This issue is like immigration. They don’t want to solve it. They want to get the sides engaged and to turn out to vote every 2 years. That is why it was leaked now, as It appears the Democrats will lose Congress.
The timing is interesting, isn't it? The final decision would have been / will be released soon in any event. This decision was certainly going to effect November elections. Does the early release make a difference? Will passions abate somewhat by then, or will this mean more time to build war chests?
I don't see much movement on midterm votes due to this decision. People are still livid about how team blue handled coof, and that includes parents pissed about closed schools, kid vax/mask mandates and now CRT, alphabet Mafia teachers, etc. These former dem voters are not extreme single-issue voters seeking limitless abortion into during actual childbirth. Priorities have changed this past two years, this extremist reaction merely appeals to the extremist 30% (max) that resides in a constant lather.
I am a longtime moderate Democrat who voted a straight Republican ticket for the first time in the November 2021 elections in VA, for all the reasons you mention. I am strongly pro-choice but will probably still vote Republican this coming November, consistent with your argument above.
However, this Supreme Court decision following on all of the covid mandates is giving me a lot of food for thought. And I'm wondering if I might end up aligning with more of a libertarian viewpoint in the future (the political and philosophical perspective, not necessarily the US political party).
I never thought of myself as a libertarian in the past, but I have also never seen such serious threats to liberty in this country as I've seen in the past few years (not to mention other western countries, especially Canada).
The level of threat we've seen in the past two years to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to operate one's business, and freedom of medical and bodily autonomy is IMO unprecedented in my lifetime. I find it terrifying, and in my opinion this threat transcends normal political divisions.
As I've expressed here, in my mind the right to abortion (esp in the 1st trimester) falls firmly within the bounds of bodily and medical autonomy, so it is disconserting to see so many here who I thought supported those principles abandon them when it comes to abortion.
The early release provides the Left with an opportunity to bully some Justices into changing their minds. If that doesn't work, it provides more fundraising and organizing opportunities. And as I posited elsewhere in thread, we will likely have a summer far worse than that of 2020.
I can’t link it but a DW article by John Rigolizzo entitled “Democrats say overturning Roe v Wade won’t help them in the midterms” on May 4th is one I just re-found discussing it.
Personally, I’m not sure. In 2018 I think it would have. However, the left’s treatment of living children from Covid and in public schools, and the growing awareness that it simply returns the subject back to the states, makes me think that might be true. Swing voters, which are parents and middle class workers these days, aren’t dying to codify 3rd trimester abortion in federal law. At the state level, it will motivate pro-life to the same extent as pro-choice.
Yep, I just posted basically this sentiment. Those I talk with online don't see abortion as a priority anymore, Dems gave them much bigger fish to fry the past two years.
First, I found this in-depth study to be really interesting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays the same regardless of whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroy countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
Second - i learned on this link (and the studies leading out from it) that suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, a country with with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
The only countries on this planet who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder wars)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their bodily sovereignty and forcing them to give birth against their wish. The rest of the time the spit on you and the baby they forced you bring into the world and they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet for resource plunder, to enforce their global hegemony and to terrorize and force countries into privatizing their economy - industry, services, and resources into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering across the planet are not christian, so it's no biggie)
Sharing a link to a study that I found really interesting and enlightening about the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (number of abortions stays the same whether they're legal or banned, no fetuses "saved" through a ban, all that is accomplished with a ban is to push abortions underground, kill lots of women, hurt children & destroy countless families and several other horrible consequences for society).
First, I found this in-depth study to be really linteresting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays same whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroy countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
Second - i learned on this links (and the studies leading out from it) that Suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
Out of 193 cointries on this planet, the only ones who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder wars)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their bodily sovereignty and forcing them to give birth against their wish. The rest of the time the spit on you and the baby they forced you bring into the world and they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet for resource plunder, to enforce their global hegemony and to terrorize and force countries into privatizing their economy - industry, services, and resources into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering are not christian, so its no biggie)
Completely aside from its subject matter, Roe was a terrible (and precarious) legal decision in the first place. If the pro-abortion politicians wanted to codify the right to abortion, they have had fifty years to do it properly via a federal law, and yet they have not. Why would you kill the goose that lays the golden outrage vote? The vote that you can tuck away in the back of the cupboard and pull out whenever it looks like your power might be in jeopardy.
Remember the brilliance of the constitution is that it is "flexible" explicitly by virtual of the amendment process, which can be driven by congress or driven by the states. So any part of the constitution can change! For most of our nations existence (well the first 2/3rds at least), the proper process was followed - sometimes too rapidly and without sufficient consideration requiring corrective action via the very same process of amendment.
Somewhere in the mid 20th century it was decided this process was too something: to complex (it is not), to transparent (it is), or perhaps to subject to the will of the people to intrude on whims and wishes of those who wish to rule (my theory). Do not accept this false narrative: the constitution IS a living document, but by amendment, not "creative" interpretations, convoluted court rulings or outright circumvention by repetition. It remains a fact that it is morally and legally wrong to assert we must "update" our understanding of the words to align with the times. The update process is clearly defined: amendment.
True. And the 9th is superior to the 10th (why it comes first) and CLEARLY states that power originates from and is reserved to the people. That's been generally ignored too.
The 14th has been broadly interpreted to support federal preemption. A political phrase for grabbing power over the states and the people. The vast majority of federal regulation exists based on this interpretation. How else does CDC exist? It does not regulate interstate commerce and as we've seen is not promoting the general welfare ;-). How does the FDA regulate controlled substances? The list is extensive. When Colorado "legalized" a controlled substance, then AG Eric Holder was poised to fight since of course the FDA regulates controlled substance and marijuana is prohibited - under the preemption interpretation states can not over-rule such regulations. However holder backed off when the AG of the state basically said "bring it on, I'd LOVE to argue the 'preemption' interpretation and have the courts rule it out of existence!" - and the dominoes that might cause to fall might actually restore limits to federal power, something Holder's boss could not risk at the time.
In my opinion it would, because I don't believe that abortion is a constitutional right. However, the ruling of Roe says that abortion is covered by the constitution, in which case it would seem the 10A wouldn't apply. The other method that they could have tried, if the federal law angle didn't work, is to pass a new constitutional amendment, but they didn't try that, either, which leads me back to believing that they prefer to keep the issue alive.
Absolutely!! With the hopeful overturning of Roe V Wade, it would presume the courts do not feel it is a constitutional right. Leading us back to the 10th amendment. And there is no way 2/3 of the states would agree to abortion rights.
First, I found this in-depth study to be really linteresting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays same whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroy countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
Second - i learned on this links (and the studies leading out from it) that Suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
Out of 193 cointries on this planet, the only ones who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder wars)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their bodily sovereignty and forcing them to give birth against their wish. The rest of the time the spit on you and the baby they forced you bring into the world and they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet for resource plunder, to enforce their global hegemony and to terrorize and force countries into privatizing their economy - industry, services, and resources into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering are not christian, so its no biggie)
Wonderful, clear writing here gato. Personally, I'm always amazed at the concept that secular humanists or other atheists should somehow AUTOMATICALLY be pro-abortion. I don't want to go on a long screed, but that makes zero sense. As a humanist who is open-eyed about the natural behavior of mankind, I am very much pro-life for the unborn. I know full well how easy it is for the powerful to disdain and destroy the powerless. Secular humanists should be ALL ABOUT trying to stop that abuse.
Our present law's denial of rights to the fetus is very much like antebellum slavery law's denial of rights to the slave. Then, only the slaveowner's wishes mattered. Now, it's only the mother's.
Unless I missed something, slaves had actual separate bodies that were outside the slaver-owners bodies. That you omitted this rather large difference suggests you were intentionally trying to be misleading.
Awesome, and true no matter where one lands on abortion a an issue:
"I know full well how easy it is for the powerful to disdain and destroy the powerless. Secular humanists should be ALL ABOUT trying to stop that abuse."
If anything, the stance of the vulgar and thoughtless humanists (in name at least) of today only fuels the argument that (some) humans need a divine consciousness surveiling and judging their actions in order to act or indeed ieven have morals at all.
Personally, I quit the humanist society of Sweden decades ago precicely because they had developed into an order of set ideas, ideals and morals on all issues - a dogmatic cult:
Atheism, check. Pro-abortion as a right, check. Anti-capital punishment and prisons, check. Anti private gun ownership, check. Pro high taxes corporate society, check. And so on.
Where did the "human" part of "humanist" go? All that's left is the "-ist".
(Felt pressing "heart" wasn't enough for such a good point you make!)
First, I found this in-depth study to be really interesting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays the same regardless of whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroy countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
Second - i learned on this link (and the studies leading out from it) that suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
Out of 193 countries on this planet, the only ones who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder invasions)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their bodily sovereignty and force them to give birth AGAINST THEIR WISH. The rest of the time the spit on you and the baby they forced you bring into the world, the rest of the time they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet in their imperialist wars for resource plunder, for enforcing their global hegemony and for terrorizing and forcing countries to privatize their economy - industry, services, and resources - into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering in tbe process are not christian, so its no biggie)
We do not know when a person starts to be a person. Conception? 2 hours? 15 days? We have no idea. We cannot know. The human being does not know everything. Assume it.
Then, just in case, let us be cautious and do not kill from the very beginning.
and so, if some believe in reincarnation and therefore that a bug might be my grandmother and demand that you not step on it, are we to accept a similar deference to the precautionary principle?
why not sperm or ovum?
mandating that a society moves at the speed of its most cautious regardless of what most feel seems a fraught idea. try applying this logic as a general case, and i think that emerges.
shall we presume guilt and not innocence for crimes? let's be cautious and presume you are a thief?
shall we always presume harm in torts?
this idea that we must always try to avoid some assumed possible harm at the expense of all other values has been abused terribly in health policy these last 2 years. is expanding this thinking to other spheres desirable or wise?
one might also argue that if we're going to err toward caution, we should err toward the rights and agency of the being we KNOW to be sentient (the mother) as opposed to 20 barely differentiated cells in a womb.
this feels like using a rhetorical and logical sleight of hand to pass off the subjective as the objective by claiming "let's be safe" and simply defining safety along only one axis while ignoring all others.
Sperm and eggs apart will not become a human being. Add them together and voila!...life begins.
Religion need not enter into the debate as to when life begins. Until it became political, life beginning at conception was an uncontroversial point, taught even at my state university's biology classes.
this seems like a false equivalence of potential with current status.
i might one day be a doctor. do i get the right to prescribe drugs as a result of that?
you might one day steal a car.
shall we arrest you for grand theft auto just to be safe?
it was ALWAYS political.
before it was popular to demand that parents provide care for children, many societies treated them as chattel and outright property much as we currently treat cattle.
others allowed movement from "person" to "slave" and back again or claimed that some live humans were people and others were not.
one may find all manner of historical practice to which to appeal.
There is no false equivalence in this comment. Sperm and egg are not life. When they meet, they are life. This is the only logical beginning of life, in which we mean a unique human with their own DNA.
Gato, yours is the false equivalence. Prescribing meds is based on attained knowledge. Cells rapidly dividing are living, period. Not potentially. By definition.
My claim is based on science, not historical practice. Sperm + Egg is when life begins; it's not a matter of potential; it IS human life. Egg and sperm apart are potential life.
As to the barbarism of days of yore, the God of Abraham and Isaac slammed the brakes on child sacrifice. The dignity of each person and the notion of human rights are, very much, Christian principles arising from the Jewish tradition. The excellent historian Tom Holland wrote a book a few years ago (Dominion) that explores these topics. An atheist, he finds himself going to church regularly now. He is on the same path that CS Lewis and Malcolm Muggeridge took before him.
You wrote a few days earlier that the right to speak freely must be absolute; the right to life is even more important. This is not a deistic position; many atheists are pro-life--the late civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, for example. For atheist co-founder of NARAL, Bernard Nathanson, ultrasound technology led to his conversion to the pro-life cause (and eventually to Catholicism). The "it's just a clump of cells" argument was rendered nonsensical by the images of what was clearly and obviously a tiny human being. And this is at the stage when most abortions are performed.
Nietzsche wrote that, "If you give up Christian faith, you pull the right to Christian morality out from under your feet. The morality is simply not self-evident: one has to bring this point home again and again, despite English dimwits." The notion of each human having dignity and deserving respect is a religious statement. I have a grudging respect for atheists who admit that they hold human life in no special regard.
With what's going on in the world, I fear that we are going to find out that "without God, all is permissible," as Dostoevsky wrote in "The Brothers Karamazov.'
That’s a straw man. If you are not actually a doctor you, can’t prescribe drugs.
While I very uncomfortably support very early choice, at the moment of conception a unique human life with unique DNA is actually created, objectively. At the moment if implantation that human being is living. To ignore this is to ignore actual known scientific facts.
I find all this back-and-forth on the issue of when life begins to be irrelevant to the core issue.
Abortion is a sticky wicket because there is an intersection of, and conflict between, the rights of the mother and those of her fetus.
The only way to resolve this conflict is to favor the rights of one party at the expense of the other. Either the woman can kill the fetus, violating its fundamental right to live, or be forced to carry the fetus full-term, thus violating her rights to bodily autonomy.
Regardless of where one comes down, this is the fundamental issue.
So the real question is *who decides*?
In my view, it must be the woman, perhaps in consultation with her family and doctor if she so chooses, but in the end, it has to be her call.
I find this conclusion uncomfortable, but one thing I know for certain is that it is not my call, and sure as hell isn't some politician's.
i suspect you would not allow a woman to decide to kill her 3 month old child or to simply drop one 5 feet onto the sidewalk because her bodily autonomy allows it.
does an unborn entity of, say, 5 months possess no rights?
if one were to slip this woman ru486 and cause fatal miscarriage, would that be murder?
because the idea that she can end that pregnancy and commit no crime but that someone else could not would seem to pose a contradiction.
it can't be murder if you kill them but not if i do.
how do we resolve that?
this is why i think defining the moment of personhood is the key.
once we do that, the contradictions and the precedence of rights and values gets resolved.
Of course I would not allow the killing of a 3 month old child. Once the child is born, it is no longer a part of the woman's body and thus the conflict between the fundamental rights of the mother and the fetus no longer exists.
As a human being, the fetus possesses the same rights as the born, but again, in the case of pregnancy, the mother's right to control her own body, which is fundamental, cannot be fully exercised without violating the right of the fetus to live.
So, again, the fundamental question becomes, who decides and enforces that decision?
The same question applies to the determination of personhood.
My instincts and emotions would legally favor the fetus over the mother, but intellectually I am hesitant to place my judgment above the mother's in this matter, particularly in a blanket fashion.
Equally important, I know that empowering the State to regulate such things is fraught with danger, which I think the last two years have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Certainly, reasonable people can disagree on this.
As for the ru486 scenario, that is clearly a violation of the rights of both the mother and the fetus and the perpetrator should be dealt with accordingly.
Sex is a contract. Having sex might result in a baby. That is the express purpose of sex. Virtually everyone knows this. When you have sex, you sign a contract that says “I might get pregnant from this action. I agree to this possibility.” Whether or not you like it, you have signed it. You’re basically signing away the right of bodily autonomy for a little while in the event you do get pregnant.
