values, they should be supporting scientific efforts to expand contraceptive reliability.
Surely, to the pro-choice faction, there is leeway on the question of the "Intrauterine Cranial Decompression" procedure (termed, by the pro-lifers, "partial birth abortion"). Allowing for certain exceptions - when the woman’s life is endangered, or when the fetus suffers from serious genetic defects - couldn’t an agreement be reached that, at some point late in the pregnancy, the woman has sacrificed the right to "abortion-on-demand?" After all, every "right" - including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms - has its legal limits.
Those on the extreme edges of both these controversies will find all attempts at compromise unacceptable. For the rest of us - living in an increasingly polarized America - finding common ground on such divisive issues may be the key to our survival. There is a limit on how much damage a foreign terrorist can inflict on this nation. Unfortunately, there is no such limit on the damage we can do to ourselves.
Charles Cutter can be reached at http://cuttersway.com.
© Copyright 2003 by Magic City Morning Star
Go look up The City of Spokane, v. Julie Anne Port (1986). In it, Judge McInturff blows away your "driving is a right" argument:
"As used here, "privilege" means a qualified right or a particular advantage enjoyed by a class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens, Black's Law Dictionary 1077 (5th rev. ed. 1979); see also R. Pound, Readings on the History and Systems of the Common Law 468 (3d ed. 1927), whereas "right" connotes an interest belonging to every person. Black's Law Dictionary at 1190; Pound, at 467-68. Compare 72 C.J.S. Privilege (1951 & Supp. 1985) with 77 C.J.S. Right (1952 & Supp. 1985). Hence, driving an automobile on our state's public highways is a privilege and not a right because the activity is limited to a certain class of individuals, generally those over the age of 16 years, who have passed a driver's license examination. RCW 46.20.031, .120.*fn2 This privilege is always subject to such reasonable regulation and control as the proper authorities see fit to impose under the police power in the interest of public safety and welfare. See State v. Scheffel, 82 Wash. 2d 872, 880, 514 P.2d 1052 (1973) (one does not have an absolute constitutional right to a particular mode of travel), appeal dismissed, 416 U.S. 964 (1974); Crossman v. Department of Licensing, 42 Wash. App. 325, 328 n.2, 711 P.2d 1053 (1985) (privilege to drive not a "fundamental right"); State ex rel. Juckett v. Evergreen Dist. Court, 32 Wash. App. 49, 55, 645 P.2d 734 (1982) (driver's license is privilege granted by State). This is because the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.*fn3 See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 86 L. Ed. 21, 62 S. Ct. 24 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, in 314 U.S. at 36:
[19] Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.
[20] See also Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 59 L. Ed. 385, 35 S. Ct. 140 (1915) (states may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in the operation upon its highways of motor vehicles and it may require the licensing of drivers).
Those courts and thier rulings are in error, made for the furtherance of thier statist agendas and in support of various revenue gathering streams of income from the people, not with any respect for the law.
Article VI of the Constittution says very plainly, and I quote,: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
The Ninth Amendment to our Constitution states in the plainest possible language: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Thus you can see that the Highest Law in the Land, the Constitution, provides for rights not listed. You will never convince me otherwise. The right to freely travel, unimpeded by government is, doubtlessly one of these rights.
Now you can claim that those words do not mean what they very plainly say all you want to.
The fact of the matter is that they do mean exactly what they say. Any state legislature which passes a law, any judge who upholds that law, any officer who enforces that law which is contrary to the law of the land is in fact committing a criminal act.
When will you come out on the side of law and order, instead of this reckless support of the lawless? You should be well aware that support of lawlessnes can only lead to anarchy, and then to tyranny.
I agree.
But if you want to freely travel by car, the states are allowed to require a license as a valid exercise of their police power.
Drivers licenses are issued by the states. You are in favor of state's rights aren't you?
Not when they conflict with the rights and freedoms of the people. I am for freedom for the people, not for the freedom of states to oppress them.
Requiring permission to drive is nothing more than the exertion of power over the lives of the otherwise law abiding, for the simple purpose of coercive control and revenue gathering, the tools of despots.
You are in favor of freedom , aren't you?
Sure. But you're not describing freedom -- you're describing anarchy.
"This (driving) privilege is always subject to such reasonable regulation and control as the proper authorities see fit to impose under the police power in the interest of public safety and welfare."
-- Judge McInturff, Spokane v Port (1986)
I happen to agree.
So you call it anarchy when people do not suffer from the coercive powers of the state for the reasons of control and revenue gathering?
I stand by original assertation, that driving is indeed a right. The simple fact of the matter is that I believe in the maximum possible freedom for the individual as long as there is no damage done to anyone else, and you do not.
Did you not notice the problems that developed from unbridled government during the 20th century? What, in your opinion, does the state NOT have the power to do?
Blatant disrespect for the law by government because it does not agree with thier statist agenda is the way to tyranny. We are far down that road. Some of us wish to change directions.
You will never convince me to abandon the principles of Freedom and Liberty in a thousand years, should you live so long, so you may as well save your breath.
I will not bow to the state as a god.
I told my lib sister-in-law something similar to this concerning why women have abortions.
Put "succinctly", I said that women have abortions because being pregnant/having a child is *inconvenient.* At least they should be honest about it.
In a nutshell, that's what the overwhelming percentage of them are for.
She really had no rebuttal.
I call it anarchy when people insist that state governments have no constitutional right to regulate who sits behind the wheel of a 3000 pound car or 20,000 pound truck and drive 70 mph on public highways.
No one here is disputing the power of a State to ~reasonably~ regulate driving motor vehicles paulsen.
As usual, you are 'crying wolf' for effect.
-- To what effect? -- This is only known to you and your shrink.
I agree with his position on guns but R v W really seems to have been a slipperly slope. Actually maybe it was just a sharp drop off. The 19th ammendment would also seem to have been the ultimate slippery slope. To many wise people it looked like it would lead to disasterously liberal thinking in politics and possibly damage the family and just look at what has happened.
Living Stone is, aine.
Living Stone is, paine.
Wrong again paulsen. LS has supported the fact that we have inalienable rights to travel, rights that cannot be prohibited by ANY level of government.
Yes, -- reasonable regulations can be written, using due process of Constitutional law, but banning our fundamental right to move about is not possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.