Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Aakash- there are very few people who take the constitution seriously anymore. The left has largely decided to shred Constitution who push through the agenda on issues like abortion, the death penalty, criminal “rights” (like the inexplicable Miranda requirement), and widespread regulation under the guise of “commerce”. Meanwhile, the right has come to see the constitution as a mere inconvinience to its battle against terrorists, trying to minimize the forms and eliminate the substance of the protections clearly spelled out in the bill of rights.

And this reflects perfectly in Roe v. Wade- most people who support abortion couldnt care less if Roe v. Wade has anything to do wtih the constitution. They have a policy preference for legal abortions, and the Court is the best way for them to get their way. The people you cite are just a very minor segment of the pro-choice community.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 2, 2005 02:22 AM

Let’s just say the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, ruling at some point that life begins at conception. Life begins at conception, think about what that says. Life begins at conception, so when you take a life you have killed or committed murder, right? Intentionally or not taking this life would be killing or murder.

Okay, now let’s look at the ramifications that such a ruling would have. First, the obvious, no more abortions, that we would all expect. Next, the “Morning After” pill RU486 would be banned, again we would expect this. Those two issues would be expected, but what else would be required if life begins at conception? Well, keeping in mind that ending a life after it is conceived is murder, a lot would be required!

The next somewhat obvious but still controversial step would be to ban all stem cell research. Losing great hope and promise for cures to hundreds of diseases. This would also lead to a complete ban on in-vitro fertilization, keeping in mind that as with stem cell research conceived lives are destroyed. This would end the hopes of tens of thousands who require this procedure to become loving parents. Lastly, a ban on the birth control pill, which allows (at times) a woman’s body to reject fertilized eggs. After all a fertilized egg does equal conception, and conception equals life. Again, intentionally or not depriving life is killing.

Now, imagine the consequences of these actions. Some will say if that is what is required, then so be it. Most though have not thought out what “Life Begins at Conception” entails. They connect this phrase only to abortion and fail to see beyond that one issue.

On a separate note, ask yourself who the strongest supporters of “Life Begins at Conception” are and why. The Church, its religious leaders and their followers are the strongest supporters. Why, well of course the belief that abortion is murder would be at the top of the list but there are other underlying issues and beliefs when it comes to birth control. The Church has a long standing belief that birth control is bad. Birth control of any sort will at some point reduce the number of followers the Church has. Fewer followers equals less power on the world stage. While other religions birth rates are sky rocketing, Christian faiths birth rates have been falling steadily for 40 years. The Church isn’t stupid; it realizes at some point the other faiths numbers will be overwhelming. The conversion of Hindus in India and a few other places in the world are helping to keep the Christian numbers up for now but at some point they know the birth rates issue will take its toll. Thus the Church issues agendas to their religious leaders who then preach them to their followers.

I am a Christian who is against abortion but believes strongly in a woman’s right to choose. God let Eve make her choice and from that point forward the Bible is filled with God allowing us to make choices and then learning to live with those choices. My hope is always that a woman chooses not to have an abortion. If she makes the choice to have an abortion, well then that is between her and her God.

Please see my blog at http://wisevil.blogspot.com/ for more on Religion.

Posted by: wisevil at February 2, 2005 03:47 AM

A life, huh? A chicken life? A rooster life? Certainly not a human life under the Constitution. For the Constitution clearly defines a citizen as one who is BORN in America or BORN elsewhere and naturalized. The fetus is not a citizen and therefore neither state nor federal government has a constitutional right to usurp the rights, freedoms, and choices of the mother who is a citizen in such a matter which is not given to the Constitution to regulate by our forefathers. Want to change it, fine, ammend the Constitution granting citizen rights to the fetus upon conception, and roll out all the laws for manslaughter and infanticide for mothers who lose their fetus due to car accidents of their own making, or falls from skiing, or due to diet or alcohol consumption or drug use, or simply exercising to vigorously which results in a spontaneous abortion. Yep, go ahead, open that can of worms if you dare.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 04:47 AM

David,

Hey, that’s where I was headed next. Don’t think they aren’t already trying to grant those protections to the fetus. Connor’s Law was a round about attempt. Can of worms is right!

Posted by: wisevil at February 2, 2005 05:05 AM

Unconstitutional… Ya know, the ban on US citizens owning machine guns, fully operational tanks and artillery, and military-grade explosives is also unconstitutional - but it’s never been challenged. Some things just make sense.

Here’s an interesting article entitled “Texas Teens Increased Sex After Abstinence Program”

Hmm… Abstinence teaching doesn’t work. Maybe the Christian right is wrong about abortion, too.

Seems to me the Democrats have proposed a better, more pragmatic solution to abortion: Put Prevention First (Senate bill S.20). Provide counseling, family planning, and increased access to contraceptives.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 2, 2005 07:49 AM

wisevil said:
“The Church has a long standing belief that birth control is bad. Birth control of any sort will at some point reduce the number of followers the Church has.”

Sounds exactly like the discussion my insurance man and I had about why birth control pills, a vasectomy, and tube tying are not covered under the insurance/prescription plan.

wisevil said:
“My hope is always that a woman chooses not to have an abortion. If she makes the choice to have an abortion, well then that is between her and her God.”
My thoughts exactly.

Has a Supreme Court judge ever been removed? I don’t remember.

Posted by: dawn at February 2, 2005 08:06 AM

From RightGrrl:

It’s debatable whether there is indeed an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, but regardless of one’s opinion on that, it seems tenuous and irresponsible of the Court to expand this right to the right to terminate the life of the unborn.

I find these type of arguments so laughable. First of all they deny completely the roots of our legal system. The legal system does evolve and is based on precedent. Yet Carolyn tries to negate all of this (while conceding its existence) by reverting back to the language of the constitution and it’s lack of specific verbiage regarding privacy. Also I can’t help but be disturbed by framing the argument that Roe v Wade established a “constitutional right to abortion.” Roe v Wade was simply an interpretation of existing circumstance factored against existing legislation, and how these were unfairly implemented across the nation as it applies to the previously established and articulated right of privacy.

The right to life? Yes, the right to life - ever heard of that? It’s one of those unalienable rights that’s mentioned in the nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal” and are endowed by their Creator with the certain unalienable rights, one being the right to life. The Declaration is clear that this right belongs equally to all human beings. Thus, under this definition of the right to life, there can be no distinction based upon whether human life is “potential” or full.

This assertion is equally disingenuous. This is just her opinion and it is given no further reasoning for accepting her opinion over those of the seven assenting justices in the Roe v Wade decision. She is interpreting. If she were a judge and this were her reasoning for a ruling against Roe v Wade, she would fall into the category of “activist judge” by her earlier assertions that said justices were being “activist” in their decision.

The other two I have thus far read seem well-reasoned. It is a difficult issue and a more difficult ruling, but in the end they still seem to understand the importance of maintaining those principles that were forwarded by Roe v Wade. They simply feel that the ruling itself undermines the effort. A completely understandable position. Nonetheless, this doesn’t imply that since they do not fully support Roe v Wade and its implications then they are therefore against privacy rights.

And Misha, Miranda rights are not to protect criminals, they are to protect those people who are arrested. I’m sure you understand the presumption of innocence and the fact that not all who are arrested are criminals.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 08:59 AM

Human life - the Constitution - Citizenship

Let say that the constitution defines a citizen as one BORN in the America or BORN elsewhere and naturalized.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) “The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

It does not follow from this that the unborn are not human lives, ONLY that the unborn are not yet citizens.

In our legal system, however, murder is not only against the law when the victim is a citizen. Hence, the unborn could still be human lives and still be victims of murder when aborted regardless of how the Consitution defines what a Citizen is.

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626: “In Baldwin v. Franks … it was decided that the word `citizen’ …. was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident’, `inhabitant’, or `person’ …”

The term ‘citizen’ as used by the Courts is a political term, not a biological, metaphysical or philosophical one. It is not a synonym for nor a subsitute for ‘person’, and therefore the citizenship status of the unborn has no bearing on whether or not they are ‘persons’.

The logic which argues based on the consitutional definition to citizenship that the unborn are not human lives is fatally flawed.

Posted by: PajamaHadin at February 2, 2005 10:02 AM

Did I read a different article?

I thought this article was suggesting that the Roe v. Wade decision was “flawed” and quoted several “pro-choice” individuals who support that premise. But, it appears the Roe v. Wade decision cannot be discussed as the focus immediately shifts to abortion.