Being pregnant is not permanent. It’s over in 40 weeks. Being aborted is permanent. When life and death are involved, that trumps the inconvenience of being pregnant for less than a year.
Hard to argue with that last point. That is to say that conception is clearly objective. So what is the purpose of conceiving... create a human being, an offspring.
Let’s be clear, in the case of the fetus, we are talking about the life or death of humanity’s most defenseless member. For the mother, we’re talking about the inconvenience of carrying and delivering a child, who previously had the rights and agency not to get pregnant in the first place. She is not required to keep the child. When we’re talking about life or death, the precautionary principle takes precedence over inconvenience.
And how long are there just a few undifferentiated cells in a womb? The clock quickly runs out on that argument.
That is your opinion. Others may feel differently. In a free society, they would have the right to decide for themselves, not be forced by the government to carry a pregnancy to term against their will.
That is the whole point of my argument. I respect your opinion and your right to decide for yourself. I ask that you do the same for others, but you are not willing to.
You said the mother "had the rights and agency not to get pregnant in the first place". Contraception is imperfect, so the only way for a fertile woman to avoid getting pregnant for sure is to not have sex. So you are proposing that women who do not want a child (or another child) completely abstain from sex? For perhaps decades? Even if married?
Would you propose the same for men who do not want to father a child - complete abstention from intercourse with women of child-bearing age? Again, even if married?
Even if you would advocate for such a vast social change, I challenge you to provide me with one example of a society, in any historical period, where such a massive absention from sex occurred. I certainly can't think of one, and would suggest that such a proposal is completely unrealistic.
“ So you are proposing that women who do not want a child (or another child) completely abstain from sex?”
If they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of sex, then yes.
“ Would you propose the same for men who do not want to father a child - complete abstention from intercourse with women of child-bearing age?”
If they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of sex, then yes.
In reality, people don’t have to abstain from sex. They just have to not kill the child they created from sex. They do not then have to raise the child. That’s what adoption is for.
And I would encourage you to research postpartum abstinence. Many cultures abstained from sex after the birth of a child to practice ideal child spacing.
"that a bug might be my grandmother" In that case, step on it and give the bug a better life as a lizard or whatever!
I don't find the comparison with the last 2 years of application. Vaccines do not protect, as we have witnessed. Not killing a baby protects the baby 100%.
This issue is so important (I really appreciate any help I got back then to not get aborted so I can enjoy what was my only opportunity to enjoy this life) and the abortion is so terribly effective that precautionary principle is in my opinion required. Also remember, pregnancy does not come from fairies. You can avoid it.
One shall not kill. No matter the size of the victim. If we start debating who can be killed, we are terribly lost.
PS: this issue creates some division between us. Is the timing a coincidence?
One can make the argument that everything is connected. You wouldn't be here without your parents, and their parents, and their parents, back to the beginning of humanity. Humans wouldn't exist without the evolution of life that birthed them. And no life happens without this earth, this solar system, this galaxy, this universe. When did life ultimately start? When everything else did.
Good rational take on the issue. I'm wondering of some of those who argue that life and personhood begin at conception would be persuaded by the ancient Hebrew law, which held that life begins at "quickening," or about 20 weeks, but legal personhood does not begin until birth. I see this supreme court leak as a deliberate attempt to polarize the population and herd straying liberals back into the fold for the midterms.
As a morally repugnant response to your query: in Canada, there is no controlling law regarding abortion. Zero. Zip. Our Supreme Court struck down our abortion law as unconstitutional in 1988 and Parliament failed in its one attempt to pass a new law to replace it a year or two later (it deadlocked in the Senate).
As a consequence, a fetus has absolutely no status in Canadian law. It isn't recognized, it has no voice, no standing, nothing. Your scenario, where a 9-month pregnant woman is assaulted and the fetus dies? It results in exactly your outcome. Assault against the woman, probably aggravated assault, but the fetus is a legal nullity. No charge can be brought regarding its terrible fate.
From time to time, backbenchers in the Conservative party have attempted to introduce bills that would address this by allowing such a charge to be filed. At every attempt it is shouted down by the left as a dangerous and unacceptable intrusion upon a woman's sacrosanct right to abortion on demand. Conservative party leaders and hopefuls must, upon demand of the left and of the press, vow never to introduce legislation regarding abortion. If they do not they are savagely attacked by those same actors.
Canada is utterly unable to acknowledge that our legal stance on abortion makes us an extreme outlier in democratic societies. Such is life in the great progressive north.
As an interesting aside, when I.M. says "shouted down" I think he means literally. In our congressional hearings there is no "shouting". In Canada they shout at one another almost, or certainly raise their voice. Also, In Canada, apparently heckling from non-MP's is allowed, but the Speaker of the Parliament (is he or she called something different there?) acted almost like a referee and when the heckling got to loud they put a stop to it. I found watching Parliament interesting recently.
You're not wrong in that heckling is a fairly common occurrence in Westminster style parliamentary democracies, but in this case I was using it figuratively. Abortion is a third rail of Canadian politics, at least for the right. Any attempt to touch it leads to howls of outrage from our elites, our media, etc. that the right to an abortion is sacrosanct and how dare any Conservative propose a measure that might just be a stalking horse to taking away or even putting the slightest of limits upon that right.
Every Conservative leader has to go through the performance of vowing that he will not allow any legislation concerning abortion to be introduced were he to become prime minister. The language he uses must be unambiguously clear else he is accused of harboring a hidden agenda. Such is the Canadian left and Canadian culture, which is predominantly left. We almost make California look sane.
Our new Supreme Court "justice" cannot define a woman. If she, a woman, cannot define a woman, how can she define the legal status of the unborn?
In the states, it really doesn't matter what the people think. All that matters is pandering to the minority and advancing the progressive opinion. For example, there have been elections banning gay marriage that have been overturned. So really, the people have no say in any of this.
Finally, there are two states that are moving to essentailly make murder legal up to 28 days after birth. It is framed under "pregnancy complications." Not sure how you can have "pregnancy complications" after a child is born, but what do I know?
Your thought experiment is a bad approach because the underlying premise is that moral judgments and legal standards should be determined by subjective reactions rather than objective realities. Trying to define a person by considering our feelings about whether the baby is "alive enough" is part of how we got into this abortion morass in the first place. Yes, we should agree on a definition of a person, but not according to how we feel about babies in the womb. Objective, not subjective.
Courts have already routinely been deciding these issues. Roe may be in jeopardy, but there have always been pregnant women dying under different tragic circumstances.
indeed, and this provides something of a window into out societal mores, but, and this is a non-trivial but, the question of "is this a thing we should leave to courts to decide?" remains.
It was decided judicially because some people did not like unfavorable political outcomes. Others did not like that there were different political outcomes in different jurisdictions. Some people also figured that if the Court settled it, it would be settled for all time. How poorly they anticipated the near non-stop wrangling -- legal and extralegal -- that followed for nearly a half-century.
Never mind the extreme politicization of the courts. Not that that began with Roe, but Roe certainly cast a long shadow.
The courts are (or are supposed to be) deciding these cases based on statues in the case of criminal matters or prior decisions in that state in the case of tort claims. And btw that means these matters are often decided by jury.
I'm not sure how many state statutes speak to crimes involving babies in the womb, but what's your point? Should we revisit all those decisions to criticize them? Or to learn from them and see their consequences? And do you really think this is an area where, if we aren't legislating, we need to start doing so? Maybe, but maybe not.
it is true that many places in the US, if a pregnant woman and her unborn child die, there are TWO counts of manslaughter brought on the perpetrator. So IF our law can prosecute for that , doesn't it mean that they acknowledge that the baby is alive, and not just cells, but a living human being. If a baby has a heart beat it is a living being. I hope the courts will stop acting like this isn't true.
No one questions that the fetus is alive. That is not the point. And it is called a fetus, not a baby. Please don't use language in a deliberatively misleading way.
Ill call it as I see it, its a baby. It has a heartbeat, it can survive outside the womb long before 40 weeks gestation. You are trying to distract from the fact that a baby is a living thing. THAT is your issue, but I don't have to agree with you. Killing a living baby is murder, not sure how you can argue that point, but you are free to think what you want.
Using abortion as contraception is LAZY... again free country, you think as you wish, but thanks for playing.
No, what reversing Roe v Wade is doing is putting out back in the states hands. Why is that so hard for you to admit? Also wondering why you think it's OK to kill a baby???? It's a free country in that we all get to vote on how this all goes down. Killing babies is wrong, if you don't want to have this be an issue don't get pregnant, and assume you can use abortion as birth control. Stop whining and watch what happens. You don't even know if scotus will follow through. If you don't like that murder is wrong, that's your problem. you're free to go else where, take your pussy hat with you as you leave.
This is an excellent point. In the past the law has come down on the side of whether or not there is a positive expectation of a child. In other words, the fetus has status through the mother. You are right that this is a conversation we need to have so that we have codified in law whether the fetus itself has personhood separate from the expectations of the mother.
Well, the ancient Hebrews were distinguished from their neighbors, inter alia, by their refusal to leave unwanted children outdoors to die, or to sacrifice them to demons. So if they knew then what we do now about how babies develop, I expect they'd be revolted by abortion at any age.
In Judaism ensoulment is at 40 days and the fetus has no legal standing until it begins to emerge from the womb. Birth is the moment of legal personhood.
I always attributed the concept of "quickening" to Thomas Aquinas. I did not realize it was rooted in Hebraic law. I believe quickening refers to a mother's first awareness of the baby moving inside her. I don't know about anyone else, but I felt all of my kids moving inside by 14 weeks at the latest. Regardless, as I said in a comment below, I am a pro-life absolutist who can be credibly accused of invoking the precautionary principle, but I also realize we live in a fallen world. The real test is if both sides can even begin to find common ground (I thought we had achieved that in our rejection of partial-birth abortion, but that doesn't seem to be the case any longer).
I believe your experience is one of the reasons most countries restrict abortions to the first 12 weeks. I think there are quite a number of pro-choice people who would be willing to have the conversation about survivability, which is of course possible earlier and earlier in a pregnancy. If pressed, most people I think would be forced to admit that no fetus should be aborted when it has a chance to survive outside the womb. That may be the way the country could come together to address this huge gulf between camps.
I don't know how common ground can be found when there seems to be total exclusion of honesty and integrity in the debate. I deed reasonable debate is disallowed. Anyone who attempts to apply reason is demonized. How can we find common ground with when we declare anyone who dares question as evil? Yet that is exactly what's happened.
We can't even phrase the debate on anything truthful. Even the activist, revisionist champion of all things good for women, justice Ginsberg, in her analysis of RvW made it clear it is not abut the rights of women, or even about abortion, but mostly about protecting doctors and empowering federal domination of states. Her analysis is fascinating and she notes that as a ruling RvW is very weak and an example of what the court should avoid. She also notes that if the loud mouth members of congress shouting about it REALLY cared about women's rights, the would propose and debate legislation to protect specific rights and has not. Few would categorize RBG as anti-female or conservative.
The other key point in RvW which fails scrutiny but is excluded from debate is that it declares the male involved in conception has no rights with respect to the conceived. This was a primary point of the original case as the father wished to assert some input into the decision. The court said "no". Don't dare raise this question today.
Ultimately the question - NOT answered by the court in RvW - is when the conceived becomes subject to rights and equal protection of the law. While once it was allowed to discuss this it is now blocked.
Even the premise of this controversy is dishonest. The "leaked decision" is being dishonestly characterized by all sides, and any factual recount is shouted down.
We can never have a constructive conversation until we realize that the two sides have completely different underlying assumptions about how the world works. Until we address those underlying assumptions we will always just be shouting unconvincing things at each other.
If we were to have an honest, sincere conversation, I think we'd find some common ground. At least with respect to law. I am not saying it would be an easy conversation. Not necessarily converge, but we might better understand each other.
But that conversation is not allowed. And I have come to realize that the current "crisis" over RvW is another purely fabricated crisis and the goal is deepening divides, to ignite hatred and fear, all with the purpose of "saving" the mid-term elections for the "blue wave" that seems so unlikely in the face of real economic hardship brought directly by the absurd energy and transportation policy changes, the logical consequences of COVID extremes, and the radical expansion of federal spending that is devaluing the currency. Much like the picture in 2019, the current conditions are causing even the faithful to question their loyalty to The Party, especially those who still value self sufficiency (which is a lot).
Abortion is a divisive, emotional topic. A perfect distraction. A perfect "game changer". Pay no attention to the man behind the current. Focus on the flames.
I realized that this "leak" is not random nor is the timing. The powder has been packed over the last year or two and this "leak" is the igniter setting off an explosion of division and hate. The NY legislature passing a law that seems (and is characterized by "their" media as such) to support post-term abortion (after birth). Predictably the reaction is polarizing and sometimes extreme. The powder is packed, RvW is the igniter and the "leak" closes the circuit. How dare TRUMP's court overrule the foundation of women's rights!
Non of this is about the decision itself. I wish folks (all of y'all) would read RBG's analysis and comments on RvW. While not my favorite justice of all time, in this analysis she raises a lot of interesting points and her conclusions are it is a bad decision, weak legally and not protective of women's rights.
For that matter I'd like folks to read the leaked document and Robert's statements. His explanation makes far more sense given his record. I doubt the court would have taken up a direct challenge to RvW under Roberts (who has always found a way to avoid that). Not until now, when they may be forced. While justice Thomas says he can not be intimidated or bullied, I am not so confident this is true of the court as a whole (or of Thomas when the safety of his family is threatened for real).
True, but that only gave them a picture of what a dead person or animal was like. Kind of hard to understand what the living creature was doing behind closed doors, so to speak.
Hebrew. The judaeo-Christian religion is a significant reason why the west has been a boon to humanity. Now we’re at this moment...as an anti abortion absolutist, I’d be very interested to see the textual basis for the ‘Hebrew rule’. There’s lots in the OT about manslaughter vs murder, but I do not know how they would come up with that parameter from the OT.
Not all Hebraic law was based on scriptures. Much was based on tradition. (But there is a ritual abortion in the OT performed by a priest when a woman is suspected of being unfaithful to her husband, which is I think why abortion is legal in Israel today.) So I think there was precedent for the idea of "quickening" being the beginning of "life" at that point. And there certainly was a system whereby legal personhood was determined--that is, the woman already alive was considered to be a legal person, but the unborn child was not, but upon birth became a "person" with rights equivalent to the mother. So, for example, if the pregnancy was killing the mother, her right to live superseded the child's right to live up until birth. The mother could waive that right if she wanted the child to live more than she wanted to live herself, but the decision was hers.
Aristotle not looking great here IMO....”The point of quickening, as described by Aristotle, was the moment at which the life in the womb became human, as opposed to its previous vegetable and animal states. Aristotle believed that quickening took place at forty days for males and eighty days for females”
I’m so tired of hearing people discuss the right to choose. Everyone has a choice to not get pregnant in the first place. I’m sick of the hedonistic world we live in where people would rather decide when a baby is a person worth having love rather than practice some self restraint.
Oh, the old "people should not have sex if they don't want to have a child." Find me an example of any time in history or any society where people abstained from sex at this level? It doesn't exist, because this is not realistic for human beings.
So if a married couple does not want to have kids, they should not consummate their marriage?
There’s so much about our body and it’s cycles that we aren’t taught and should be. There’s a really good book out called ‘Taking Charge of your Fertility,’ that I think young women should be encouraged to read. You’re only fertile about 4 days of your cycle.
Yes. This is what is called NFP in Catholic circles. This doesn't mean it is easy, either. My husband and I certainly had our moments of frustration because when a woman is fertile, the biological drive is pretty overpowering.
I guess I need to know what you mean by "at this level." Really we are just talking about if you aren't in a place to accept the possibility of a child being conceived as the result of a sexual encounter, then maybe postpone it. That's all. Or, if you can't or don't want to, take some precautions (which, yes, can fail which is why I go back to my first point).
What you are proposing is that we should have a society in which no one ever has sex unless they wish to conceive a child. I am saying that no society like that has ever existed, or ever will. You are being entirely unrealistic about human nature.
Have you polled all the 20 something men you know to see if they would be willing to completely give up all sex except when they intend to conceive a child? Because I think I can guess what the answer would be from almost all.
I don't think the poster was arguing for sex only when a couple "intends to" conceive a child. Rather they were suggesting along the lines of, have sex only if you are *willing to* carry a pregnancy to term (or support your partner in doing so, if male), in the possibly unlikely event that pregnancy happens (depending on what choices of contraception you make).
Precisely. I am not naive about human nature. I have five children, 2 of them currently young men in their 20s. I'm also in the middle of a Bible study which reminds me almost daily that there is "nothing new under the sun" and sexual temptation and the consequences of it have always been and will remain with us. I'm asking for a little self-control exercised judiciously. It seems, you Allie, are suggesting that humans can't possibly display this sort of control.
It's fine for you to live as you wish. It is not fine for you to think you have the right to impose your life style and religious beliefs on the rest of the country.
It's amazing to me that so many commenters here are, rightfully, appalled at vaccine mandates, but have no qualms about imposing very similiar mandates when it comes to abortion.
"Keep Your Laws Off My Body" should apply in both situations.
More specifically, the couple should use all the birth control methods at their disposal and have a plan of what to do if they do get pregnant. Which does not include killing the child they WILLINGLY created.
Pro-abortion proponents have successfully removed 'personal responsibility' from the equation for my entire life. It's a cornerstone of progressive thought.
I am aware there is a .08% (or something very similar) chance getting raped and then getting pregnant. There is also the morning after pill. So I am still sticking with my statement.
First, condoms fail at about a 14% rate (see below).. Assuming 75million sexually active couples out of which maybe half are using condoms to not get pregnant, that’s about 5.2 million mistakes and possible unwanted pregnancies a year..
Second, I found this in-depth study to be really interesting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays the same regardless of whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroys countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
Third - i learned on this link (and the studies leading out from it) that suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
Out of 193 countries on this planet, the only ones who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you and abandon you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder invasions)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their control over their their body and fate and force them to give birth AGAINST THEIR WISH. The rest of the time the spit on you and abandon you and the baby they forced you bring into the world against your wish, the rest of the time they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet (roughly 2.7 million babies murdered by USA in the last 70 years) in their imperialist wars for resource plunder, for enforcing their global hegemony and for terrorizing and forcing countries to privatize their economy - industry, services, and resources - into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering in tbe process are not christian, so its no biggie)
Fourth - not hard data but just my learned observation that you're operating out of HUGE BLIND SPOT, a shadow you're unconscious of, some form of unmet/unfaced pain, anger or fear that comes out to the surface as vindictiveness and desire to punish those who don't lead the life that you think is righteous.
in my observation you're displaying psychologically-immature/unconsciousness in that you were led to believe that you are morally or spiritually superior and posses the truth and that that in turn allows you to punish, impose and force your childish beliefs on others, to take away from others their control over their body and the fate of their life and impose on them your preferred "righteous" life scripts that you're tyranically trying to enforce people to follow.
If I may say so, these TYRANICAL, AUTHORITARIAN & PATERNALISTIC ACTIONS arise in a person as a result of being unconscious of one's shadow, of the unmet/unprocessed anger, fear and pain in oneself (and also shame, in some cases), which leads one to exhibit a punishing vindictive tyranical behavior accompanied by a righteous belief that one is morally & spiritually superior which she thinks makes her justified in forcing and imposing her dogmas and worldview on others. This is a very well-known tendency in psychology and now we have a whole religious cult inflicted by this huge blind spot/unconsciousness of their unprocessed anger, fear and pain, with disastrous consequences for women's lives and bodies, on whom they play out their childish beliefs of moral & spiritual superiority, as well as their punishing mentality..
I strongly reject the spiritual supriority notion that you know best how people should live, and that you know people's inner experience (whetjer one is ready to become a parent or not) better than they do, which apparently gives you the right to decide for people and force them to become a parent AGAINST MY WISH, becasue you supposedly know what's right for them. This sense permeates your comments, and i think it stems from the same unconsciousness I described above.
I know you think these are all good points which is great for you. You’ve listed this four different times on this post. Curious as to why? Who pays you?
Of the 63+ million abortions performed since Roe, I suspect the one that fall under your category are miniscule. It's such a weak rebuttal but I have heard it for decades.
Ok so if we make it so that the law allows abortions for the tiny percentage that make up rape and serious physical health problems to either the mother or the unborn are you then ok with making abortion illegal in all other circumstances which are generally down to lifestyle choices?
Abortions will always and forever happen, whether or not they are safe and legal-that much will always be true. First trimester abortion is something I’ve never had an issue with. After that, things get complex, both medically, legally, deterministically. The states should decide. I’m fine with that. I was an L and D nurse in a teaching hospital delivering 800+ babies a month to poor and low income mothers, many moons ago. It’s a complex issue and the medical issues, most lay people haven’t a clue about.
What? You don't like emanations from the penumbra?
My terribly cynical suspicion is that this leak was strategic. The actual decision handed down will be a typical kick the can down the road and not overturn the current status quo at all. This leak galvanizes otherwise completely unengaged democrats just as a historic midterm defeat was approaching.
Next, the reversal of what we are led to think would be the decision will generate just the sort of partisan controversy that keeps everyone distracted. The right will say the court was intimidated, the left will say they -should- be intimidated, etc.
I think it is even possible that the leak was orchestrated by a Trump appointed judge who is afraid to go along with the decision and afraid not to. Leak it and then let everyone think you were afraid of angry leftist rioters.
People who opposed abortion for many years are celebrating but I think it is premature. The entire leak redounds too strongly in favor of the pro-abortion / democrat crowd. No leak and the decision coming on schedule would have been much worse for them as there would be nothing to do other than express anger. Right now they can believe protests and riots and fundraising might change the decision. That is motivation on the most sensitive issue they have. Democrats running for election could not have wished for anything better.
If we have to come up with a standard for when life begins, I would suggest that it be a standard based on human compassion and not scientific logic. The importance of protecting unborn life is not merely to protect defenseless gestating babies, it is to defend the sacredness of human life as a moral and legal concept.
That concept is under attack at both ends and from the middle. We saw the elderly deliberately left out of hospitals to die in nursing homes because their lives were considered unimportant. Some states push the upper limit of abortion ever further past birth. Ill health or infection now can cause you to lose your rights and be detained. Hospitals treat patients as if admittance to the hospital is a surrender of all their sovereignty over their own medical decisions and life.
These are all encroachments on the value and sanctity of life. If we surrender on one front, we lose on all. The end of that road is a state that determines where and how your life begins and ends with no human compassion whatsoever. We can see that now more clearly than at any time in our lifetimes.
"The importance of protecting unborn life is not merely to protect defenseless gestating babies, it is to defend the sacredness of human life as a moral and legal concept." A great comment and you put into words what I was feeling but couldn't express.
I could be way off here, but I don't see the summer of fire and brimstone that most are anticipating. I also don't see the middle that already decided to vote R going back. I think it is good this came out so far in front of the mid-terms instead of being dropped the week before.
Many states already have laws in place in preparation for the overturning of Roe. Once those kick in, the birthing people of those states will see plainly what they have voted for, and either be happy or sad. So the sad people might protest, but hopefully the middle will understand and move forward.
I hope you are right, but the other side despises federalism and is prone to one size fits all edicts. I think they will whip their minions into a frenzy over codifying abortion nationally.
My experience with that side is that they have a short attention span on real issues. Also, speaking as one who does favor leaving this matter to the woman's choice, I will observe that it is a morally expensive issue because the other side has the easy advantage of being able to claim to be against the killing of little babies, a position against which it is very difficult to argue. Given the past two years, any frenzy the Ds manage to whip up over the abortion issue will probably only redound to making them even more despised than they already are.
It’s interesting that the same people demanding “my body, my choice” were not so accommodating for those of us who felt the same about the state mandating the jab. And this decision does not ban choice @ all.
That's a good point. Those of us who oppose the mandates can still use the argument, regardless of where we stand on abortion. But the pro-abortionists who support the mandates have lost that argument.
Don't forget they have just come from supporting Ukrainian neo Nazis and a regime that shuts down opposition media, imprisons political rivals and has killed several thousand civilians over the last 8 years in eastern Ukraine so nothing they think or do is based on rational thinking.
That would be interesting. As noted by several justices (including Ginsberg), congress has had more than 50 years to do just that and has not. Someone else made the parallel with immigration: if there was in fact a desire to reform the law it would have at least been brought to the floor. What we've seen for 50 years is distractions, not actions.
I agree. It has been fifty years of very profitable distractions to let the issue languish a la immigration. However, Schumer, Warren, Sanders, and others are now very "angry", and appear to be pushing for a national solution.
I suspect the court will now avoid an substantive actions. That would be the point of the "leak" and the various fabrications around it: to demonstrate to the justices that there can not be tolerated any deliberations, no matter how brief, that deviate from the agenda. And that they are not safe from retaliation if they deviate. Just listen to the reactions and it's clear the message is "we can destroy you" to each justice.
It seems SCOTUS is in a bind. It either releases the decision that's been leaked, or it releases a different decision (with some sort of explanation that no one will believe) and its reputation and integrity is destroyed. In world where there had been no leak and had the decision been to uphold Roe, pro-lifers, like myself, would have been disappointed, but not surprised really. Now, all bets are off. What a mess.
The chief justice already "released" an accurate description of the "leaked" report - and it is not a decision, it has not been voted, it was one of SEVERAL working documents being prepared for discussion by the justices. He was VERY clear it was not an action of or by the court, never voted nor proposed to be voted, nor in anyway a decision of the court. His words have been ignored.
RvW has been built up to be a tinderbox under a powder keg attached to a nuclear destructive device: the mere mention of "repeal Roe" is sure to spark violent reactions. So now we have it: this entire fiasco is about intimidating the court. It seems to be working.
Yes, I read Roberts' statement. I guess my point is, depending on the final ruling, the opposing side will have a grievance. The pro-aborts are having their tantrums now whereas if the ruling ultimately upholds Roe, pro-lifers will have to wonder what effect, if any, the actions and rhetoric of the pro-aborts had on it. I totally agree that there could be violence.
According to Roberts, there may be no final ruling. His position seems to be they can address the case in front of them without reopening Roe. I would imagine now the other justices will agree to leave it alone. The threat of violence (and in particular the threat of violence to them personally) surely supports such a conclusion. Which I am now convinced is exactly why this document was leaked.
Whatever it does, the court will uphold the Mississippi statute. To do that, it has to overrule Roe and Casey. That's a big deal already, even if it rules that abortions in the first trimester have to be allowed.
I believe someone elsewhere wrote that Justice Roberts was trying to convince some to rule that, basically, "the Mississippi statute doesn't violate Roe v Wade", so that in theory it would still stand. Though I can't see that actually making a lot of sense legally.
Difficult topic to discuss. I don’t get the insane howling and managing of teeth on social media though. Anyone would think the government has just mandated forced injections of an experimental vaccine that doesn’t work particularly well and has a horrible side effect profile relative to its target disease. The judgement only refers it to state laws, so it’s still possible and easy to get an abortion. Personally, I’m “anti-abortion” in my personal life but think also that people should have the right to choose; although it should be limited to early in pregnancy. I find late term abortions where babies have survived being born that early abhorrent.
"positive 'right to abortion' nowhere in evidence in the constitution"
This is a dangerous route to traverse. If we only have the "rights" that are "in evidence in the constitution," then we really don't have much in the way of rights.
The Constitution doesn't confer ANY rights to people. The rights to marriage, to eat, to sleep, to have sex, to work, to do much of anything are NOT in the Constitution. That doesn't make those rights non-existent.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren't just afterthoughts. We have a semi-infinite number of rights that are not "in evidence in the constitution." To believe the latter is to imply that we can only do that which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. That is a complete inversion of what the Constitution is for: to place limits on the GOVERNMENT, not the people.
As for the rest, well:
"Abortion: A Philosophical and Scientific Approach" is available online.
1. What are rights?
2. Why do we have/need rights (if we do)?
3. What foundational trait distinguishes humans from all other animals?
4. What physical characteristic makes that trait possible?
5. At what point in the development of a fetus does this characteristic first manifest itself in the brain?
6. That point is the MINIMUM demarcation between what it means to be a PERSON (in a very rudimentary, primitive sense with the possibility of having rights that need to be protected) and just a living entity that does not yet possess the uniquely HUMAN characteristic that differentiates us from any other living entities.
7. These facts are OBJECTIVE, even if the borderline of when this occurs can be somewhat fuzzy.
This point in gestation occurs around six months. Before that, the fetus does not have the brain structures that even minimally qualify it for personhood, i.e., a being with rights. After that point, one can reasonably argue for restrictions against killing the fetus.
But, regardless, in the extremely rare cases after that point where it can be objectively shown that the woman's life is in ACTUAL danger from the pregnancy, HER life, her ACTUAL independent existence takes precedence over any POTENTIAL that is physically, parasitically dependent on her being to exist.
It's not "privacy" that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether "in evidence in the constitution" or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear.
In “A Last Survey,” writer-philosopher Ayn Rand wrote, “One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.” She also wrote that, “Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person’s convictions; the anti-abortion stand is such an indication.”(Nov.-Dec., 1975, The Ayn Rand Letter.)
In Ayn Rand Answers (2005), Rand says, “I’d like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute — when a baby is formed — is a different issue.)”
This is most emphatically NOT an issue that should be "left to the states" to decide. Just because Y is not a federal issue does NOT mean states can AUTOMATICALLY pass laws about Y. That is not what the Tenth Amendment says or implies. That would just allow states to become localized tyrannies. Yes, certain issues are the bailiwick of states, for them to legally deal with, but they are PERMITTED to deal with/have jurisdiction over ONLY A LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES, ONES THAT DO NOT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, ones that emerge from the ONLY proper purpose of government, i.e., to protect our rights from infringement by others, whether those others are individuals or arms of the State.
Both sides in this controversy commit the same violations of critical thinking: they rely on the Circular Argument Fallacy of assuming what they are obligated to prove: that an embryo/fetus (at stage X) is/is not a PERSON with RIGHTS that cannot/can be killed rather than murdered.