Looking at the Roe v. Wade decision, I have to say that this is clearly one more example where the Federal Government, in this case the Judiciary, has “usurped” the rights of the States, the very concern of those who opposed the Constitution over 200 years ago, the anti-federalists.

In the last 50 plus years, the 14th Amendment has been used over and over again to “usurp” the rights of the States. Do you think that was the intent of the writers of the Amendment back in the late 1860’s? Do you think that was the intent of those States who ratified it? I don’t!

Posted by: Michael Burns at February 2, 2005 10:51 AM

I was wondering. Are mandantory lobotomies for Republicans contrary to our U.S. Constitution?

Someone’s grandmother once said, “Abortion would not be an issue if fat, white middle-age men would stay out of it.”

All kidding aside, [name calling in reference to other visitors here is not permitted and has been deleted— WatchBlog Manager—] will keep your hands off women’s bodies. It is a choice between them and their god, whomever she may be. “Pro-life” is a joke. You just want to control women.

Posted by: Escobar at February 2, 2005 11:54 AM

Wow. The red column went a full fifteen days without putting womens feet in the stirrups for another abortion article.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2005 11:56 AM

Hey, it wasn’t me this time…

Posted by: AParker at February 2, 2005 12:18 PM

PajamaHadin, nice piece of sophistry. You go from acquiescing to the Constitution NOT defining a fetus as a citizen to the implication that there is a legal constitutional argument for recognizing the fetus as a human life protected by the laws of the Constitution which usurp a citizen mother’s right to choose to become a parent or not. Sorry, it doesn’t wash. The Constitution is based on measurable and empirical events, and whether a sperm impregnated egg is a human being with a soul is not in the purview of the Constitution to determine.

Want it changed, like I said, ammend the constitution and start filling our prisons with women whose only crime was strenuous exercise, or momentary absence of focus while driving a car, or any number of other activities that could result in abortion of a fetus, spontaneously or otherwise. And by all means, we will need to install cameras in every home bathroom to inspect the toilet after every woman uses it to insure she has not chemically induced abortion at home.

Absurdity knows no bounds. Abortion is a religious and moral issue for each woman to decide for herself without fear of the state mandating that she become a baby bearing machine for the state just because a sperm penetrated an egg which she otherwise discards on a monthly basis.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 12:22 PM

You just want to control women.

Escobar-

Its not that simple. Pro-lifers are not ‘twisted evil oxpeckers’, they are people whose faith tells them that fetuses are alive, and they desire that human rights be extended to them. This is in no way scientific, and although you and I may understand how to differentiate, and the need for such distinction, they do not.

Mocking someone for their beliefs is unnecessary. Wasn’t there a conversation the other day about how torturous it was to smear fake menstrual blood on a muslim man? Objectively, it does him no harm, so should that be okay? Granted, verbal abuse is not on the same level, but in comparison is still uncalled for.

Posted by: AParker at February 2, 2005 12:49 PM

David -

…start filling our prisons with women whose only crime was strenuous exercise, or momentary absence of focus while driving a car, or any number of other activities that could result in abortion of a fetus, spontaneously or otherwise. And by all means, we will need to install cameras in every home bathroom to inspect the toilet after every woman uses it to insure she has not chemically induced abortion at home.

You’re right. Absurdity knows no bounds.

Posted by: AParker at February 2, 2005 01:03 PM

AParker,

Thanks, I appreciate your comments, and I believe I see your point. I’ll admit, some of us do tend to resort to “verbal abuse” when physical abuse is not possible. And I agree, empirical science has no bearing on the faith of “believers.”

David,

Another example that comes to mind is someone who has a job in stem cell research or artificial insemination or whatnot, let’s say they just mixed some particular sperm with some particular container of an egg, and it’s quitting time, so unable to properly monitor the container, they simply pour it down the sink. After all, there are more of the same donors’ zygotes available to play with tomorrow. He or she goes to prison, right?

A sad fact is that if every union of sperm and egg survived on this planet, we would all be dead from the problem of overpopulation by now, many times over. The “right-to-lifers” want to save every single one. It’s hard not to mock someone who is that foolish.

Posted by: Escobar at February 2, 2005 02:19 PM

I always love these “States Rights” arguements, when there are regressive states that are oppressing certain members of their population.
When the Feds finally have to move in and limit the individual’s state’s intrusion or oppression of it’s citizen’s you can always count on hearing the cry of “State’s Rights”
Reminds me of the arguements used in the ‘60’s
both 1800’s and 1900’s and from the same Southern area of the country.
Hmmm we fought a civil war over “States Rights”
If a state respects it’s citizens, then there usually is no need for the Fed’s to “interfere”.

Posted by: Russ at February 2, 2005 03:03 PM

Escobar:
“A sad fact is that if every union of sperm and egg survived on this planet, we would all be dead from the problem of overpopulation by now, many times over. The “right-to-lifers” want to save every single one. It’s hard not to mock someone who is that foolish.”

So true.
And as we all know, there’d be far less discussion if we were talking about outlawing the unnecessary spilling of male Sperm.
Hmmm… perhaps since we’re going to have to jail all the women who abort a fertilized egg, we might want to extend the punishment to include every man who engages in unprotected sex, or who has a condom malfunction?

Time for a rousing chorus of “Every Sperm is Sacred”!
OH…
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighbourhood!
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2005 03:08 PM

It is always amusing to read other people’s minds, isn’t it. Democrats are all trying to destroy America, which they hate, and turn it into a communist state. Republicans are all religious zealots, trying to destroy women, who they hate, and turn America into a Christian Afghanistan. Well, it would be amusing if it wasn’t so damaging.

Escobar,
Maybe if you would actually listen to what many right-to lifers believe, instead of stretching their logic to the point of absurdity, it wouldn’t be so hard to refrain from mockery. It is equally easy to stretch pro-choice posistions to include the legalization of infanticide, slavery of children, and justification for abuse or neglect.

A sad fact is that if every union of sperm and egg survived on this planet, we would all be dead from the problem of overpopulation by now, many times over. The “right-to-lifers” want to save every single one.

No one has ever said (well, except opponents) that we wanted to save every single one, just the ones the mother decides to kill.

David,
Your slippery slope apparently leads to horrible consequences, but they are not supported by reality. Children are already considered people, but we don’t prosecute mothers for having car accidents with their children in the car. Murder is already illegal, and murder of spouses is one of the most common types, but we don’t have cameras in everyone’s home to prevent it. Children die in swimming pools, but the parents are not prosecuted. This kind of reasoning is a scare tactic.

Also, I think that Pajamahadin was saying that the the word citizen in the constitution is not synonymous with person, and therefore the fact that a fetus is not defined as a citizen does not preclude the protection of whatever rights it may have. It isn’t a proof of personhood, just saying that the constitution doesn’t slam the door shut on the issue.

I was trying not to get sucked into this one, but I guess I’m an addict.

Posted by: brian at February 2, 2005 03:28 PM

Brian said: “Children are already considered people, but we don’t prosecute mothers for having car accidents with their children in the car.”

That is not true, Brian. Parents driving drunk and failing a railroad crossing that kills their children can and are prosecuted for manslaughter.

Children die in swimming pools, but the parents are not prosecuted.

Also not true if they are neighbor’s kids - not sure of the record on one’s own children, but, Child Protective Services have handled cases of neglect involving swimming pools, threatening and even removing the children from the home, if no deaths are involved. If there is a history of neglect, prosecution will proceed in the event of child death.

You can’t wish our laws away or their consequences in real life just because it is not convenient to your argument. Call your child protective services and ask if they don’t turn cases over to the District Attorney for negligence and prosecution. Check your District Attorney’s site for prosecutions of parents for negligence involving their children. You will be surprised.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 04:08 PM

Brian wrote:

“It is always amusing to read other people’s minds, isn’t it. Democrats are all trying to destroy America, which they hate, and turn it into a communist state. Republicans are all religious zealots, trying to destroy women, who they hate, and turn America into a Christian Afghanistan. Well, it would be amusing if it wasn’t so damaging.”

That IS amusing to me to hear some of these absolute statements on these pages. But I have a somewhat warped sense of humor. Democrats are trying to remedy some of the faults of unbridled, unregulated capitalism, ie: “greed”. Republicans are trying to control women, whom they are afraid of, not necessarily destroy them. It’s pathetic that so-called christian women go along with this. But, I digress. I guess you were just trying to demonstrate your own grasp of the absurd, right?

More from Brian:
“Escobar, Maybe if you would actually listen to what many right-to lifers believe, instead of stretching their logic to the point of absurdity, it wouldn’t be so hard to refrain from mockery.”