Relying primarily on faith-based principles is a gross violation of the principles of critical thinking. But that's the main crutch used by those against any and all abortions. They have little else to fall back upon. Adherents have told me that people are not animals; that's it's wrong to compare/contrast humans and animals; that our rights emerge from the fact that we have "human blood"; and much more. Evasion and ignorance masquerading as "facts."
Anti-abortionists like to harp on the phrase “a human life.”
Well, duh. It IS a HUMAN embryo/fetus, after all, not a cabbage. And it’s obviously ALIVE.
1. A sperm is a living entity
2. An egg is a living entity
3. When these two entities merge, the resulting embryo is a living entity
4. The moment they merge, that embryo does not instantly acquire fundamental rights
The real issue is whether that living entity is a human BEING with VOLITION, thus, with fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS that should be protected.
As for the rabid other side who thinks it is okay to "abort" a 30-day old infant, well, they are just nuts. And evil.
ASSERTIONS without objective evidence or proof that even non-believers can evaluate are not arguments.
But such form the core of this "debate," the same tactics utilized by every statist and collectivist to push through the destruction of rights, freedom, and morality.
(From a graphic I created on this topic):
What (objectively) (non-religiously [as required by the principles of critical thinking]) distinguishes/differentiates humans from other animals? What is the foundation (the basis) for our rights? What are rights? Why do we have them? These rights are what makes killing an innocent human being murder. When does (if it does) a human embryo/fetus develop the (minimal) capacity/trait/attribute necessary to transform it into a human being and make (any) rights possible (on at least a rudimentary level)?
Both sides commit a Circular Argument/Begging the Question Fallacy by assuming what they need to prove, i.e., that fetuses/embryos do/do not have rights and thus cannot/can properly be killed.
I follow your line of reasoning on this. The problem appears to be the assumption that the courts and society assume that we actually do have fights not enshrined in the constitution. The past two years have shown that contemporary society does not actually believe this and the courts have let it slide. If we actually want rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, etc., we are going to need a constitutional amendment stating as much.
I agree that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (and the philosophical underpinnings of our rights, in general) are ignored/evaded/dismissed by most people and organizations in today's world.
The problem with listing more rights in another amendment is that those who ignore the current Bill of Rights are unlikely to pay any more respect to a new amendment. Plus, as I wrote, there is a semi-infinite list of rights that could be included. As one of the Founders mentioned who had doubts about including a Bill of Rights, a problem with such is that government and people will tend to think that ONLY those rights are the ones we have…the exact problem we face some two-plus-centuries later.
Technically, it's never too late to fight for freedom. But what we need is a sea-change in attitudes—assumptions, as you say—about what freedom is and what it means. Once respect for freedom, rights, and morality are lost by too many people in society, no number of laws or amendments or whatever will secure our liberty. Our rights have to be secured in the hearts and minds of the populace—from the bottom up—or nothing will succeed. A top-down approach will, in the long run, be undercut and destroyed by a people who don't value the things that make liberty possible.
Given the current state of the world as I see it, that struggle is facing an Everest-sized hill to climb…
(Also, I found your typo amusing…and unintentionally dead on…)
Russ, I think your comment is probably the best I've seen on this topic, and I've read a lot. Bravo!
I especially like: "It's not "privacy" that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether "in evidence in the constitution" or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear."
Those who say "we should leave the abortion issue up to the states" are implying that they also believe states should be allowed to force covid vaccinations on state residents, if democratically elected legislatures choose to do so.
1) It's not a scientific argument at any point of the discussion because it requires a value judgment. Science is a system by which abstract ideas are applied to discover truth about reality, and such a system cannot be used to determine hierarchical values. No matter what stage of development you choose as a cutoff point for abortion, you're making a value judgment about when a gestating baby is considered to have humanity and all of its intrinsic rights. You can point to whatever scientific evidence you want that suggests particular points of development, but within that scope, you are explicitly defining criteria for "humanity", and at that point, you must answer the following question: *why* did you choose *that* criteria? The subsequent question is: are there any circumstances post-birth where such criteria can be used to define a person as non-human and thereby justify their killing? If so, are you willing to accept those circumstances?
2) Self-ownership, also called individual sovereignty, is itself a value that is implicit within your argument. It raises the following question: why does individual sovereignty have value and why is it worth protecting? A good starting point is John Locke, particularly his Second Treatise, but it goes well beyond that. Aquinas is the next worthwhile read after Locke. I'll leave it to you to look into the specifics, but ultimately the value of individual sovereignty stems from the belief that human life is of intrinsic value (and if you really want to get specific, it's of divine value because this stems from Judeo-Christian ethics, hence Locke and Aquinas). If you believe individual sovereignty is an intrinsic right and therefore of value and must be protected, then you believe that human life is of intrinsic value and must be protected, and that all of our rights are naturally a product of our humanity. That means "life" is higher up in the hierarchy than "liberty."
———
With those two points established, we're right back to the beginning of the argument: at what point do we want to define a gestating baby as having humanity and all of its intrinsic rights? That is not a simple or easy question to answer and is why the discussion continues to this day.
"Abortion: A Philosophical AND Scientific Approach"
If you’re referencing that shibboleth of the supposed “Is-Ought” Dichotomy, well, that’s no dichotomy, at all. Using Aristotle’s Law of Identity and the conditional imperative, what X IS determines what it SHOULD or must do in context Y to achieve Z.
Science itself is unpinned by people utilizing value systems: is A worth pursuing: why SHOULD I adhere to critical thinking principles and the scientific method; SHOULD I pursue course R rather than avenue S for this query; why SHOULD I be honest and truthful in analyzing my results and presenting them; and on and on and on.
WHY is science worth pursuing AT ALL? While the actual things we do in scientific research should be objective and not tainted by, for example, politics or our emotions, the very EXISTENCE of science is grounded in the fact that we find it of VALUE.
The PHILOSOPHY of science deals with many of these very issues.
So, you’re wrong. While what volition and rights and morality and personhood etc. ARE and how they OPERATE arise from metaphysics and epistemology and ethics and politics—all subdivisions of philosophy—the next step is to use SCIENCE, as I said, to determine WHAT and HOW and WHEN things happen in fetal development that lead to the cortical structures that make volition possible and that differentiate humans from all other animals.
And, yes, we DO use these facts post-birth when we decide that someone is brain dead and, thus, we are not committing murder when we unplug someone, and he then dies.
2. I’ll ignore your condescending tone—nah, I won’t—in “leav[ing] to” me to “look into” these issues. Good grief.
Wrong again: there ARE no intrinsic values. Values always suppose one who values, an entity that acts to gain and keep those things it values for a particular purpose/context.
Everything I wrote is true.
Just because YOU don’t know the answers to these questions, that doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally ignorant.
Goodness, that is some serious attitude. Yes, I understood your article title. My criticism was that involving science in the discussion of the topic as a whole doesn't contribute very much since the point of contention is at a much higher level of abstraction.
The notion that how something "is" determines what it "should" do is predicated on the idea that objects have defined functions irrespective of perception, which is entirely incorrect. Humans perceive based upon utility first and how something actually "is" second, which means that we're fundamentally operating within a value structure any time we do something. More succinctly, human perception imprints a value structure on the world.
Science can provide additional information for making decisions, but the decisions themselves are made based upon a hierarchy of values. Here's a ridiculous example to showcase what I mean: you have an option to eat either a candy bar or an apple, but not both—which do you choose? The science of nutrition informs us that the apple is the healthier option in every respect, so does that mean one *should* select it for consumption over the candy bar? Not necessarily, because it depends on what you value. If you consider the candy bar provides more pleasure and you consider the pleasure of the consumption to be of higher value—at least within that moment—then selecting the candy bar makes the most sense. So while science may have provided more information to use when making the decision, it's your value structure that determines whether that information affects your decision.
Moreover, science itself operates within a hierarchy of values. Science is the primary mechanism for ascertaining observable truth of the world, and as you said, we engage it in it because we find it of value. More specifically, we find truth itself to be of incredibly high value. If human beings didn't value truth, then there would never have been the advent of science. If there is no value in something, then why do it? That's the most fundamental question to the discussion. If a hierarchy of values is a necessary condition for science, then science cannot itself be used to determine anything within that hierarchy of values—it's impossible. That's how the meta-logical framework that science operates within works, which itself exists within a particular metaphysic. If you reject the metaphysic or even the meta-logic, science goes out the window with it (this is Modus Tollens).
Also, I suggested you look into the ideas I mentioned both because they're too detailed to leave in a Substack comment and because the discussion itself is not meant to be a debate. If the ideas sound interesting at all to someone, then looking into them for oneself provides a more valuable understanding. It wasn't to be condescending—it's to encourage people to research for their own interests if they desire.
———
I'll leave it at this: if there are no intrinsic values, then why should human life have any value? Why should truth have any value? Why should anyone care about either of those things? Those aren't simple questions, but they're necessary ones because you must start with the abstract idea first.
You already said you don’t know the answers to the questions involved in the abortion issue, so I see no reason bothering to answer your ignorant comments, especially since the points you did make were wrong.
Skepticism is a self-refuting philosophy. Subjectivism is the crudest and lowest of logical fallacies. Pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook is laughable.
Judges and legislators - and the religious - should NEVER intrude on or opine on a person's bodily autonomy and medical procedures. Not anybody's business except patient and doctor. That goes for vaccines and that goes for ending unwanted pregnancies. Saying that you just think the court should punt it back to state legislatures or Congress is cowardly and ignores the real-life women and their families that this affects.
Yep. They've already pushed the killing to the day of birth so naturally these morally broken people are now going further.
Just as we saw with the example of the proposed bill allowing the baby to starve to death after the mother and doctor have a nice chat about it over a cup of tea and biscuits!
But at least it would be kept comfortable I seem to remember the politician assure us.
"what duty of care does a parent owe a child and when does this start?"
Aristotle also saw that question as needed in determining when protected life begins. He saw a sliding scale of guilt for those who abort: forgivable if early, guilty if late.
Our embryology education greatly exceeds that of his time, and we are aware of daily, if not more frequent, developments in a human embryo and then fetus.
At what point in that development does that embryo/fetus/child's right to continued and future life pre-empt - if only temporarily - bodily autonomy of the mother?
Here are prior US court rulings on bodily autonomy, possibly of limited relevance here:
the other wrinkle here is the increasing viability of younger and younger unborn babies due to improvements in neonatal technology. if we get to the point where the unborn could be gestated outside of an unwilling mother's body, then what? she still gets to kill it? I have a strong feeling that in fifty years or less we will look back on this era like we currently look at early humans leaving babies outside to die.
This issue is like immigration. They don’t want to solve it. They want to get the sides engaged and to turn out to vote every 2 years. That is why it was leaked now, as It appears the Democrats will lose Congress.
I completely agree it was leaked now to rally the support of those on their side.
According to The Hill, Dems have already raised $12M since the leak:
https://thehill.com/campaign-issues/3477032-democrats-raise-12-million-after-supreme-court-leak-of-draft-abortion-opinion/
They should send it to Ukraine to protect democracy.
🎯
The timing is interesting, isn't it? The final decision would have been / will be released soon in any event. This decision was certainly going to effect November elections. Does the early release make a difference? Will passions abate somewhat by then, or will this mean more time to build war chests?
If nothing else, it signals that the left will break any rule in order to get what they want.
I don't see much movement on midterm votes due to this decision. People are still livid about how team blue handled coof, and that includes parents pissed about closed schools, kid vax/mask mandates and now CRT, alphabet Mafia teachers, etc. These former dem voters are not extreme single-issue voters seeking limitless abortion into during actual childbirth. Priorities have changed this past two years, this extremist reaction merely appeals to the extremist 30% (max) that resides in a constant lather.
I am a longtime moderate Democrat who voted a straight Republican ticket for the first time in the November 2021 elections in VA, for all the reasons you mention. I am strongly pro-choice but will probably still vote Republican this coming November, consistent with your argument above.
However, this Supreme Court decision following on all of the covid mandates is giving me a lot of food for thought. And I'm wondering if I might end up aligning with more of a libertarian viewpoint in the future (the political and philosophical perspective, not necessarily the US political party).
I never thought of myself as a libertarian in the past, but I have also never seen such serious threats to liberty in this country as I've seen in the past few years (not to mention other western countries, especially Canada).
The level of threat we've seen in the past two years to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to operate one's business, and freedom of medical and bodily autonomy is IMO unprecedented in my lifetime. I find it terrifying, and in my opinion this threat transcends normal political divisions.
As I've expressed here, in my mind the right to abortion (esp in the 1st trimester) falls firmly within the bounds of bodily and medical autonomy, so it is disconserting to see so many here who I thought supported those principles abandon them when it comes to abortion.
Good points! I just hate how that 30% or less manage to suck all the oxygen out of a room most of the time...
The early release provides the Left with an opportunity to bully some Justices into changing their minds. If that doesn't work, it provides more fundraising and organizing opportunities. And as I posited elsewhere in thread, we will likely have a summer far worse than that of 2020.
🤯🤯🤯
I have thought the same and it seems to me to be more advantageous to the right than the left for early release. But who knows?!
better a weekday than a Friday afternoon!
LOL $12million. Peanuts.
😹 Yup. We are so used to talking billions and trillions these days!
The Hill didn’t put it in context, they’ve barely seen an increase in fundraising....
That is good news, but definitely not what the article and included links indicate. Do you have a url you can share?
I can’t link it but a DW article by John Rigolizzo entitled “Democrats say overturning Roe v Wade won’t help them in the midterms” on May 4th is one I just re-found discussing it.
Personally, I’m not sure. In 2018 I think it would have. However, the left’s treatment of living children from Covid and in public schools, and the growing awareness that it simply returns the subject back to the states, makes me think that might be true. Swing voters, which are parents and middle class workers these days, aren’t dying to codify 3rd trimester abortion in federal law. At the state level, it will motivate pro-life to the same extent as pro-choice.
Yep, I just posted basically this sentiment. Those I talk with online don't see abortion as a priority anymore, Dems gave them much bigger fish to fry the past two years.
Thanks for the article referral!
Two things -
First, I found this in-depth study to be really interesting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays the same regardless of whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroy countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/banning-abortions-will-not-stop-abortions
Second - i learned on this link (and the studies leading out from it) that suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, a country with with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
The only countries on this planet who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder wars)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their bodily sovereignty and forcing them to give birth against their wish. The rest of the time the spit on you and the baby they forced you bring into the world and they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet for resource plunder, to enforce their global hegemony and to terrorize and force countries into privatizing their economy - industry, services, and resources into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering across the planet are not christian, so it's no biggie)
https://www.kindredmedia.org/2022/05/allomothers-we-were-never-meant-to-mother-alone/
Sharing a link to a study that I found really interesting and enlightening about the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (number of abortions stays the same whether they're legal or banned, no fetuses "saved" through a ban, all that is accomplished with a ban is to push abortions underground, kill lots of women, hurt children & destroy countless families and several other horrible consequences for society).
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/banning-abortions-will-not-stop-abortions
Spot on.
Two things -
First, I found this in-depth study to be really linteresting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays same whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroy countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/banning-abortions-will-not-stop-abortions
Second - i learned on this links (and the studies leading out from it) that Suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
Out of 193 cointries on this planet, the only ones who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder wars)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their bodily sovereignty and forcing them to give birth against their wish. The rest of the time the spit on you and the baby they forced you bring into the world and they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet for resource plunder, to enforce their global hegemony and to terrorize and force countries into privatizing their economy - industry, services, and resources into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering are not christian, so its no biggie)
https://www.kindredmedia.org/2022/05/allomothers-we-were-never-meant-to-mother-alone/
Completely aside from its subject matter, Roe was a terrible (and precarious) legal decision in the first place. If the pro-abortion politicians wanted to codify the right to abortion, they have had fifty years to do it properly via a federal law, and yet they have not. Why would you kill the goose that lays the golden outrage vote? The vote that you can tuck away in the back of the cupboard and pull out whenever it looks like your power might be in jeopardy.
Wouldn’t the 10th amendment disallow this?
Remember the brilliance of the constitution is that it is "flexible" explicitly by virtual of the amendment process, which can be driven by congress or driven by the states. So any part of the constitution can change! For most of our nations existence (well the first 2/3rds at least), the proper process was followed - sometimes too rapidly and without sufficient consideration requiring corrective action via the very same process of amendment.
Somewhere in the mid 20th century it was decided this process was too something: to complex (it is not), to transparent (it is), or perhaps to subject to the will of the people to intrude on whims and wishes of those who wish to rule (my theory). Do not accept this false narrative: the constitution IS a living document, but by amendment, not "creative" interpretations, convoluted court rulings or outright circumvention by repetition. It remains a fact that it is morally and legally wrong to assert we must "update" our understanding of the words to align with the times. The update process is clearly defined: amendment.
Well in theory the 10th Amendment disallows a lot of shit the federal government is doing.
True. And the 9th is superior to the 10th (why it comes first) and CLEARLY states that power originates from and is reserved to the people. That's been generally ignored too.
The 14th has been broadly interpreted to support federal preemption. A political phrase for grabbing power over the states and the people. The vast majority of federal regulation exists based on this interpretation. How else does CDC exist? It does not regulate interstate commerce and as we've seen is not promoting the general welfare ;-). How does the FDA regulate controlled substances? The list is extensive. When Colorado "legalized" a controlled substance, then AG Eric Holder was poised to fight since of course the FDA regulates controlled substance and marijuana is prohibited - under the preemption interpretation states can not over-rule such regulations. However holder backed off when the AG of the state basically said "bring it on, I'd LOVE to argue the 'preemption' interpretation and have the courts rule it out of existence!" - and the dominoes that might cause to fall might actually restore limits to federal power, something Holder's boss could not risk at the time.
Absolutely true
In my opinion it would, because I don't believe that abortion is a constitutional right. However, the ruling of Roe says that abortion is covered by the constitution, in which case it would seem the 10A wouldn't apply. The other method that they could have tried, if the federal law angle didn't work, is to pass a new constitutional amendment, but they didn't try that, either, which leads me back to believing that they prefer to keep the issue alive.
Absolutely!! With the hopeful overturning of Roe V Wade, it would presume the courts do not feel it is a constitutional right. Leading us back to the 10th amendment. And there is no way 2/3 of the states would agree to abortion rights.
3/4, you mean. A constitutional amendment must be approved by 2/3 votes in both Houses of Congress, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.
🎯
“the goose that lays the golden outrage” 🎯
Two things -
First, I found this in-depth study to be really linteresting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays same whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroy countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/banning-abortions-will-not-stop-abortions
Second - i learned on this links (and the studies leading out from it) that Suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
Out of 193 cointries on this planet, the only ones who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder wars)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their bodily sovereignty and forcing them to give birth against their wish. The rest of the time the spit on you and the baby they forced you bring into the world and they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet for resource plunder, to enforce their global hegemony and to terrorize and force countries into privatizing their economy - industry, services, and resources into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering are not christian, so its no biggie)
https://www.kindredmedia.org/2022/05/allomothers-we-were-never-meant-to-mother-alone/
Wonderful, clear writing here gato. Personally, I'm always amazed at the concept that secular humanists or other atheists should somehow AUTOMATICALLY be pro-abortion. I don't want to go on a long screed, but that makes zero sense. As a humanist who is open-eyed about the natural behavior of mankind, I am very much pro-life for the unborn. I know full well how easy it is for the powerful to disdain and destroy the powerless. Secular humanists should be ALL ABOUT trying to stop that abuse.
Our present law's denial of rights to the fetus is very much like antebellum slavery law's denial of rights to the slave. Then, only the slaveowner's wishes mattered. Now, it's only the mother's.
Unless I missed something, slaves had actual separate bodies that were outside the slaver-owners bodies. That you omitted this rather large difference suggests you were intentionally trying to be misleading.
Excellent point. They were considered property.
🎯
Awesome, and true no matter where one lands on abortion a an issue:
"I know full well how easy it is for the powerful to disdain and destroy the powerless. Secular humanists should be ALL ABOUT trying to stop that abuse."
If anything, the stance of the vulgar and thoughtless humanists (in name at least) of today only fuels the argument that (some) humans need a divine consciousness surveiling and judging their actions in order to act or indeed ieven have morals at all.
Personally, I quit the humanist society of Sweden decades ago precicely because they had developed into an order of set ideas, ideals and morals on all issues - a dogmatic cult:
Atheism, check. Pro-abortion as a right, check. Anti-capital punishment and prisons, check. Anti private gun ownership, check. Pro high taxes corporate society, check. And so on.
Where did the "human" part of "humanist" go? All that's left is the "-ist".
(Felt pressing "heart" wasn't enough for such a good point you make!)
Two things -
First, I found this in-depth study to be really interesting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays the same regardless of whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroy countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/banning-abortions-will-not-stop-abortions
Second - i learned on this link (and the studies leading out from it) that suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
Out of 193 countries on this planet, the only ones who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder invasions)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their bodily sovereignty and force them to give birth AGAINST THEIR WISH. The rest of the time the spit on you and the baby they forced you bring into the world, the rest of the time they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet in their imperialist wars for resource plunder, for enforcing their global hegemony and for terrorizing and forcing countries to privatize their economy - industry, services, and resources - into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering in tbe process are not christian, so its no biggie)
https://www.kindredmedia.org/2022/05/allomothers-we-were-never-meant-to-mother-alone/
There is other approach.
We do not know when a person starts to be a person. Conception? 2 hours? 15 days? We have no idea. We cannot know. The human being does not know everything. Assume it.
Then, just in case, let us be cautious and do not kill from the very beginning.
and so, if some believe in reincarnation and therefore that a bug might be my grandmother and demand that you not step on it, are we to accept a similar deference to the precautionary principle?
why not sperm or ovum?
mandating that a society moves at the speed of its most cautious regardless of what most feel seems a fraught idea. try applying this logic as a general case, and i think that emerges.
shall we presume guilt and not innocence for crimes? let's be cautious and presume you are a thief?
shall we always presume harm in torts?
this idea that we must always try to avoid some assumed possible harm at the expense of all other values has been abused terribly in health policy these last 2 years. is expanding this thinking to other spheres desirable or wise?
one might also argue that if we're going to err toward caution, we should err toward the rights and agency of the being we KNOW to be sentient (the mother) as opposed to 20 barely differentiated cells in a womb.
this feels like using a rhetorical and logical sleight of hand to pass off the subjective as the objective by claiming "let's be safe" and simply defining safety along only one axis while ignoring all others.
Sperm and eggs apart will not become a human being. Add them together and voila!...life begins.
Religion need not enter into the debate as to when life begins. Until it became political, life beginning at conception was an uncontroversial point, taught even at my state university's biology classes.
this seems like a false equivalence of potential with current status.
i might one day be a doctor. do i get the right to prescribe drugs as a result of that?
you might one day steal a car.
shall we arrest you for grand theft auto just to be safe?
it was ALWAYS political.
before it was popular to demand that parents provide care for children, many societies treated them as chattel and outright property much as we currently treat cattle.
others allowed movement from "person" to "slave" and back again or claimed that some live humans were people and others were not.
one may find all manner of historical practice to which to appeal.
that renders none of it valid.
There is no false equivalence in this comment. Sperm and egg are not life. When they meet, they are life. This is the only logical beginning of life, in which we mean a unique human with their own DNA.
Exactly right. I am endlessly baffled at how so many people resort to sophistry to deny this reality.
Absolutely. It feels like the same mental gymnastics people use when they try to define 6,000 genders.
Gato, yours is the false equivalence. Prescribing meds is based on attained knowledge. Cells rapidly dividing are living, period. Not potentially. By definition.
so then would be a tumor, no?
cancer?
glioblastoma?
Those cells are living, but they are not human life. Cancer cells do not develop into human beings. A fertilized egg, undisturbed, will.
“Prescribing meds is based on attained knowledge.”?
Think twice!
My claim is based on science, not historical practice. Sperm + Egg is when life begins; it's not a matter of potential; it IS human life. Egg and sperm apart are potential life.
As to the barbarism of days of yore, the God of Abraham and Isaac slammed the brakes on child sacrifice. The dignity of each person and the notion of human rights are, very much, Christian principles arising from the Jewish tradition. The excellent historian Tom Holland wrote a book a few years ago (Dominion) that explores these topics. An atheist, he finds himself going to church regularly now. He is on the same path that CS Lewis and Malcolm Muggeridge took before him.
this is a fully presumed conclusion and a presumed equivalence of "cell division" meaning "personhood."
why should a set of dividing cells with no consciousness be ascribed personhood and rights?
by what objective standard can it assent to a social contract?
deistic references will carry no weight with those who do not share a similar faith.
unless you propose coercive theocracy, that cannot really help us here.
Talk of "personhood" drags the discussion of from science to philosophy. The central point is that life does begin at conception: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2019/07/13/study-95-percent-of-biologists-say-life-begins-at-conception-n67202
You wrote a few days earlier that the right to speak freely must be absolute; the right to life is even more important. This is not a deistic position; many atheists are pro-life--the late civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, for example. For atheist co-founder of NARAL, Bernard Nathanson, ultrasound technology led to his conversion to the pro-life cause (and eventually to Catholicism). The "it's just a clump of cells" argument was rendered nonsensical by the images of what was clearly and obviously a tiny human being. And this is at the stage when most abortions are performed.
Nietzsche wrote that, "If you give up Christian faith, you pull the right to Christian morality out from under your feet. The morality is simply not self-evident: one has to bring this point home again and again, despite English dimwits." The notion of each human having dignity and deserving respect is a religious statement. I have a grudging respect for atheists who admit that they hold human life in no special regard.
With what's going on in the world, I fear that we are going to find out that "without God, all is permissible," as Dostoevsky wrote in "The Brothers Karamazov.'
That’s a straw man. If you are not actually a doctor you, can’t prescribe drugs.
While I very uncomfortably support very early choice, at the moment of conception a unique human life with unique DNA is actually created, objectively. At the moment if implantation that human being is living. To ignore this is to ignore actual known scientific facts.
It’s worth recalling that being and non-being aren’t the only possibilities. Something can exist as a potentiality.
Like Schrödinger's cat.
I find all this back-and-forth on the issue of when life begins to be irrelevant to the core issue.
Abortion is a sticky wicket because there is an intersection of, and conflict between, the rights of the mother and those of her fetus.
The only way to resolve this conflict is to favor the rights of one party at the expense of the other. Either the woman can kill the fetus, violating its fundamental right to live, or be forced to carry the fetus full-term, thus violating her rights to bodily autonomy.
Regardless of where one comes down, this is the fundamental issue.
So the real question is *who decides*?
In my view, it must be the woman, perhaps in consultation with her family and doctor if she so chooses, but in the end, it has to be her call.
I find this conclusion uncomfortable, but one thing I know for certain is that it is not my call, and sure as hell isn't some politician's.
this seems a difficult framing.
i suspect you would not allow a woman to decide to kill her 3 month old child or to simply drop one 5 feet onto the sidewalk because her bodily autonomy allows it.
does an unborn entity of, say, 5 months possess no rights?
if one were to slip this woman ru486 and cause fatal miscarriage, would that be murder?
because the idea that she can end that pregnancy and commit no crime but that someone else could not would seem to pose a contradiction.
it can't be murder if you kill them but not if i do.
how do we resolve that?
this is why i think defining the moment of personhood is the key.
once we do that, the contradictions and the precedence of rights and values gets resolved.
Of course I would not allow the killing of a 3 month old child. Once the child is born, it is no longer a part of the woman's body and thus the conflict between the fundamental rights of the mother and the fetus no longer exists.
As a human being, the fetus possesses the same rights as the born, but again, in the case of pregnancy, the mother's right to control her own body, which is fundamental, cannot be fully exercised without violating the right of the fetus to live.
So, again, the fundamental question becomes, who decides and enforces that decision?
The same question applies to the determination of personhood.
My instincts and emotions would legally favor the fetus over the mother, but intellectually I am hesitant to place my judgment above the mother's in this matter, particularly in a blanket fashion.
Equally important, I know that empowering the State to regulate such things is fraught with danger, which I think the last two years have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Certainly, reasonable people can disagree on this.
As for the ru486 scenario, that is clearly a violation of the rights of both the mother and the fetus and the perpetrator should be dealt with accordingly.
Sex is a contract. Having sex might result in a baby. That is the express purpose of sex. Virtually everyone knows this. When you have sex, you sign a contract that says “I might get pregnant from this action. I agree to this possibility.” Whether or not you like it, you have signed it. You’re basically signing away the right of bodily autonomy for a little while in the event you do get pregnant.
Being pregnant is not permanent. It’s over in 40 weeks. Being aborted is permanent. When life and death are involved, that trumps the inconvenience of being pregnant for less than a year.
You are entitled to your opinion which is sound, and I don't necessarily disagree.
What you are not, or at least should not, be entitled to, is to impose your opinion on others, either personally or by proxy via the State.
Hard to argue with that last point. That is to say that conception is clearly objective. So what is the purpose of conceiving... create a human being, an offspring.
Exactly. There is no reason to believe that life does NOT begin at conception, unless you have an agenda.
Add them together with implantation.
Spot on Doc.
Let’s be clear, in the case of the fetus, we are talking about the life or death of humanity’s most defenseless member. For the mother, we’re talking about the inconvenience of carrying and delivering a child, who previously had the rights and agency not to get pregnant in the first place. She is not required to keep the child. When we’re talking about life or death, the precautionary principle takes precedence over inconvenience.
And how long are there just a few undifferentiated cells in a womb? The clock quickly runs out on that argument.
Agree. Unbelievable that the decision based on the future inconvenience of the mother has stood for even this long.
Anyone who thinks carrying a child for nine months and giving birth is a mere "inconvenience" clearly knows little about pregnancy and delivery.
Lol. It’s not a picnic but compared to dismembering a child, yeah it’s just an inconvenience. Especially with modern pain medicine. Source: myself.
That is your opinion. Others may feel differently. In a free society, they would have the right to decide for themselves, not be forced by the government to carry a pregnancy to term against their will.
That is the whole point of my argument. I respect your opinion and your right to decide for yourself. I ask that you do the same for others, but you are not willing to.