Brian, I do listen to what they say; I do wonder sometimes what the hell they believe! Many of them are the same voices who advocate the killing of over 100,000 civilians in our current wargames because it is part of their faith and belief in the need to “spread democracy.” They are apparently OK with about a million homeless kids in this country, on the street. They approve of the current administration’s senseless economic policies, which will produce gross financial hardship for the children of today, thus continuing the downward spiral of general human welfare. Or lack thereof.

If I were a woman, which I am not, and I determined that I needed an abortion, I would dare anyone to stop me. That includes police, politicians, or right-to-lifers. And I & my supporters would take whatever means necessary to see that no one interfered in any way.

Posted by: Escobar at February 2, 2005 04:33 PM

“‘Pro-life’ is a joke. You just want to control women.”

As someone staunchly pro-life, I challenge this presumption. I dislike emotional blathering, but the blight of abortion has intensely personal effects. There are siblins, cousins, friends that many of us will never know because they were not given a chance to live.

We have a good deal of control over actions that bring about life, but as a Christian I believe that only God has the right to take that life away. The Bible says to “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter” (Proverbs 24:11) and speaks strongly against the mistreatment of the innocent in numerous passages. The shedding of innocent blood has a significant effect upon the entire community (Matthew 27:24-25), not just those who physically commit the act.

If a community is thus responsible for the protection of all of its members (including the unborn - there’s already been plenty of discussion above about this), then those who act to protect the innocent benefit the whole community, and their actions come from a desire to protect - not control.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 2, 2005 04:43 PM

I dislike emotional blathering […] There are siblins, cousins, friends that many of us will never know because they were not given a chance to live.

Er, there’s something wrong with this juxtaposition of assertions.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 05:19 PM

Gandhi said: “There are siblins, cousins, friends that many of us will never know because they were not given a chance to live.”

Just as every sperm that my body reabsorbs or egg discharged in menstruation is a potential sibling, cousing, friend you will never know. So your point is that God or nature is a murder? Your statement above appears to be emotional blathering to me, “Oh god, I grieve for the cousin I never knew”. Give me a break.

I believe that only God has the right to take that life away.

So, does that give you the right to tell others what they can and can’t do? I don’t think so, not in a democracy. Try a theocracy like Iran if you don’t like America’s freedom from being dictated to by religious groups.

then those who act to protect the innocent benefit the whole community

And Pro Choicers are working to protect the innocent women of this country from being forced by the state to become baby making machines when they don’t want to be. Protecting individual freedom to choose parenting or not is a benefit to the whole community.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 05:23 PM

Russ said:

I always love these “States Rights” arguements, when there are regressive states that are oppressing certain members of their population.

A careful read of the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments thereof clearly demonstrates that the States were to retain much of the powers they had prior to its adoption. The Consitution, hence the Federal Government, was to govern the relationships between the States and areas of the Country beyond the boundaries of the States.

The 10th Amendment clearly points out that the States retained all but those powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution and those specifically prohibited to the States by the Constitution. For example, the 1st Amendment protected the rights of the citizens from acts of the Federal Government in terms of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or freedom of association. However, the 1st Amendment nor anything in the Constitution precluded the States from restricting those freedoms.

It is with the 14th Amendment that we see an “opening” for usurpation of States rights. It is th “equal protection” clause that has allowed the Federal Government, specifically the Judiciary, to intrude on the activities of the States.

If a state respects it’s citizens, then there usually is no need for the Fed’s to “interfere”.

Herein lines the problem. What do you define as “respecting it’s citizens?” In this day and age of relativism, one person’s “right” is another person’s “wrong”. Whose “right” is correct?

The government closest to the people can best determine what the citizens want and the Constitution supported that. For example, if the citizens of the city in which I live wanted to name an official religion, I believe the Constitution would have allowed that. However, with the current interpretations of the 14th Amendment, that would never happen today.

Posted by: Michael Burns at February 2, 2005 05:36 PM

David,
The mother driving drunk was breaking a law, in that she was driving drunk, and the prosecution stems from that. Your comment was:

start filling our prisons with women whose only crime was strenuous exercise, or momentary absence of focus while driving a car

. Drivers who really only have a momentary absence of focus do not get prosecuted. Likewise, in your swimming pool example, a fetus is the mother’s kid, so the neighbor’s kid in your pool does not count.
I know that neglect is punishable by law, but usually is only in extreme cases. Even when children are taken from abusive or neglectful homes, the major goal of the foster care system is to return them to their parents.
I realize that prosecutions for negligence would be an issue in the case abortion was criminalized. However, the law distinguishes intent from action. Even in cases of murder, if there is no intent to kill the sentence is much lighter, if it is prosecuted at all.

Your arguments are trying to paint a picture of an overwhelming government presence, with cameras in every house. If that was going to happen, every law would have lead to that extreme. It is faulty to argue that it would happen in this case.

Escobar
Yes, I was demonstrating absurdities. Anyone who actually agrees with either of those statements has serious problems with perspective. I agree with you about Democrats, and the problems with hypocrisy. I think, or at least hope, however, that there are a large number of Republicans who don’t like the war, who give generously to help the homeless, and who just care so much about abortion they can’t support a Democrat. Support for the travesties of the Bush administration doesn’t necessarily negate the reasons for opposing abortion. I maintain that if you actually think that most pro-lifers want to do away with abortion because they fear women and like controlling them, that you are talking to the wrong pro-lifers. It’s an assertion I hear a lot, but I’ve never heard any reasoning behind it.

Posted by: brian at February 2, 2005 05:40 PM

Brian, do you understand anything about negligence in the law? Driving Drunk is a negligent act which, if it results in the death of another, will be prosecuted as manslaughter. If you outlaw abortion, and a pregnant woman participates in let’s say skiing a steep slope which results in an accident in which the baby dies, a crime of negligence has been committed. There is no manslaughter charge for being drunk, nor for driving drunk. It stems from negligence of due diligence which results in the loss of life to a person.

The exact same principle of law will apply with mothers who have accidents and abort, which in the eyes of the law, or jurors, resulted from the lack of due diligence. And Escobar is right. I remember when abortion was illegal in Michigan, and I also remember the whispered stories about abandoned house and back alley abortions. Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion. In fact, it will simply discriminate against the poor who can’t afford to travel to another country where abortions are legal, and it will add to our prisons women whose only crime was to exercise choice as to whether or not they could or should become a mother.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 05:57 PM

Gandhi wrote: “If a community is thus responsible for the protection of all of its members (including the unborn - there’s already been plenty of discussion above about this), then those who act to protect the innocent benefit the whole community, and their actions come from a desire to protect - not control.”

I don’t care what that community’s “desire” is. They have no business whatsoever interfering with what a woman does or does not do with her own body. The thing they want to protect is their belief system. Face it, we are now in the Age of Aquarius, and religion is going out with the bathwater and the baby!

In a democracy, it is my understanding that a just “community” acts according to its LAWS, not its religious beliefs, to protect AND to a certain extent, control its citizens. If said community allows its legislature or its governing bodies to implement too much religious belief into its laws, it could be said that it desires more to control its citizens, since that IS the purpose of religion. Whether you admit it or not.

Hypothetically, if a “staunchly pro-life” person believes that only God can take a life, how can you justify the murder of a physician who performs abortions? Or can you?

Posted by: Escobar at February 2, 2005 06:13 PM

David,

Does invalidating Roe v. Wade mean abortions are illegal? No!

Because of Roe v. Wade, currently no State in the Union has a law making abortion illegal. Simply invalidating Roe v. Wade does not create a law that makes abortion illegal. It will merely allow the States to address that question. Considering the environment today, do you really believe that the States would quickly ban abortions? Do you really believe the voters in each State would support such a ban?

Posted by: Michael Burns at February 2, 2005 06:17 PM

Bunch of stuff to correct:

1. First off, the pro-choice people on this thread are missing the point of those who believe in legal abortion but disagree with Roe v. Wade. Notice the very first response on the thread said: “Let’s just say the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, ruling at some point that life begins at conception.” Of course, this is NOT what the conservative justices on the court are calling for. What Scalia has said in his dissents is that the Court should have no say about abortion because the constitution does not answer the question.