It’s an inconvenience at worst and I’ve done it twice.
I get that you view it as an inconvience, but that is not the case for most of the world.
I completely agree. I am just quoting the reasoning behind Roe.
Or about the heavy responsibility of raising a child.
Adoption.
No one is forcing anyone to raise a child.
You said the mother "had the rights and agency not to get pregnant in the first place". Contraception is imperfect, so the only way for a fertile woman to avoid getting pregnant for sure is to not have sex. So you are proposing that women who do not want a child (or another child) completely abstain from sex? For perhaps decades? Even if married?
Would you propose the same for men who do not want to father a child - complete abstention from intercourse with women of child-bearing age? Again, even if married?
Even if you would advocate for such a vast social change, I challenge you to provide me with one example of a society, in any historical period, where such a massive absention from sex occurred. I certainly can't think of one, and would suggest that such a proposal is completely unrealistic.
“ So you are proposing that women who do not want a child (or another child) completely abstain from sex?”
If they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of sex, then yes.
“ Would you propose the same for men who do not want to father a child - complete abstention from intercourse with women of child-bearing age?”
If they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of sex, then yes.
In reality, people don’t have to abstain from sex. They just have to not kill the child they created from sex. They do not then have to raise the child. That’s what adoption is for.
And I would encourage you to research postpartum abstinence. Many cultures abstained from sex after the birth of a child to practice ideal child spacing.
"that a bug might be my grandmother" In that case, step on it and give the bug a better life as a lizard or whatever!
I don't find the comparison with the last 2 years of application. Vaccines do not protect, as we have witnessed. Not killing a baby protects the baby 100%.
This issue is so important (I really appreciate any help I got back then to not get aborted so I can enjoy what was my only opportunity to enjoy this life) and the abortion is so terribly effective that precautionary principle is in my opinion required. Also remember, pregnancy does not come from fairies. You can avoid it.
One shall not kill. No matter the size of the victim. If we start debating who can be killed, we are terribly lost.
PS: this issue creates some division between us. Is the timing a coincidence?
I love your quip about stepping on the bug and I agree 100%!
Sounds familiar, the same slight of hand for multiple issues.
One can make the argument that everything is connected. You wouldn't be here without your parents, and their parents, and their parents, back to the beginning of humanity. Humans wouldn't exist without the evolution of life that birthed them. And no life happens without this earth, this solar system, this galaxy, this universe. When did life ultimately start? When everything else did.
Good rational take on the issue. I'm wondering of some of those who argue that life and personhood begin at conception would be persuaded by the ancient Hebrew law, which held that life begins at "quickening," or about 20 weeks, but legal personhood does not begin until birth. I see this supreme court leak as a deliberate attempt to polarize the population and herd straying liberals back into the fold for the midterms.
here's a useful thought experiment:
a woman is 9 month pregnant.
she is attacked, struck repeatedly in the abdomen and the unborn is lost as dead tissue.
is this to be treated as simple assault and battery just as such an attack would be treated against a man or a non-pregnant woman?
are we to grant the unborn no rights in this scenario nor attach additional penalties to this act? (because it lacks legal personhood)
because i suspect that to do so would grievously offend most people's sense of justice and morality.
now take that slider back 2 weeks to 8.5 months pregnant.
is it any different?
8 months?
otoh, if you're in a car accident and hit a woman who is 5 weeks pregnant and she miscarries, should that be manslaughter?
perhaps these issues start to help up zero in on just how we can define this for all occasions.
it seems to me that we need a general case answer, not a patchwork of tactical fixes.
we're going to have to grasp the nettle and create a knowable legal definition of "person" to do that.
As a morally repugnant response to your query: in Canada, there is no controlling law regarding abortion. Zero. Zip. Our Supreme Court struck down our abortion law as unconstitutional in 1988 and Parliament failed in its one attempt to pass a new law to replace it a year or two later (it deadlocked in the Senate).
As a consequence, a fetus has absolutely no status in Canadian law. It isn't recognized, it has no voice, no standing, nothing. Your scenario, where a 9-month pregnant woman is assaulted and the fetus dies? It results in exactly your outcome. Assault against the woman, probably aggravated assault, but the fetus is a legal nullity. No charge can be brought regarding its terrible fate.
From time to time, backbenchers in the Conservative party have attempted to introduce bills that would address this by allowing such a charge to be filed. At every attempt it is shouted down by the left as a dangerous and unacceptable intrusion upon a woman's sacrosanct right to abortion on demand. Conservative party leaders and hopefuls must, upon demand of the left and of the press, vow never to introduce legislation regarding abortion. If they do not they are savagely attacked by those same actors.
Canada is utterly unable to acknowledge that our legal stance on abortion makes us an extreme outlier in democratic societies. Such is life in the great progressive north.
As an interesting aside, when I.M. says "shouted down" I think he means literally. In our congressional hearings there is no "shouting". In Canada they shout at one another almost, or certainly raise their voice. Also, In Canada, apparently heckling from non-MP's is allowed, but the Speaker of the Parliament (is he or she called something different there?) acted almost like a referee and when the heckling got to loud they put a stop to it. I found watching Parliament interesting recently.
I.M. : did I describe it accurately?
You're not wrong in that heckling is a fairly common occurrence in Westminster style parliamentary democracies, but in this case I was using it figuratively. Abortion is a third rail of Canadian politics, at least for the right. Any attempt to touch it leads to howls of outrage from our elites, our media, etc. that the right to an abortion is sacrosanct and how dare any Conservative propose a measure that might just be a stalking horse to taking away or even putting the slightest of limits upon that right.
Every Conservative leader has to go through the performance of vowing that he will not allow any legislation concerning abortion to be introduced were he to become prime minister. The language he uses must be unambiguously clear else he is accused of harboring a hidden agenda. Such is the Canadian left and Canadian culture, which is predominantly left. We almost make California look sane.
Wow. Learned a lot aboot Canada this year. ( that of course was in good humor eh? 😀)
Feel free to rib this Native Tex for her “y’alls”.
On a serious note: I weep for Canada and Israel and a couple other countries and their people.
This is heartbreakingly sad.
Our new Supreme Court "justice" cannot define a woman. If she, a woman, cannot define a woman, how can she define the legal status of the unborn?
In the states, it really doesn't matter what the people think. All that matters is pandering to the minority and advancing the progressive opinion. For example, there have been elections banning gay marriage that have been overturned. So really, the people have no say in any of this.
Finally, there are two states that are moving to essentailly make murder legal up to 28 days after birth. It is framed under "pregnancy complications." Not sure how you can have "pregnancy complications" after a child is born, but what do I know?
Your thought experiment is a bad approach because the underlying premise is that moral judgments and legal standards should be determined by subjective reactions rather than objective realities. Trying to define a person by considering our feelings about whether the baby is "alive enough" is part of how we got into this abortion morass in the first place. Yes, we should agree on a definition of a person, but not according to how we feel about babies in the womb. Objective, not subjective.
Courts have already routinely been deciding these issues. Roe may be in jeopardy, but there have always been pregnant women dying under different tragic circumstances.
indeed, and this provides something of a window into out societal mores, but, and this is a non-trivial but, the question of "is this a thing we should leave to courts to decide?" remains.
is that an outcome we want?
It was decided judicially because some people did not like unfavorable political outcomes. Others did not like that there were different political outcomes in different jurisdictions. Some people also figured that if the Court settled it, it would be settled for all time. How poorly they anticipated the near non-stop wrangling -- legal and extralegal -- that followed for nearly a half-century.
Never mind the extreme politicization of the courts. Not that that began with Roe, but Roe certainly cast a long shadow.
The courts are (or are supposed to be) deciding these cases based on statues in the case of criminal matters or prior decisions in that state in the case of tort claims. And btw that means these matters are often decided by jury.
this seems a circular argument.
most of those came from courts.
statute is silent in the US on the time at which cells in a uterus become a person with rights.
I'm not sure how many state statutes speak to crimes involving babies in the womb, but what's your point? Should we revisit all those decisions to criticize them? Or to learn from them and see their consequences? And do you really think this is an area where, if we aren't legislating, we need to start doing so? Maybe, but maybe not.
it is true that many places in the US, if a pregnant woman and her unborn child die, there are TWO counts of manslaughter brought on the perpetrator. So IF our law can prosecute for that , doesn't it mean that they acknowledge that the baby is alive, and not just cells, but a living human being. If a baby has a heart beat it is a living being. I hope the courts will stop acting like this isn't true.
No one questions that the fetus is alive. That is not the point. And it is called a fetus, not a baby. Please don't use language in a deliberatively misleading way.
Ill call it as I see it, its a baby. It has a heartbeat, it can survive outside the womb long before 40 weeks gestation. You are trying to distract from the fact that a baby is a living thing. THAT is your issue, but I don't have to agree with you. Killing a living baby is murder, not sure how you can argue that point, but you are free to think what you want.
Using abortion as contraception is LAZY... again free country, you think as you wish, but thanks for playing.
You say it's a free county... yet you want to impose your beliefs on me and other women who don't share them. That's not ok.
No, what reversing Roe v Wade is doing is putting out back in the states hands. Why is that so hard for you to admit? Also wondering why you think it's OK to kill a baby???? It's a free country in that we all get to vote on how this all goes down. Killing babies is wrong, if you don't want to have this be an issue don't get pregnant, and assume you can use abortion as birth control. Stop whining and watch what happens. You don't even know if scotus will follow through. If you don't like that murder is wrong, that's your problem. you're free to go else where, take your pussy hat with you as you leave.
This is an excellent point. In the past the law has come down on the side of whether or not there is a positive expectation of a child. In other words, the fetus has status through the mother. You are right that this is a conversation we need to have so that we have codified in law whether the fetus itself has personhood separate from the expectations of the mother.
The Talmud declares the fetus is not counted as human for the purpose of such jurisprudence until the beginning of emergence from the uterus begins.
What does the Talmud say about the rights of slaves?
What's your point?
Well, the ancient Hebrews were distinguished from their neighbors, inter alia, by their refusal to leave unwanted children outdoors to die, or to sacrifice them to demons. So if they knew then what we do now about how babies develop, I expect they'd be revolted by abortion at any age.
In Judaism ensoulment is at 40 days and the fetus has no legal standing until it begins to emerge from the womb. Birth is the moment of legal personhood.
Great point.
I always attributed the concept of "quickening" to Thomas Aquinas. I did not realize it was rooted in Hebraic law. I believe quickening refers to a mother's first awareness of the baby moving inside her. I don't know about anyone else, but I felt all of my kids moving inside by 14 weeks at the latest. Regardless, as I said in a comment below, I am a pro-life absolutist who can be credibly accused of invoking the precautionary principle, but I also realize we live in a fallen world. The real test is if both sides can even begin to find common ground (I thought we had achieved that in our rejection of partial-birth abortion, but that doesn't seem to be the case any longer).
I believe your experience is one of the reasons most countries restrict abortions to the first 12 weeks. I think there are quite a number of pro-choice people who would be willing to have the conversation about survivability, which is of course possible earlier and earlier in a pregnancy. If pressed, most people I think would be forced to admit that no fetus should be aborted when it has a chance to survive outside the womb. That may be the way the country could come together to address this huge gulf between camps.
I don't know how common ground can be found when there seems to be total exclusion of honesty and integrity in the debate. I deed reasonable debate is disallowed. Anyone who attempts to apply reason is demonized. How can we find common ground with when we declare anyone who dares question as evil? Yet that is exactly what's happened.
We can't even phrase the debate on anything truthful. Even the activist, revisionist champion of all things good for women, justice Ginsberg, in her analysis of RvW made it clear it is not abut the rights of women, or even about abortion, but mostly about protecting doctors and empowering federal domination of states. Her analysis is fascinating and she notes that as a ruling RvW is very weak and an example of what the court should avoid. She also notes that if the loud mouth members of congress shouting about it REALLY cared about women's rights, the would propose and debate legislation to protect specific rights and has not. Few would categorize RBG as anti-female or conservative.
The other key point in RvW which fails scrutiny but is excluded from debate is that it declares the male involved in conception has no rights with respect to the conceived. This was a primary point of the original case as the father wished to assert some input into the decision. The court said "no". Don't dare raise this question today.
Ultimately the question - NOT answered by the court in RvW - is when the conceived becomes subject to rights and equal protection of the law. While once it was allowed to discuss this it is now blocked.
Even the premise of this controversy is dishonest. The "leaked decision" is being dishonestly characterized by all sides, and any factual recount is shouted down.
We can never have a constructive conversation until we realize that the two sides have completely different underlying assumptions about how the world works. Until we address those underlying assumptions we will always just be shouting unconvincing things at each other.
If we were to have an honest, sincere conversation, I think we'd find some common ground. At least with respect to law. I am not saying it would be an easy conversation. Not necessarily converge, but we might better understand each other.
But that conversation is not allowed. And I have come to realize that the current "crisis" over RvW is another purely fabricated crisis and the goal is deepening divides, to ignite hatred and fear, all with the purpose of "saving" the mid-term elections for the "blue wave" that seems so unlikely in the face of real economic hardship brought directly by the absurd energy and transportation policy changes, the logical consequences of COVID extremes, and the radical expansion of federal spending that is devaluing the currency. Much like the picture in 2019, the current conditions are causing even the faithful to question their loyalty to The Party, especially those who still value self sufficiency (which is a lot).
Abortion is a divisive, emotional topic. A perfect distraction. A perfect "game changer". Pay no attention to the man behind the current. Focus on the flames.
I realized that this "leak" is not random nor is the timing. The powder has been packed over the last year or two and this "leak" is the igniter setting off an explosion of division and hate. The NY legislature passing a law that seems (and is characterized by "their" media as such) to support post-term abortion (after birth). Predictably the reaction is polarizing and sometimes extreme. The powder is packed, RvW is the igniter and the "leak" closes the circuit. How dare TRUMP's court overrule the foundation of women's rights!
Non of this is about the decision itself. I wish folks (all of y'all) would read RBG's analysis and comments on RvW. While not my favorite justice of all time, in this analysis she raises a lot of interesting points and her conclusions are it is a bad decision, weak legally and not protective of women's rights.
For that matter I'd like folks to read the leaked document and Robert's statements. His explanation makes far more sense given his record. I doubt the court would have taken up a direct challenge to RvW under Roberts (who has always found a way to avoid that). Not until now, when they may be forced. While justice Thomas says he can not be intimidated or bullied, I am not so confident this is true of the court as a whole (or of Thomas when the safety of his family is threatened for real).
It is all about November, kids.
The ancient Hebrews didn't have sonograms.
They did, however, have animals, and miscarriages, so they were likely to be completely familiar with fetal development and its stages.
True, but that only gave them a picture of what a dead person or animal was like. Kind of hard to understand what the living creature was doing behind closed doors, so to speak.
It is rational and thus can not be allowed :-)
I wonder what texts this decision is based on?
Here's Alito's draft:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000
Or are you talking Hebrew texts? That would be interesting...
Hebrew. The judaeo-Christian religion is a significant reason why the west has been a boon to humanity. Now we’re at this moment...as an anti abortion absolutist, I’d be very interested to see the textual basis for the ‘Hebrew rule’. There’s lots in the OT about manslaughter vs murder, but I do not know how they would come up with that parameter from the OT.