Now I am not saying I agree with that, but this is a position completley consistent with someone who wants to keep abortion legal, but actually respects our constitution enough not to read rights in there that are not in there. Like I said in my original posts- you guys dont really care about the constitution, just what policies twisting it can allow you to accomplish without putting the question before the american people. Abortion and the death penalty are just two examples of how the left wants to avoid actually asking the people on issues that the constitution does not settle in their favor (based both on the historical perspective of those who wrote the amendments, and the theoretical principles underlying those amendments)

2. David, I do not know why you continue trotting out this bogus “citizenship” argument. First, non-citizens, including people who are here on vacations from Poland recieve legal protections against having their lives taken, and EVERY court would rule that this is not only legitimate but required. Second, unborn children are already recognized under the law- not only in double homocide statutes for killing pregnant mothers, but also they are allowed to inherit property, allowed to be represented by a lawyer for certain proceedings already.

As a result, the following comment makes absolutely no sense: “The fetus is not a citizen and therefore neither state nor federal government has a constitutional right to usurp the rights, freedoms, and choices of the mother who is a citizen in such a matter which is not given to the Constitution to regulate by our forefathers.” Your FREEDOM not to kill visitors to our country (NON CITIZENS) has been taken away by every jurisdiction in this nation. This removal of your freedom is not only constitutionally allowed, but morally required. As a result, this argument, as it was before, remains empty. Will you please drop this line of argumentation- or will you now argue that visitors to this country who have no interest in being naturalized are not allowed to be protected by our laws? I really want you to answer this question.

3. Another pro-abortion argument here is that if we recognize unborn children, then mothers would have to be monitored. This is patently false. I responded to this in a previous post, so here it is again:

One possible objection to this model is that admitting that mothers have legally-enforceable duties to their unborn children would lead to intrusive monitoring of pregnancies. This is actually one of two objections: (i) Mothers should be able to do anything, no matter how much harm this brings to their unborn children. This is easily answered by the realization that mothers have duties to their unborn children. The second, more powerful objection is: (ii) while we concede that doing things extremely harmful to an unborn child is wrong and should be outlawed, we are not comfortable allowing this amount of monitoring. This is a strong objection, but hardly a novel one. Our constitution places limits on our ability to catch many people who have committed the most heinous crimes. The Fourth Amendment is the quintessential example of this trade off- it allows hundreds of thousands of criminals to escape punishment because police cannot use techniques like warrantless in-home searches. The same concerns and balancing could apply to actions of pregnant mothers. For example, the law could simply stop at outlawing all abortions not resulting from rape or done to protect the life of the mother. The enforcement would be limited to shutting down all doctors who perform abortions, requiring no monitoring of mothers. While some abortions would still occur, this would be no different than the extra crimes that occur because of the Fourth Amendment.

Moreover, lots of infants die while in the care of their mothers, and they are not prosecuted. Its all a matter of where we draw the line. But it is rather obvious that the line is somewhere short of purposefully taking the life of the unborn child.

4. Here is an unrelated statement that is also confused- “And Misha, Miranda rights are not to protect criminals, they are to protect those people who are arrested. I’m sure you understand the presumption of innocence and the fact that not all who are arrested are criminals. “

the actual rights said during miranda are fully protected under the constitution (bill of rights). What is laughable is the fact that the supreme court has invented a requirement that policy need to go through a silly exercize of reading the rights to arested people. Please, I ask you, point me to the place in the constitution that says that people must be read their rights while being arrested. since you cannot, the supreme court has no right to force police officers to do it.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 2, 2005 06:41 PM

Where in the consitution does it say I’m required to have my car insured to be able to use public roads?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 06:46 PM

Where in the constitution does it say that drugs must meet certain safety requirements before they can be marketed to the public?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 06:51 PM

Where in the constitution does it state that national parks should be established?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 06:53 PM

Joseph,

Where in the consitution does it say I’m required to have my car insured to be able to use public roads?

No where!

The mandatory insurance laws have been passed by the individual States.

The question is, does the Constitution contain language that prohibits the States from making such laws? No, it does not!

Likewise, the Constitution does not contain language the would prevent the States from regulating abortions. It was the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade that “usurped” that power from the States.

Posted by: Michael Burns at February 2, 2005 06:59 PM

Joseph, I dont mean to be patrionizing, so just bear with me. Under our system of government, if the constitution does not say anything on an issue, that issue is decided by your elected officials.

So to answer your three questions- nowhere, nowhere and nowhere. As a result, either your state or federal government has established these things via your elected officials. Now as for the national government, there are certain enumerated powers that limit what the federal government can do, and for your state government, each one will differ. So, for example, Congress, arguably, has power under the commerce clause to regulate drugs which are shipped between states.

But the very simple point here is the supreme court can only declare something is constitutionally required if its, you know, in the constitution. Otherwise, get to the ballot box! What has happend on issues like Miranda and just re-written the constitution to say what it wanted, without any basis.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 2, 2005 07:00 PM

Uhhh, like, wouldn’t controlling my own body’s internal status be, like, central to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? How is it unconstitutional to require quartering of soldiers in your house, but not to force you to keep a fetus in your womb? I realize that there are niceties of “legal reasoning” that don’t exactly follow those of ordinary logic (those lawyer dudes have come up with some doozies!). But come on, now, what good is a constitutional protection of personal sovereignty if it doesn’t cover this issue? “Strict constructionists” (a clear misnomer) perpetuate a fiction that the constitution was conceived of as a rigid, inflexible document, much the way fundamental Christians and Muslims view their Holy Books as rigid and inflexible. However, I submit that it has NEVER been treated that way, not even by the framers. So, in that circumstance, what does strict construction mean? Food for thought, anyway. Meanwhile, let’s let the ladies control their own wombs, shall we?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 2, 2005 07:56 PM

Michael Burns, do you really expect folks to take your comment seriously? Of course if you overturn Roe v. Wade, abortions will become illegal in those states that vote to make it illegal. Duh!!!! Roe v. Wade prevents state governments from making it illegal. That is the importance of Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 08:15 PM

Misha said: “2. David, I do not know why you continue trotting out this bogus “citizenship” argument. First, non-citizens, including people who are here on vacations from Poland recieve legal protections against having their lives taken, and EVERY court would rule that this is not only legitimate but required. Second, unborn children are already recognized under the law- not only in double homocide statutes for killing pregnant mothers, but also they are allowed to inherit property, allowed to be represented by a lawyer for certain proceedings already.”

I don’t understand why you keep responding with this bogus argument of yours. The Constitution does not address the unborn in foreign countries, nor in the US. It does however address the rights, freedoms, and pursuit of happiness for born individuals. That is the whole point. The Constitution grants no rights or protections to unborn persons save as they may have value to their parent/s. Therefore, there is no Constitutional basis for outlawing a woman’s freedom of choice over when she chooses to become a mother. There is no overriding compelling interest of the state to infringe upon a woman’s right to choose when she will become a mother.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 08:22 PM

Misha said: “But it is rather obvious that the line is somewhere short of purposefully taking the life of the unborn child.”

Obvious to whom, you? Not to me or most pro-choice Americans. So you are arguing that it should be legal to engage in activities that may render a fetus deformed, brain dead, or even aborted accidentally, but, intentional abortion through a choice of a mother to not be a mother should be illegal? I don’t buy it. That is pure and simply undercutting the value of the fetus pro-life want embodied into law, Misha.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 08:28 PM

Misha said: “since you cannot, the supreme court has no right to force police officers to do it.”

The Constitution requires due process before the state can deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property. There it is, in the Constitution. The Constitution leaves the question of WHAT due process is open and subject to the will of the Congress. C’mon, Misha, that should be obvious. Miranda was decided to be necessary protection of the presumed innocent at the hands of officers of the state who can have numerous vested interests in arresting innocent people as well as guilty people. The number of innocents be freed from our prisons based on DNA evidence should be ample proof that is so, not to mention political pressures on mayors, governors and other Executives to capture someone, if need be, anyone, to get the political heat off their backs.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 08:35 PM

Micheal Burns said :”The question is, does the Constitution contain language that prohibits the States from making such laws? No, it does not!

Likewise, the Constitution does not contain language the would prevent the States from regulating abortions. It was the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade that “usurped” that power from the States.”

That was quite a slight of hand. The states were usurping a woman’s right to choose when she would become a parent and forcing her to seek unlicensed and antiseptic medical assistance to fulfill her choice NOT to become a mother. Roe v. Wade, ended the states violation of a woman’s right and freedom to both choose when she becomes a parent as well as her right to seek competent and responsible medical assistance to fulfill her choice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 08:38 PM

Misha your argument about : if it is not in the Constitution specifically, the states have the right to infringe upon citizens in whatever ways they so choose is absurd.

The Constitution does not specifically prohibit states from torturing arestees in order to force a confession from them either. But, it does state that citizens have the rights not expressly denied by the Constitution or law, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And precedent dictates that removing citizen’s rights is only justified when there is a compelling state interest in doing so. Where is the compelling state interest in denying a woman’s right to choose when she will become a mother and where is the state’s compelling interest in depriving a woman intent on abortion from receiving competent medical assistance?

As I have always contended, if you want to deny women’s rights to choose when to become a mother and to deprive her of competent medical facilities, ammend the Constitution declaring the fetus a human being at conception entitled to all the rights of any citizen or human non-citizen. Once you do that, prepare for all kinds of suits and new laws designed to protect fetuses from the normal lives of mothers while she is carrying.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 08:47 PM

David, I am afraid your constitutional analysis is rather lacking. First off, if you are saying there is no basis in the FEDERAL constitution to protect unborn children (a very doubtful proposition), you are making no claims about whether STATES can outlaw abortions. Since, as you say, the constitution does not speak to unborn children (i think it does, but lets just take you line of argumentation), the states have a full right to outlaw aboriton, just like they outlaw all kinds of crimes (including crimes against animals, for goodness sakes).

In fact, states like California already outlaw the killing the unborn children, but punish it just like killing any other person (that is, anyone but the other will be thrown in jail for killing the unborn child, but if the mother does it, its perfectly ok). strange, ha? Moreover, every state allows unborn chidren rights in terms of inheritence, right to be represented by a gaurdian ad lidum ect…

Your Miranda point is even stranger, you say: “The Constitution requires due process before the state can deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property. There it is, in the Constitution. The Constitution leaves the question of WHAT due process is open and subject to the will of the Congress.”

yet it is the supreme court that decided Miranda- and when Congress attempted to get rid of Miranda, the supreme court overruled them (!!!). Moreover, Miranda is not even decided on due process grounds, but rather on right to remain silent grounds. Thats right folks, but reading the clause that allows people to remain silent, the supreme court decided that this REQUIRED reading rights to those arrested, even though Congress disagreed.

You see, once you start studying this stuff in depth, the lengths the supreme court will go to in the name of the “constitution” are mind-boggling.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 2, 2005 09:07 PM

“And precedent dictates that removing citizen’s rights is only justified when there is a compelling state interest in doing so. Where is the compelling state interest in denying a woman’s right to choose when she will become a mother and where is the state’s compelling interest in depriving a woman intent on abortion from receiving competent medical assistance?”

According to the SUPREME COURT, the state has a compeling state interest in the life of an unborn child (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey). This is why it can outlaw killing of unborn children by ANYONE other than the mother. Yet the supreme court has decided that this interest (for some reason NOT guided by the constitution) goes away when the nother is involved. Its completely sophistry.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 2, 2005 09:17 PM

Misha said: “You see, once you start studying this stuff in depth, the lengths the supreme court will go to in the name of the “constitution” are mind-boggling.”

Thank god it is so! For mob rule over individuals who choose differently from the mob would obliterate innvative thinking, creativity, and individualism. I agree with the Supreme Court’s ability to weigh state interest against personal freedom by interpreting intent and meaning in the 21st century of a document drafted in the 1700’s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 09:21 PM

Misha,

I just got back from a court appearance so this is all very fresh in my mind ;). In every case, the judge clearly stated the rights of the defendant before any plea could be entered. This is a matter of legal procedure and it helps the state maintain credibility by avoiding the appearance of coercion or manipulation while affirming and protecting the rights of the citizenry (by way of the Fifth Amendment). In the exact same vein, the SCOTUS, in ruling on a largely unregulated mess of legal systems in all 50 states on matters regarding the arrest, interrogation, and custody of suspects, decided that it might behoove the state to impose a simple requirement that all arresting officers must make the suspect aware of his rights upon arrest.

You are right, and I won’t argue the point: It is a case of the SCOTUS creating policy directly. But in this instance it deals with the protection of the rights and welfare of American citizens in all cases of criminal law, adds legitimacy to such proceedings, and does not create any undue burden on officers. Primarily, it is mandating policy on the part of the state, and not behavior on the part of the citizenry. So, you might want to argue that it is silly or whathaveyou, but you would be arguing on behalf of the state and not of the people. The SCOTUS on the other hand had the people’s interests in mind when ruling on Miranda v Arizona. And I have a deep appreciation for this. And anyone who appreciates the Jeffersonian ideal of being ever-vigilant against the abuses of the state should know that Miranda is far from trivial.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 09:54 PM

Misha, You mean like the rights of citizens vs. non-citizens. Two different standards. You can deport non-citizens, but, you can’t exile citizens. The law is full of such distinctions.

The unborn fetus like children and wifes, were once chattel, belonging to the husband or father. While we have seen fit to grant full citizen legal protections to children and wives, the fetus still belongs to the mother as valued property if she so chooses, which no other has a right to take from her. Not much sophistry in that. In the same direction, no other has the right to force a woman to have a child she does not want. There is no compelling state interest in such a law. There is compelling relgious interest, but, then, we believe religious choice should be up to each individual citizen having attained the age of consent. Religious freedom is the right to exercise one’s own religious beliefs, NOT the right to impose those on others.

See, no sophistry, just straight forward logical and rational reasoning.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 10:07 PM

David, I agree completely that the treatment of unborn children currently has the same INTERNAL logic that husbands’ ownership of his wife and children, and southerns’ ownership of his slaves once did. But like those other immoral arrangments, this one has an external inconsistency with what is right that it will not last. As Lincoln once said, no person is good enough to own another person.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 2, 2005 10:10 PM

Now, you brought up Dickerson v United States. Warren, in Miranda v Arizona, admitted that the rules of admissibility as set down by the SCOTUS weren’t the only constitutionally acceptable procedures and wanted Congress to rule on it. And they did. They abrogated it with the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, which just goes to show who we should be trusting with the protection of our rights.

From the FindLaw link above:

This Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts to prescribe binding rules of evidence and procedure.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 10:24 PM

Joseph, the problem is that if Miranda is based upon the rules of “evidence and procedure” then the Court would have no authority to impose it on STATE court proceedings (each state has its own rules for evidence and procedure, and the state supreme court is the highest authority on those). Actually, our final last year in criminal justice was how to square Dickerson with Miranda- basically because they are not reconciable (given that Miranda invalidated four STATE law practices).

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 2, 2005 10:27 PM

Well, this is why I mentioned earlier the mess of 50 different implementations of admissibility. The SCOTUS is the only medium to address such matters of unequal protection. And it did its job.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 10:54 PM

Ghandi said I believe that only God has the right to take that life away.

David R. Remer said So, does that give you the right to tell others what they can and can’t do? I don’t think so, not in a democracy.

See this is the heart of the abortion issue for me. And as I try to catch up on this thread and get back on subject, I don’t really see the need to go any further than this (though I probably will).

Should abortion be a matter of law other than to protect people’s rights?

I have yet to see any compelling arguments. I mostly hear a lot of emotional appeals, which are fallacious. You may find the act reprehensible but such an opinion, now matter how righteous, does not qualify as necessary public policy because such policy, based on popular opinion which is likely to be transient, infringes upon the privacy rights of other citizens as it applies to their life and liberty.

It all boils down to this: Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.

It is interesting, though, to see people struggle, on the one hand, to discredit the SCOTUS for the Roe v Wade ruling as activist by way of liberal interpretation, and on the other hand, to make the assertion that their interpretation of the constitution is both strict and valid - even more valid. Though flawed, this is at least the secular approach to the argument. The earlier opinion of PajamaHadin (love the name) is completely valid and impossible to refute. He’s right, personhood is not qualified by birth or citizenship. But, and this is a big but…

This brings us to the viability aspect. When does personhood begin? I am all for the viability argument. Late term abortion is a valid issue of prohibition. And this isn’t to be confused with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban which is based on procedure and not on viability. But early term abortions are still nebulous, and I favor erring on the side of protecting the privacy rights of the existing and verifiable citizen.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 11:22 PM

All this talk of life when so many are dying for stupid reasons. What about the single mother who raises her kid alone? You care about the kid as a fetus but become indifferent the split second he is born. Sick.

Posted by: Aldous at February 2, 2005 11:41 PM

Well surmised, JB, though of course my conclusions are slightly different from yours. I can agree with you up to the point of “Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.” You mention privacy, life and liberty as the three rights affected over the abortion issue. I see the privacy and liberty of one party in conflict with the life and liberty of another. From the pro-life perspective, liberty cancels out on the scale so it’s right to privacy vs. right to life. From the abortion-on-demand perspective, there is only one person at stake, and thus no moral dilema.