Perhaps the Midrash or Talmud? Wish we had a rabbinical scholar among us!
Not all Hebraic law was based on scriptures. Much was based on tradition. (But there is a ritual abortion in the OT performed by a priest when a woman is suspected of being unfaithful to her husband, which is I think why abortion is legal in Israel today.) So I think there was precedent for the idea of "quickening" being the beginning of "life" at that point. And there certainly was a system whereby legal personhood was determined--that is, the woman already alive was considered to be a legal person, but the unborn child was not, but upon birth became a "person" with rights equivalent to the mother. So, for example, if the pregnancy was killing the mother, her right to live superseded the child's right to live up until birth. The mother could waive that right if she wanted the child to live more than she wanted to live herself, but the decision was hers.
Fascinating subject! Here's some additional commentary with references:
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/quickening
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion
Aristotle not looking great here IMO....”The point of quickening, as described by Aristotle, was the moment at which the life in the womb became human, as opposed to its previous vegetable and animal states. Aristotle believed that quickening took place at forty days for males and eighty days for females”
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/quickening
Aristotle and other ancient thinkers probably noticed that most animal fetuses were astonishingly similar early in development
That cracked me up! I guess the ancients, like some current cultures, consider male children more valuable/superior than female children ~ 🙀.
I’m so tired of hearing people discuss the right to choose. Everyone has a choice to not get pregnant in the first place. I’m sick of the hedonistic world we live in where people would rather decide when a baby is a person worth having love rather than practice some self restraint.
Oh, the old "people should not have sex if they don't want to have a child." Find me an example of any time in history or any society where people abstained from sex at this level? It doesn't exist, because this is not realistic for human beings.
So if a married couple does not want to have kids, they should not consummate their marriage?
There’s so much about our body and it’s cycles that we aren’t taught and should be. There’s a really good book out called ‘Taking Charge of your Fertility,’ that I think young women should be encouraged to read. You’re only fertile about 4 days of your cycle.
Yes. This is what is called NFP in Catholic circles. This doesn't mean it is easy, either. My husband and I certainly had our moments of frustration because when a woman is fertile, the biological drive is pretty overpowering.
Yes but it’s more than that. As a woman who has struggled with fertility issues I wish I had been taught this earlier in life
Absolutely! I agree.
Agreed, I had no idea until I read that book.
It’s amazing how in 2022 you can make the argument you just made. Laughable really.
I guess I need to know what you mean by "at this level." Really we are just talking about if you aren't in a place to accept the possibility of a child being conceived as the result of a sexual encounter, then maybe postpone it. That's all. Or, if you can't or don't want to, take some precautions (which, yes, can fail which is why I go back to my first point).
What you are proposing is that we should have a society in which no one ever has sex unless they wish to conceive a child. I am saying that no society like that has ever existed, or ever will. You are being entirely unrealistic about human nature.
Have you polled all the 20 something men you know to see if they would be willing to completely give up all sex except when they intend to conceive a child? Because I think I can guess what the answer would be from almost all.
I don't think the poster was arguing for sex only when a couple "intends to" conceive a child. Rather they were suggesting along the lines of, have sex only if you are *willing to* carry a pregnancy to term (or support your partner in doing so, if male), in the possibly unlikely event that pregnancy happens (depending on what choices of contraception you make).
Precisely. I am not naive about human nature. I have five children, 2 of them currently young men in their 20s. I'm also in the middle of a Bible study which reminds me almost daily that there is "nothing new under the sun" and sexual temptation and the consequences of it have always been and will remain with us. I'm asking for a little self-control exercised judiciously. It seems, you Allie, are suggesting that humans can't possibly display this sort of control.
It's fine for you to live as you wish. It is not fine for you to think you have the right to impose your life style and religious beliefs on the rest of the country.
It's amazing to me that so many commenters here are, rightfully, appalled at vaccine mandates, but have no qualms about imposing very similiar mandates when it comes to abortion.
"Keep Your Laws Off My Body" should apply in both situations.
Yes.
More specifically, the couple should use all the birth control methods at their disposal and have a plan of what to do if they do get pregnant. Which does not include killing the child they WILLINGLY created.
Pro-abortion proponents have successfully removed 'personal responsibility' from the equation for my entire life. It's a cornerstone of progressive thought.
" Everyone has a choice to not get pregnant in the first place."
This is obviously not true.
I am aware there is a .08% (or something very similar) chance getting raped and then getting pregnant. There is also the morning after pill. So I am still sticking with my statement.
Four things -
First, condoms fail at about a 14% rate (see below).. Assuming 75million sexually active couples out of which maybe half are using condoms to not get pregnant, that’s about 5.2 million mistakes and possible unwanted pregnancies a year..
https://www.emedicinehealth.com/ask_how_often_do_condoms_fail/article_em.htm
Second, I found this in-depth study to be really interesting and enightening regarding the ACTUAL statistical FACTS involved in banning abortions (in short - number of abortions stays the same regardless of whether they're legal or not, no fetuses are "saved" through a ban, all that the ban does is push abortions underground, kills more women, hurt living children & destroys countless families with several other horrific consequences for society that are elaborated on in the investigation).
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/banning-abortions-will-not-stop-abortions
Third - i learned on this link (and the studies leading out from it) that suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers in America, with no paid parental leave, no maternal health care, no child care.
Out of 193 countries on this planet, the only ones who do not provide paid parental leave to their citiziens are Papua New Guinea, Surinam, Lesotho and USA!! All becasue cruel evil anti-life republican capitalist billonaire psychopaths, in their war against families mothers and babies, have brainwashed americans to view this as "evil socialism".
Once you're an ex-fetus these evil monsters lose all interest in you and abandon you (that is, until you reach military age, then they want to use you for their plunder invasions)
They only time america is 'pro-life' is when it's time to strip women of their control over their their body and fate and force them to give birth AGAINST THEIR WISH. The rest of the time the spit on you and abandon you and the baby they forced you bring into the world against your wish, the rest of the time they are MURDERING BABIES by the millions across the planet (roughly 2.7 million babies murdered by USA in the last 70 years) in their imperialist wars for resource plunder, for enforcing their global hegemony and for terrorizing and forcing countries to privatize their economy - industry, services, and resources - into the private hamds of american companies (but the babies americans are murdering in tbe process are not christian, so its no biggie)
https://www.kindredmedia.org/2022/05/allomothers-we-were-never-meant-to-mother-alone/
Fourth - not hard data but just my learned observation that you're operating out of HUGE BLIND SPOT, a shadow you're unconscious of, some form of unmet/unfaced pain, anger or fear that comes out to the surface as vindictiveness and desire to punish those who don't lead the life that you think is righteous.
in my observation you're displaying psychologically-immature/unconsciousness in that you were led to believe that you are morally or spiritually superior and posses the truth and that that in turn allows you to punish, impose and force your childish beliefs on others, to take away from others their control over their body and the fate of their life and impose on them your preferred "righteous" life scripts that you're tyranically trying to enforce people to follow.
If I may say so, these TYRANICAL, AUTHORITARIAN & PATERNALISTIC ACTIONS arise in a person as a result of being unconscious of one's shadow, of the unmet/unprocessed anger, fear and pain in oneself (and also shame, in some cases), which leads one to exhibit a punishing vindictive tyranical behavior accompanied by a righteous belief that one is morally & spiritually superior which she thinks makes her justified in forcing and imposing her dogmas and worldview on others. This is a very well-known tendency in psychology and now we have a whole religious cult inflicted by this huge blind spot/unconsciousness of their unprocessed anger, fear and pain, with disastrous consequences for women's lives and bodies, on whom they play out their childish beliefs of moral & spiritual superiority, as well as their punishing mentality..
I strongly reject the spiritual supriority notion that you know best how people should live, and that you know people's inner experience (whetjer one is ready to become a parent or not) better than they do, which apparently gives you the right to decide for people and force them to become a parent AGAINST MY WISH, becasue you supposedly know what's right for them. This sense permeates your comments, and i think it stems from the same unconsciousness I described above.
I know you think these are all good points which is great for you. You’ve listed this four different times on this post. Curious as to why? Who pays you?
Of the 63+ million abortions performed since Roe, I suspect the one that fall under your category are miniscule. It's such a weak rebuttal but I have heard it for decades.
Ok so if we make it so that the law allows abortions for the tiny percentage that make up rape and serious physical health problems to either the mother or the unborn are you then ok with making abortion illegal in all other circumstances which are generally down to lifestyle choices?
Amen.
*life not love
Either works, really.
Yes:)!
Abortions will always and forever happen, whether or not they are safe and legal-that much will always be true. First trimester abortion is something I’ve never had an issue with. After that, things get complex, both medically, legally, deterministically. The states should decide. I’m fine with that. I was an L and D nurse in a teaching hospital delivering 800+ babies a month to poor and low income mothers, many moons ago. It’s a complex issue and the medical issues, most lay people haven’t a clue about.
What? You don't like emanations from the penumbra?
My terribly cynical suspicion is that this leak was strategic. The actual decision handed down will be a typical kick the can down the road and not overturn the current status quo at all. This leak galvanizes otherwise completely unengaged democrats just as a historic midterm defeat was approaching.
Next, the reversal of what we are led to think would be the decision will generate just the sort of partisan controversy that keeps everyone distracted. The right will say the court was intimidated, the left will say they -should- be intimidated, etc.
I think it is even possible that the leak was orchestrated by a Trump appointed judge who is afraid to go along with the decision and afraid not to. Leak it and then let everyone think you were afraid of angry leftist rioters.
People who opposed abortion for many years are celebrating but I think it is premature. The entire leak redounds too strongly in favor of the pro-abortion / democrat crowd. No leak and the decision coming on schedule would have been much worse for them as there would be nothing to do other than express anger. Right now they can believe protests and riots and fundraising might change the decision. That is motivation on the most sensitive issue they have. Democrats running for election could not have wished for anything better.
If we have to come up with a standard for when life begins, I would suggest that it be a standard based on human compassion and not scientific logic. The importance of protecting unborn life is not merely to protect defenseless gestating babies, it is to defend the sacredness of human life as a moral and legal concept.
That concept is under attack at both ends and from the middle. We saw the elderly deliberately left out of hospitals to die in nursing homes because their lives were considered unimportant. Some states push the upper limit of abortion ever further past birth. Ill health or infection now can cause you to lose your rights and be detained. Hospitals treat patients as if admittance to the hospital is a surrender of all their sovereignty over their own medical decisions and life.
These are all encroachments on the value and sanctity of life. If we surrender on one front, we lose on all. The end of that road is a state that determines where and how your life begins and ends with no human compassion whatsoever. We can see that now more clearly than at any time in our lifetimes.
"The importance of protecting unborn life is not merely to protect defenseless gestating babies, it is to defend the sacredness of human life as a moral and legal concept." A great comment and you put into words what I was feeling but couldn't express.
Well. They can’t get pregnant after taking these vaccines, anyway. Even the men. Heh.
Brave, principled, well reasoned perspective. Prepare for incoming.
I fear that we are in for a "George Floyd Summer" on steroids...
I could be way off here, but I don't see the summer of fire and brimstone that most are anticipating. I also don't see the middle that already decided to vote R going back. I think it is good this came out so far in front of the mid-terms instead of being dropped the week before.
Many states already have laws in place in preparation for the overturning of Roe. Once those kick in, the birthing people of those states will see plainly what they have voted for, and either be happy or sad. So the sad people might protest, but hopefully the middle will understand and move forward.
I hope you are right, but the other side despises federalism and is prone to one size fits all edicts. I think they will whip their minions into a frenzy over codifying abortion nationally.
My experience with that side is that they have a short attention span on real issues. Also, speaking as one who does favor leaving this matter to the woman's choice, I will observe that it is a morally expensive issue because the other side has the easy advantage of being able to claim to be against the killing of little babies, a position against which it is very difficult to argue. Given the past two years, any frenzy the Ds manage to whip up over the abortion issue will probably only redound to making them even more despised than they already are.
It’s interesting that the same people demanding “my body, my choice” were not so accommodating for those of us who felt the same about the state mandating the jab. And this decision does not ban choice @ all.
Exactly! They threw away the "my body, my choice" argument when they supported the vaccine mandates.
I actually think you can still use that argument. What the Left forgets is that there are two bodies involved when it comes to pregnancy.
That's a good point. Those of us who oppose the mandates can still use the argument, regardless of where we stand on abortion. But the pro-abortionists who support the mandates have lost that argument.
Actually, three bodies.
Now back w/ a vengeance….
Entirely predictable to be fair.
Don't forget they have just come from supporting Ukrainian neo Nazis and a regime that shuts down opposition media, imprisons political rivals and has killed several thousand civilians over the last 8 years in eastern Ukraine so nothing they think or do is based on rational thinking.
That would be interesting. As noted by several justices (including Ginsberg), congress has had more than 50 years to do just that and has not. Someone else made the parallel with immigration: if there was in fact a desire to reform the law it would have at least been brought to the floor. What we've seen for 50 years is distractions, not actions.
I agree. It has been fifty years of very profitable distractions to let the issue languish a la immigration. However, Schumer, Warren, Sanders, and others are now very "angry", and appear to be pushing for a national solution.
I suspect the court will now avoid an substantive actions. That would be the point of the "leak" and the various fabrications around it: to demonstrate to the justices that there can not be tolerated any deliberations, no matter how brief, that deviate from the agenda. And that they are not safe from retaliation if they deviate. Just listen to the reactions and it's clear the message is "we can destroy you" to each justice.
I hope you are wrong. But I am already hearing about protests being organized at the homes of various Justices...
It seems SCOTUS is in a bind. It either releases the decision that's been leaked, or it releases a different decision (with some sort of explanation that no one will believe) and its reputation and integrity is destroyed. In world where there had been no leak and had the decision been to uphold Roe, pro-lifers, like myself, would have been disappointed, but not surprised really. Now, all bets are off. What a mess.
The chief justice already "released" an accurate description of the "leaked" report - and it is not a decision, it has not been voted, it was one of SEVERAL working documents being prepared for discussion by the justices. He was VERY clear it was not an action of or by the court, never voted nor proposed to be voted, nor in anyway a decision of the court. His words have been ignored.
RvW has been built up to be a tinderbox under a powder keg attached to a nuclear destructive device: the mere mention of "repeal Roe" is sure to spark violent reactions. So now we have it: this entire fiasco is about intimidating the court. It seems to be working.
Yes, I read Roberts' statement. I guess my point is, depending on the final ruling, the opposing side will have a grievance. The pro-aborts are having their tantrums now whereas if the ruling ultimately upholds Roe, pro-lifers will have to wonder what effect, if any, the actions and rhetoric of the pro-aborts had on it. I totally agree that there could be violence.
According to Roberts, there may be no final ruling. His position seems to be they can address the case in front of them without reopening Roe. I would imagine now the other justices will agree to leave it alone. The threat of violence (and in particular the threat of violence to them personally) surely supports such a conclusion. Which I am now convinced is exactly why this document was leaked.
Whatever it does, the court will uphold the Mississippi statute. To do that, it has to overrule Roe and Casey. That's a big deal already, even if it rules that abortions in the first trimester have to be allowed.