I strongly supported the partial birth abortion ban. Unimportant, because the particular procedure of “partial birth abortion” that is now outlawed was uncommon enough that it didn’t affect many abortions. Important for the principle of it (every life counts) and the precedent that was set of making some form of abortion illegal - which makes RvW look even more questionable.

David said: “‘Oh god, I grieve for the cousin I never knew’. Give me a break.” This seems to me rather callous. I suppose one should disregard the Holocaust if one doesn’t know any Jews? This is the weakest piece of writing I’ve seen you post yet.

If you don’t want to be a “baby-making machine”, then don’t get yourself pregnant. (The percentages of abortions from rape and incest comprise less than 2%, and may be excluded from this statement.)

Posted by: Gandhi at February 3, 2005 12:21 AM

Aldous - please don’t be so quick to assume that those of us who are pro-life are indifferent to other social issues. Also FYI there are quite a few pro-life Democrats, including some of the new leadership in the new Democratic party.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 3, 2005 12:28 AM

Misha said: “As Lincoln once said, no person is good enough to own another person.”

First, Lincoln was talking about born persons. A fetus is not yet a person. That aside, do you propose that a mother is not the owner of her child? Who is, the state? Didn’t we rejoice over the fall of the USSR where the state took charge of everyone’s life. Best leave the ownership of the fetus to the mother, I trust mothers on the whole far more than I trust government officials.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 01:36 AM

David, that reminds me of when people said to Lincoln, “well the Decleration of Indepedence was only talking about white people.” Same argument, i guess it never gets old.

As for who owns unborn children, the answer is NO ONE. A person can never own another person. Parents do not own their children, they have certain rights and duties, but the children are self-owners, just like all beings of our species.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 3, 2005 01:53 AM

Gandhi said: David said: “‘Oh god, I grieve for the cousin I never knew’. Give me a break.” This seems to me rather callous.

No more callous than passing a beggar on the street and failing to toss a buck or two. No more callous than going off to kill nameless faceless people in the name of democracy and freedom. No more callous than refusing to contemplate the loss and sorrow of all the seed I have spent in my life that never fertilized an egg. Nor more callous than women refusing to get depressed over the all the daughters and sons they will never know because they menstruated those potential human beings away by choice.

Get a grip Ghandi. Callous, I don’t think so. Common sense is more like it.

I suppose one should disregard the Holocaust if one doesn’t know any Jews?

I don’t emotionally grieve for the Neanderthals that became extinct either, does that make me heartless? The holocaust was the destruction of human beings who knew before and during their suffering and death what was happening to them, what they had and lost, what they will never have. A fetus has no more concept of these things than the sperm in my body that is reabsorbed and converted. Helluva a difference Gandhi. I can empathize with holocaust victims without being jewish. I can’t empathize with reabsorbed sperm, mestruated eggs, or fetuses which have no cognition of past, or future, or loss any more than a sperm or egg.

This is the weakest piece of writing I’ve seen you post yet.

I suppose it would appear that way to those without comprehension or appreciation of the mertis of the arguments. However, you seem to be engaged in an awful lot of defending as a result of this weakest piece of writing.

If you don’t want to be a “baby-making machine”, then don’t get yourself pregnant.

That’s funny. Kind a like saying if you don’t want to get fat, don’t eat. If you don’t want to damage your lungs in Los Angeles, don’t breathe. If you don’t want to be pregnant one should never permit themselves to know the love and joy of lovemaking, both giving and receiving. How absurd. Lovemaking is as natural as breathing and eating, and it would seem Christians have a real problem with that, not surprising considering the history. And what of the 4 or 6% who use condoms that break, or the 2 to 4 % who get pregnant despite taking the pill? What of rape and incest, or pregnancy in those who have not yet achieved the age of reason? Tough luck huh, get a job and support that brat that many mothers or 14 or 16 years of age will come to resent. Motherhood is HARD WORK, full time hard work, and requires one either be rich or willing and able emotionally and psychologically to sacrifice a huge amount of choice and opportunity for that child.

If one is not ready for that responsibility, the fetus in many cases will be better off not having been born to a mother ill prepared to be one.

(The percentages of abortions from rape and incest comprise less than 2%, and may be excluded from this statement.)

I am glad to hear that. So abortion is not wrong inherently, just when you say it is. I thought so.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 02:03 AM

Misha, you must be tired. You said: “David, that reminds me of when people said to Lincoln, “well the Decleration of Indepedence was only talking about white people.”

Times change, born human beings who were only 3/5 citizens and black thankfully became recognized as full citizens. But, a fetus by any definition other than that of the religious one which imparts a soul onto that blob of dividing cells, is not a person. Just as a sperm is not a person, nor a menstruated human egg.

The Constitution talks about the rights and privileges and responsibilities and duties of people Born in this land, or born elsewhere and immigrated to this land. No where does it impart personhood on sperm (now viewed as property of the father in sperm bank), unfertilized eggs (now viewed as property of the woman, btw, under law), nor fetuses, which the law acknowledges as belonging to biological parents except where legal proceedings have deemed otherwise.

So you might want to rethink your statement regarding ownership of children and especially fetuses. Are you suggesting that in vitro fertilization does not confer ownership of the fertilized egg back to the donors of either sperm, egg, or both? C’mon….. Legally it is OWNED by the parents as theft of same would sure spur law enforecement to locate and return the fertilized egg back to its rightful owners if possible.

You are sounding like a lawyer, playing with words to force them to defy common sense to make your case.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 03:18 AM

David, I am getting a bit tired, you are right. You arguments are completely circular on this issue, but they are such a tight circle that you cannot even see you way out of it. If you look to embryology, there is no fundamental change in your species, DNA or unique make up from conception- as a result, conception is the only non-artificial starting point for human life. Every other definition is either complete ever shifting non-sense (viability) or pure convenience lacking moral relevance (birth). In fact, your definition that a magical trip from one location (womb) to another (hospital room) is a bizarre, mystical place for choosing when personhood begins.

The constitution does not define personhood at birth, it defines citizenship at birth. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, visitors in this country, who are not citizens, are fully protected by our laws against killing- they do not have every right of citizens, but they have every right of human beings (and, by the way, this exactly why justice Thomas is wrong to say that prisoners in the war on terror have no rights- despite them not being citizens). What imparts personhood on these visitors is not what the constitution says, it’s the very same logic that imparted personhood on black regardless of whether Jefferson had slaves or not. And it is the same thing that imparts personhood on a child, regardless of whether she happens to be located in a womb on an operating table. It is that they are of the same species as us, regardless of whether we find it convenient to recognize it or not. In fact, our law recognizes this ALREADY by subjecting a person who kills an unborn child to a murder conviction (unless that person happens to be the unborn child’s mother- and even then, mother have been convicted for taking cocaine while pregnant, dealing to the death of her child, but if she kills the unborn child deliberately, it’s a-ok).

So the current state of the law is that an unborn child IS a person, unless her mother decides she is not. So one person gets to decide the personhood of another. This is a perverse state of the law can only be explained by (1) a confusion in legal and moral reasoning; (2) pure self-interest of those with power (men and women who benefit from abortions) over those without power (the unborn children). So yes, this is exactly why I am getting a bit tired.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 3, 2005 03:35 AM

Misha said: “The constitution does not define personhood at birth, it defines citizenship at birth.”

Bingo! Give that man a cigar! And the Constitution does not acknowledge a fetus as either a person or a citizen. Voila. No Constitutional basis for depriving a woman a right to choose when and if she will become a parent and certainly no Constitutional basis for forcing her to become a parent just because she had sex willingly or otherwise.

Nothing circular about it, Misha.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 08:43 AM

Misha said: “This is a perverse state of the law”

Only for those who oppose abortion, Misha, only for them. And unlike Pro Choice folks, those who oppose abortion intend to impose their values and restrict the freedoms over a woman’s right to choose and what happens to her body on a vast number of other Americans.

BTW, if a pregnant mother conceives in the US but, is deported back to her native land and gives birth there, do you propose that the baby be entitled to US citizenship or protection under US law as a person in a foreign land by virtue of it being conceived in the US?

Also, if American GI’s impregnate women of other nationalalities overseas, as was commonplace in Viet Nam, are those children to be granted citizenship or legal protections by the US by virtue of conception having resulted from the sperm having come from an American male?

If as you propose, a woman must see her pregnancy through to term due to unintentional impregnation, do GI’s have an obligation to provide child support for their babies created overseas in overseas women? Quite a double standard you have there.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 08:56 AM

“If one is not ready for that responsibility, the fetus in many cases will be better off not having been born to a mother ill prepared to be one.” -David

Again, here is the fundamental difference in our two arguments. You refuse to recognize the personhood of the fetus (Latin: “offspring” or “young one”). I think everyone should have a right to live. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Someday we will be called to account for the murder of the unborn.

This was supposed to be a discussion on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade, so this is my final post on the subject. Have fun rebutting me.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 3, 2005 10:03 AM

Gandhi said: “Again, here is the fundamental difference in our two arguments. You refuse to recognize the personhood of the fetus (Latin: “offspring” or “young one”).”

Bingo! Absolutely correct, in accordance with my own relgious beliefs and experience.

“All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Notice he doesn’t include sperm, non-fertilized eggs, nor fetuses. Significant, don’t you think?

Someday we will be called to account for the murder of the unborn.

Maybe your god will call you to account, mine won’t. The only way nature will call us to account is if there is an extinction of the human species underway, but, even then, if the species is going extinct, past numbers will likely not be relevant since, whatever is making the species go exinct would affect all of the species anyway, regardless of initial number.

The world is too damned overpopulated with human species in the first place. If for no other reason I find that one a sound basis for rejecting forced motherhood by the state.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 11:07 AM

David, your arguments on this topic really amaze me. I have repeatedly argued with not even an attempt from you to counter that visitors to our country, who have NOT been defined as citizens or anything else under our constitution, are protected by our laws from being killed. Heck, even ANIMALS recieve legal protections from certain actions, even actions by citizens. So under your bizzare world-view, the government is legitimate in protecting endanger species from being killed, but unborn children, who are of the same species as us, and are human beings under every medical definition are unable to be protected.

There is only one explanation for such a line of reasoning- its attempting to finds SOME, ANY justification for an ends you wish to achieve. Sadly, your justification is so novel and incoherent that I have never heard anyone put it foward (pro-choice arguments are usually based upon moral skepticism and balancing of interest). I understand that you have deap FEELINGS about the right to choose an abortion, but your feelings on this issue cannot override the minimal protections that every being of our species should logically have under our laws.

Oh, by the way, based on your logic, you must completely agree with Justice Thomas that enemy combatants in the war on terror should have no rights whatsoever, because they are not “citizens” and have not been naturalized either… I guess making extreme arguments creates interesting bed fellows.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 3, 2005 11:42 AM

As for your other questions- those are all a matter of jurisdiction. Someone should hold the GI accountable to pay child support, i am not sure which country. The answer to that would not be based upon a moral argument, but rather based upon the same arguments that jurisdictional disputes are always decided on- judical efficiency. Under our laws, if a man gets a woman pregnant, he has full responsibility to pay child support to the child, even if he offers to pay for an abortion. Yet, a mother has the right to end all of her responsibilities with no reprocutions.

Also, you refuse to answer the point that under our laws it is mothers that get to decide if an unborn child is human or not AT THE TIME OF THE PREGNANCY. So, if a mother wants to keep the child, and someone kills the unborn child, he can be charged with murder in most states and under federal law. Also, unborn children can have legal representation and can inherit property. If your arguments about there being no basis in our laws for giving unborn children legal recognition had any validity whatsoever, none of these would be the case. As it is, the existance of these laws exposes your reasoning as the end-seeking justification that it must ultimately be.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 3, 2005 11:47 AM

Gandhi, I would love to debate Roe v Wade. I just haven’t seen anybody else on the thread actually address the ruling. Can anyone here refute Blackmun writing for the majority decision? To me, his decision is comprehensive and thoughtful, and fully within the law. Everyone here is ignoring the privacy issue and tending toward the definition of life, which was also adequately addressed in the decision, or emotional appeals to the sanctity of life. And the scattershot article upon which this thread is based only has this sanctimonious appeal:

I believe that whether one is pro-life, or favors legalized abortion, we should all agree that the Roe v. Wade decision was incorrectly written, and was an example of creative writing and unconstitutional law-making by those who are not supposed to have that kind of power.

I do not believe so and I have yet to see any compelling argument to even consider such. Blackmun’s writing is clear, consistent, and still very relevant. I would refer anyone who wants to seriously discuss the decision to Sections 6 onward. Particularly Section 8 (my emphasis):

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.

The decision, though dealing with abortion, is a ruling on clarifying privacy rights in the face of unequal protection of such rights across the nation. Not a “constitutional right to abortion.”

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 3, 2005 11:59 AM

Misha, you are playing fast and loose with definitions. I am pleased to surprise you, but look:
So under your bizzare world-view, the government is legitimate in protecting endanger species from being killed, but unborn children, who are of the same species as us, and are human beings under every medical definition are unable to be protected.

Human fetuses are not endangered species. We have too many people in this world already and the planet is crying uncle. The Medical Profession does not define ‘human being’ at all. It defines people as either people or homo-sapiens. The Lakota Sioux have a definition for human being which I find very relevant to this discussion, look it up.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 12:02 PM

Misha said: “There is only one explanation for such a line of reasoning- its attempting to finds SOME, ANY justification for an ends you wish to achieve.”

Quite right. The end is to preserve individual freedom to make ones own choices. Fetuses don’t have the cognitive ability to make choices, are only potential persons like a sperm or egg. The state has no more right to force parenthood on a woman than a man has a right to force sex on a woman.

Yep, you got me, my arguments are indeed intended to serve those ends.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 12:06 PM

Misha said: “As for your other questions- those are all a matter of jurisdiction. Someone should hold the GI accountable to pay child support, i am not sure which country. The answer to that would not be based upon a moral argument, but rather based upon the same arguments that jurisdictional disputes are always decided on- judical efficiency. Under our laws, if a man gets a woman pregnant, he has full responsibility to pay child support to the child, even if he offers to pay for an abortion.”

Show me one American law that establishes jurisdiction to force a GI overseas to be responsible for his offspring out of wedlock. Go ahead… Pro-lifers hold a double standard at best prejudiced against women, pure and simple.

A very large number of Pro-Life folks also support the death penalty - another double standard if one believes a fetus is a human being by virtue of genetic material.

Also, you refuse to answer the point that under our laws it is mothers that get to decide if an unborn child is human or not AT THE TIME OF THE PREGNANCY.

Again you play fast and loose with definitions. A fetus is not a child, a child is an offspring born to biological parents. A mother does not decide if a fetus is human or not, you have pig fetuses and you have human fetuses, they are all fetuses. The mother decides whether the potential of a child carried in the sperm and egg are to be born and become an actual child of hers.

I keep answering, but you just don’t like the answers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 12:16 PM

David R. Remer - you are kicking some serious rightwing butt, in my opinion! :^D

Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2005 01:09 PM

Whew! What a tiresome argument. As long as we’re straying off topic more-or-less, I have three simple comments. The subjects have already been touched on, but here goes:

Gandhi said: “If you don’t want to be a “baby-making machine”, then don’t get yourself pregnant.”

Fine. No one has really addressed the fact that there an awful lot of undesired pregnancies occuring after spontaneous, irresponsible, casual sex. You know, where the partners never really thought about the consequence(s) of their action(s). A little abstinence once in awhile might go a long way.

Misha said: “As for who owns unborn children, the answer is NO ONE.”

Yeah, right. In YOUR world, Misha. Once they’re born, fine, they’re subject to the rights and protection of all of us. More or less. But what’s in a woman’s body is hers alone, her responsibility, her concern, and hers to do with as she sees fit. Anyone else’s knowledge is a priveledge. Anyone else’s concern is an intrusion.

David said: “The world is too damned overpopulated with human species in the first place. If for no other reason I find that one a sound basis for rejecting forced motherhood by the state.”

YES! Someone finally said it. Why don’t we all argue about population/overpopulation now? Maybe on another thread…

Posted by: Escobar at February 3, 2005 01:41 PM

Kicking serious right-wing butt? I don’t know about that, but David clearly has a lot more time to spend typing out rebuttals to every post than the rest of us do.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 3, 2005 02:41 PM

“I keep answering, but you just don’t like the answers.” Questions you have not answered- please do so:

If you truely believe the only beings who can be given legal protection under our laws are either citizens or to be naturalized individuals, how can you justify the following protections:

a. Protections for unborn children from killing by third parties (Laci Peterson laws); for inheritance; for legal representation.

b. protections for individuals visiting our country on vacation

c. protection for animals- both endangered species, and regular anti-animal-torture laws.

d. Rights for enemy combatants in the war on terror.