I believe someone elsewhere wrote that Justice Roberts was trying to convince some to rule that, basically, "the Mississippi statute doesn't violate Roe v Wade", so that in theory it would still stand. Though I can't see that actually making a lot of sense legally.
I hope I am wrong. But I'm not.
I agree.
Difficult topic to discuss. I don’t get the insane howling and managing of teeth on social media though. Anyone would think the government has just mandated forced injections of an experimental vaccine that doesn’t work particularly well and has a horrible side effect profile relative to its target disease. The judgement only refers it to state laws, so it’s still possible and easy to get an abortion. Personally, I’m “anti-abortion” in my personal life but think also that people should have the right to choose; although it should be limited to early in pregnancy. I find late term abortions where babies have survived being born that early abhorrent.
Very very interesting, as a Canadian watching from my side of the border this helps put the lunatics in context
Indeed! In the words of Jimmy Durante, "I got a million of 'em."
Welcome to our world. 😐🙄
"positive 'right to abortion' nowhere in evidence in the constitution"
This is a dangerous route to traverse. If we only have the "rights" that are "in evidence in the constitution," then we really don't have much in the way of rights.
The Constitution doesn't confer ANY rights to people. The rights to marriage, to eat, to sleep, to have sex, to work, to do much of anything are NOT in the Constitution. That doesn't make those rights non-existent.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren't just afterthoughts. We have a semi-infinite number of rights that are not "in evidence in the constitution." To believe the latter is to imply that we can only do that which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. That is a complete inversion of what the Constitution is for: to place limits on the GOVERNMENT, not the people.
As for the rest, well:
"Abortion: A Philosophical and Scientific Approach" is available online.
1. What are rights?
2. Why do we have/need rights (if we do)?
3. What foundational trait distinguishes humans from all other animals?
4. What physical characteristic makes that trait possible?
5. At what point in the development of a fetus does this characteristic first manifest itself in the brain?
6. That point is the MINIMUM demarcation between what it means to be a PERSON (in a very rudimentary, primitive sense with the possibility of having rights that need to be protected) and just a living entity that does not yet possess the uniquely HUMAN characteristic that differentiates us from any other living entities.
7. These facts are OBJECTIVE, even if the borderline of when this occurs can be somewhat fuzzy.
This point in gestation occurs around six months. Before that, the fetus does not have the brain structures that even minimally qualify it for personhood, i.e., a being with rights. After that point, one can reasonably argue for restrictions against killing the fetus.
But, regardless, in the extremely rare cases after that point where it can be objectively shown that the woman's life is in ACTUAL danger from the pregnancy, HER life, her ACTUAL independent existence takes precedence over any POTENTIAL that is physically, parasitically dependent on her being to exist.
It's not "privacy" that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether "in evidence in the constitution" or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear.
In “A Last Survey,” writer-philosopher Ayn Rand wrote, “One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.” She also wrote that, “Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person’s convictions; the anti-abortion stand is such an indication.”(Nov.-Dec., 1975, The Ayn Rand Letter.)
In Ayn Rand Answers (2005), Rand says, “I’d like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute — when a baby is formed — is a different issue.)”
This is most emphatically NOT an issue that should be "left to the states" to decide. Just because Y is not a federal issue does NOT mean states can AUTOMATICALLY pass laws about Y. That is not what the Tenth Amendment says or implies. That would just allow states to become localized tyrannies. Yes, certain issues are the bailiwick of states, for them to legally deal with, but they are PERMITTED to deal with/have jurisdiction over ONLY A LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES, ONES THAT DO NOT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, ones that emerge from the ONLY proper purpose of government, i.e., to protect our rights from infringement by others, whether those others are individuals or arms of the State.
Both sides in this controversy commit the same violations of critical thinking: they rely on the Circular Argument Fallacy of assuming what they are obligated to prove: that an embryo/fetus (at stage X) is/is not a PERSON with RIGHTS that cannot/can be killed rather than murdered.
Relying primarily on faith-based principles is a gross violation of the principles of critical thinking. But that's the main crutch used by those against any and all abortions. They have little else to fall back upon. Adherents have told me that people are not animals; that's it's wrong to compare/contrast humans and animals; that our rights emerge from the fact that we have "human blood"; and much more. Evasion and ignorance masquerading as "facts."
Anti-abortionists like to harp on the phrase “a human life.”
Well, duh. It IS a HUMAN embryo/fetus, after all, not a cabbage. And it’s obviously ALIVE.
1. A sperm is a living entity
2. An egg is a living entity
3. When these two entities merge, the resulting embryo is a living entity
4. The moment they merge, that embryo does not instantly acquire fundamental rights
The real issue is whether that living entity is a human BEING with VOLITION, thus, with fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS that should be protected.
As for the rabid other side who thinks it is okay to "abort" a 30-day old infant, well, they are just nuts. And evil.
ASSERTIONS without objective evidence or proof that even non-believers can evaluate are not arguments.
But such form the core of this "debate," the same tactics utilized by every statist and collectivist to push through the destruction of rights, freedom, and morality.
(From a graphic I created on this topic):
What (objectively) (non-religiously [as required by the principles of critical thinking]) distinguishes/differentiates humans from other animals? What is the foundation (the basis) for our rights? What are rights? Why do we have them? These rights are what makes killing an innocent human being murder. When does (if it does) a human embryo/fetus develop the (minimal) capacity/trait/attribute necessary to transform it into a human being and make (any) rights possible (on at least a rudimentary level)?
Both sides commit a Circular Argument/Begging the Question Fallacy by assuming what they need to prove, i.e., that fetuses/embryos do/do not have rights and thus cannot/can properly be killed.
I follow your line of reasoning on this. The problem appears to be the assumption that the courts and society assume that we actually do have fights not enshrined in the constitution. The past two years have shown that contemporary society does not actually believe this and the courts have let it slide. If we actually want rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, etc., we are going to need a constitutional amendment stating as much.
I agree that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (and the philosophical underpinnings of our rights, in general) are ignored/evaded/dismissed by most people and organizations in today's world.
The problem with listing more rights in another amendment is that those who ignore the current Bill of Rights are unlikely to pay any more respect to a new amendment. Plus, as I wrote, there is a semi-infinite list of rights that could be included. As one of the Founders mentioned who had doubts about including a Bill of Rights, a problem with such is that government and people will tend to think that ONLY those rights are the ones we have…the exact problem we face some two-plus-centuries later.
Technically, it's never too late to fight for freedom. But what we need is a sea-change in attitudes—assumptions, as you say—about what freedom is and what it means. Once respect for freedom, rights, and morality are lost by too many people in society, no number of laws or amendments or whatever will secure our liberty. Our rights have to be secured in the hearts and minds of the populace—from the bottom up—or nothing will succeed. A top-down approach will, in the long run, be undercut and destroyed by a people who don't value the things that make liberty possible.
Given the current state of the world as I see it, that struggle is facing an Everest-sized hill to climb…
(Also, I found your typo amusing…and unintentionally dead on…)
Russ, I think your comment is probably the best I've seen on this topic, and I've read a lot. Bravo!
I especially like: "It's not "privacy" that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether "in evidence in the constitution" or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear."
Those who say "we should leave the abortion issue up to the states" are implying that they also believe states should be allowed to force covid vaccinations on state residents, if democratically elected legislatures choose to do so.
Thanks for your kind comments. Glad you found what I wrote of value. Thanks also for taking the time to read it.
A couple of points to consider:
1) It's not a scientific argument at any point of the discussion because it requires a value judgment. Science is a system by which abstract ideas are applied to discover truth about reality, and such a system cannot be used to determine hierarchical values. No matter what stage of development you choose as a cutoff point for abortion, you're making a value judgment about when a gestating baby is considered to have humanity and all of its intrinsic rights. You can point to whatever scientific evidence you want that suggests particular points of development, but within that scope, you are explicitly defining criteria for "humanity", and at that point, you must answer the following question: *why* did you choose *that* criteria? The subsequent question is: are there any circumstances post-birth where such criteria can be used to define a person as non-human and thereby justify their killing? If so, are you willing to accept those circumstances?
2) Self-ownership, also called individual sovereignty, is itself a value that is implicit within your argument. It raises the following question: why does individual sovereignty have value and why is it worth protecting? A good starting point is John Locke, particularly his Second Treatise, but it goes well beyond that. Aquinas is the next worthwhile read after Locke. I'll leave it to you to look into the specifics, but ultimately the value of individual sovereignty stems from the belief that human life is of intrinsic value (and if you really want to get specific, it's of divine value because this stems from Judeo-Christian ethics, hence Locke and Aquinas). If you believe individual sovereignty is an intrinsic right and therefore of value and must be protected, then you believe that human life is of intrinsic value and must be protected, and that all of our rights are naturally a product of our humanity. That means "life" is higher up in the hierarchy than "liberty."
———
With those two points established, we're right back to the beginning of the argument: at what point do we want to define a gestating baby as having humanity and all of its intrinsic rights? That is not a simple or easy question to answer and is why the discussion continues to this day.
1. My article is called:
"Abortion: A Philosophical AND Scientific Approach"
If you’re referencing that shibboleth of the supposed “Is-Ought” Dichotomy, well, that’s no dichotomy, at all. Using Aristotle’s Law of Identity and the conditional imperative, what X IS determines what it SHOULD or must do in context Y to achieve Z.
Science itself is unpinned by people utilizing value systems: is A worth pursuing: why SHOULD I adhere to critical thinking principles and the scientific method; SHOULD I pursue course R rather than avenue S for this query; why SHOULD I be honest and truthful in analyzing my results and presenting them; and on and on and on.
WHY is science worth pursuing AT ALL? While the actual things we do in scientific research should be objective and not tainted by, for example, politics or our emotions, the very EXISTENCE of science is grounded in the fact that we find it of VALUE.
The PHILOSOPHY of science deals with many of these very issues.
So, you’re wrong. While what volition and rights and morality and personhood etc. ARE and how they OPERATE arise from metaphysics and epistemology and ethics and politics—all subdivisions of philosophy—the next step is to use SCIENCE, as I said, to determine WHAT and HOW and WHEN things happen in fetal development that lead to the cortical structures that make volition possible and that differentiate humans from all other animals.
And, yes, we DO use these facts post-birth when we decide that someone is brain dead and, thus, we are not committing murder when we unplug someone, and he then dies.
2. I’ll ignore your condescending tone—nah, I won’t—in “leav[ing] to” me to “look into” these issues. Good grief.
Wrong again: there ARE no intrinsic values. Values always suppose one who values, an entity that acts to gain and keep those things it values for a particular purpose/context.
Everything I wrote is true.
Just because YOU don’t know the answers to these questions, that doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally ignorant.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Goodness, that is some serious attitude. Yes, I understood your article title. My criticism was that involving science in the discussion of the topic as a whole doesn't contribute very much since the point of contention is at a much higher level of abstraction.
The notion that how something "is" determines what it "should" do is predicated on the idea that objects have defined functions irrespective of perception, which is entirely incorrect. Humans perceive based upon utility first and how something actually "is" second, which means that we're fundamentally operating within a value structure any time we do something. More succinctly, human perception imprints a value structure on the world.
Science can provide additional information for making decisions, but the decisions themselves are made based upon a hierarchy of values. Here's a ridiculous example to showcase what I mean: you have an option to eat either a candy bar or an apple, but not both—which do you choose? The science of nutrition informs us that the apple is the healthier option in every respect, so does that mean one *should* select it for consumption over the candy bar? Not necessarily, because it depends on what you value. If you consider the candy bar provides more pleasure and you consider the pleasure of the consumption to be of higher value—at least within that moment—then selecting the candy bar makes the most sense. So while science may have provided more information to use when making the decision, it's your value structure that determines whether that information affects your decision.
Moreover, science itself operates within a hierarchy of values. Science is the primary mechanism for ascertaining observable truth of the world, and as you said, we engage it in it because we find it of value. More specifically, we find truth itself to be of incredibly high value. If human beings didn't value truth, then there would never have been the advent of science. If there is no value in something, then why do it? That's the most fundamental question to the discussion. If a hierarchy of values is a necessary condition for science, then science cannot itself be used to determine anything within that hierarchy of values—it's impossible. That's how the meta-logical framework that science operates within works, which itself exists within a particular metaphysic. If you reject the metaphysic or even the meta-logic, science goes out the window with it (this is Modus Tollens).
Also, I suggested you look into the ideas I mentioned both because they're too detailed to leave in a Substack comment and because the discussion itself is not meant to be a debate. If the ideas sound interesting at all to someone, then looking into them for oneself provides a more valuable understanding. It wasn't to be condescending—it's to encourage people to research for their own interests if they desire.
———
I'll leave it at this: if there are no intrinsic values, then why should human life have any value? Why should truth have any value? Why should anyone care about either of those things? Those aren't simple questions, but they're necessary ones because you must start with the abstract idea first.
You already said you don’t know the answers to the questions involved in the abortion issue, so I see no reason bothering to answer your ignorant comments, especially since the points you did make were wrong.
Skepticism is a self-refuting philosophy. Subjectivism is the crudest and lowest of logical fallacies. Pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook is laughable.
Your “ideas” reek of all three.
> claims I'm being condescending
> proceeds to be condescending
Aight, good luck then, dude. You'll need it.
You get what you give…and deserve.
Judges and legislators - and the religious - should NEVER intrude on or opine on a person's bodily autonomy and medical procedures. Not anybody's business except patient and doctor. That goes for vaccines and that goes for ending unwanted pregnancies. Saying that you just think the court should punt it back to state legislatures or Congress is cowardly and ignores the real-life women and their families that this affects.
Having their own separate body, outside the body of another human being, seems like an obvious starting point.
Hahaha, so you're one of those who supports killing the unborn child up until the actual birth.
You must be in a very dark place.
So you're ok with bills pending allowing "abortion" after a full term baby is born?
Yep. They've already pushed the killing to the day of birth so naturally these morally broken people are now going further.
Just as we saw with the example of the proposed bill allowing the baby to starve to death after the mother and doctor have a nice chat about it over a cup of tea and biscuits!
But at least it would be kept comfortable I seem to remember the politician assure us.
Right now it's when they are born. If you would like to change that, the state legislature is the proper place to begin.
"what duty of care does a parent owe a child and when does this start?"
Aristotle also saw that question as needed in determining when protected life begins. He saw a sliding scale of guilt for those who abort: forgivable if early, guilty if late.
Our embryology education greatly exceeds that of his time, and we are aware of daily, if not more frequent, developments in a human embryo and then fetus.
At what point in that development does that embryo/fetus/child's right to continued and future life pre-empt - if only temporarily - bodily autonomy of the mother?
Here are prior US court rulings on bodily autonomy, possibly of limited relevance here:
https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/bodily-autonomy-judicial-precedent
the other wrinkle here is the increasing viability of younger and younger unborn babies due to improvements in neonatal technology. if we get to the point where the unborn could be gestated outside of an unwilling mother's body, then what? she still gets to kill it? I have a strong feeling that in fifty years or less we will look back on this era like we currently look at early humans leaving babies outside to die.
We can only hope