All of these (other than d) limit the freedom to citizens, to protect non-citizens- please address all four cases.

Notice, if your answer will apply to a tautological definition “well they are born” you are just arguing in a circle without any justification but your feelings, not any logical reasoning.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 3, 2005 03:48 PM

And if you answer all four of these, i will be glad to address any specific questions you want to list back at me.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 3, 2005 03:49 PM

Adrienne, abortion is not a partisan issue for me. It is a personal issue. I have known more than a few women who have had abortions, and not a single one is a bad person, all but two, are now mothers, and fine ones at that, and everyone of them found the decision difficult and not without cost.

But everyone one of them to this day belives they made the right decision, especially the mothers who have blessed their planned children with maturity, ample means, and emotional and psychological stability which has so enriched their lives. One abortion permitted a friend of mine to create two very happy children with all they could want from a mother some 10 years after the abortion. She said it was for the best. On balance, I have to agree with her entirely and count her happy children extremely fortunate for her life’s decisions and preparations for motherhood.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 03:52 PM

“Adrienne, abortion is not a partisan issue for me.”

I realize that this isn’t a partisan issue, but I can’t help but _relish_ it when you’re completely shredding the righties with your eloquence and logic!

“It is a personal issue.”

Yes, it is for me, too. I’ve know quite a few women over the course of my lifetime who have had abortions. And none would I consider bad, immoral people for having made what is more often than not, a difficult and painful decision.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2005 04:11 PM

a. Protections for unborn children from killing by third parties (Laci Peterson laws); for inheritance; for legal representation.

If I kill your dog intentionally, have I not committed a crime? If I kill your horse, have I not committed an even greater crime because of the value of the horse in the eyes of the law? And should I take your fetus from your womb against your will, am I not also guilty of a crime, based on the value of that fetus to you? You see, one need not get into spiritualism or souls or religion to justify punishment for the wrongful taking of that which belongs to another.

b. protections for individuals visiting our country on vacation

Are they not people born somewhere, with a past, a present and a future and are they not the children of some mother and father and are not they not substantially different from a sperm, and egg, or fertilized egg. Yes, quite right.

c. protection for animals- both endangered species, and regular anti-animal-torture laws.

Do we not euthanize animals which cannot be cared for humanely? Do we not spay and neuter our pets to prevent overpopulation and needless suffering that results from same? Do we not protect those animals which have value to us as a mother who desires a child will protect her fetus?

Torture: I taught my daughter not to torture insects, worms, or other living things. To do so for pleasure I taught her, will prevent her from becoming a kind and beloved person in this world. I also taught her it is permissable to pith the brain of frog with a needle like instrument in order to cut it open and examine its anatomy. She wants to become a veterinarian and doing such a dissection of a frog which has had its capacity to feel cut, serves a purpose that will bring much good to many animals because of the sacrifice of the one frog. I also taught her that in return for that frog’s life, she must never forget that frog and all that that frog taught her then, and can and will teach her in the future from the memory of the frog. She gave him a name, George, and she will never forget George. She even cried over George a few days after the dissection. I believe my daughter’s humanity is quite intact.

d. Rights for enemy combatants in the war on terror.

See the answer to b.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 04:15 PM

David
I believe in a womans right to choose. I don’t know why, but its what I believe.
But from reading your posts on here, I have one question that keeps coming up in my head:

Would it be ok for a woman who is 9 months pregnant to kill her child that is still in the womb?

Please don’t misread my question as sarcasm or as a hostile attack. As this is a very confusing subject for me, I would like to know how you think it would be or not be any different than killing one younger.
(Sorry I couldnt word that better.)

Posted by: kctim at February 3, 2005 05:47 PM

A question if I may.
When a women becomes pregnant it is usually because a male was involved. Does he have no say in his childs life? I believe half of the DNA is his.
I understand the part that it is the women ‘s body that carries this child ,but since it has it’s own DNA and its own blood type should it not be entitled to it’s own rights? Or does simply by calling it a fetus, until it is born, give the courts or us the right to simply discard him or her do to inconvenience ?
I understand this blog is concerned about the letter of the law but what of the ethical standards of the law? Is the easy dismissal of human life, what we are as a people? Is not the law made to protect us at all stages of life?

David previously mentioned that at conception you can’t tell if the fetus is a pig or a horse or a human.
I guess whatever you were procreating with at the time might give you a clue. But thats his business alone and I won’t judge him.(But I sure would like to see one of his parties!)
Anyway isn’t a double standard that the male must pay child support at birth but has no say to the right of life for his child?
Someone mentioned that the male was just trying to control her body by not allowing her an abortion, yet she is taking away his choice.
I am totally against abortion(I’m agnostic)
but if that is the law of the land then I must follow the law.However I think I can come up with a compromise…
Allow her to get an abortion,but if she and the male she were with were too stupid to know that the actions they took might lead to pregnancy , then both should be sterilized.
This has many positive points.
1. These idiots won’t be allowed to be in a position where they would be near children.(Their own anyway)
2. The human gene pool will be that much cleaner.
3. The issue will eventually become extinct do to the constant decrease in possible subjects.(though the human specie has an incredible tolerance for stupidity)
4. The Supreme court will have to start “enforcing” the law instead of “making law”
(Which is what I thought it was supposed to do)
Just asking.

Posted by: oldwolf at February 3, 2005 06:24 PM

kctim, your question is extremely important and the least easy for most people to discuss, because when a fetus is just days, weeks or a month people are much more emotionally predisposed to identify with the fetus as more a child than a zygote.

But for me, it still is an issue of the state’s right to intrude upon a woman’s life and body and mandate under penalty of law a woman becoming a mother and regulating her body and activities after conception as opposed to a woman’s right to decide what is best for her, her other children, her husband, and the fetus. Until the fetus is born I can find no justification for the state, or Constitutional basis for the state, invading a woman’s life and dictating her actions and choices based on a fertilized egg within her womb.

Sure there will be exceptions for example, as in the rape of a mentally handicapped woman or girl rendering her legally incompetent to make such a decision which would need to be decided by her family or guardians.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 07:49 PM

oldwolfe, should a wife be permitted under law to have her husband forced by the state to be castrated so that she will not have to face pregnancy in her marrige to him? That is the question turned around.

If there is a marriage, does the woman have any entitlement to engage the state to force the husband to be faithful in sexual relations, to force him to have a hair transplant, to force him to have liposuction of that beer gut? Of course not! She can ask, he can refuse.

A woman was by nature’s or God’s design, designated by physiology to make the decision as to whether she should become a mother or not. It has always been so, and so it should always be in a democratic society. Now if you want to talk about a theocracy or fascist dictator state, all manner of justifications for the state determining who should and should not become a mother are possible. But in a democracy, motherhood should be a woman’s decision, not a man’s and not the government’s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 07:57 PM

oldwolf said: David previously mentioned that at conception you can’t tell if the fetus is a pig or a horse or a human.
I guess whatever you were procreating with at the time might give you a clue. But thats his business alone and I won’t judge him.(But I sure would like to see one of his parties!)

You really need an education in reading or else you obviously misread what I wrote or you have a very bad sense of humor. I suggest you reread what I wrote for meaning this time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 07:59 PM

oldwolfe said: “Allow her to get an abortion,but if she and the male she were with were too stupid to know that the actions they took might lead to pregnancy , then both should be sterilized.”

Adolph Hitler got into sterilization to rid society of undesireable people too. You are in great company there oldwolfe.

The Supreme court will have to start “enforcing” the law instead of “making law”
(Which is what I thought it was supposed to do)

Might want to try a civics course there oldwolfe. The Executive Branch of Government was designed to enforce the laws, Congress to make them, and the Supreme Court to review laws and policies of the other two branches for violations of the Constitution of the United States, resolve differences in interpretations of the Constitution and in the absence of original authors of law, interpret the law’s meaning when that is in dispute. This is not all inclusive, but covers the major bases.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2005 01:44 AM

This issue should be dead. Abortion is a choice, one of the many we have in this country. We have many lesser forms stopping pregnancy. Where should the line be drawn. The building blocks of life are semen and an egg, together they make a fertilized egg/potential child. If it is just these two things that can make a child; why is it that when they are discarded by themselves it isn’t looked at as the death of a potential child? Masterbation could be outlawed and women’s menstration. Pro-life, wouldn’t that mean giving every potential life a fighting chance? The more restrictions we create the more interpritations of those restrictions arise; causing more restrictions and revisions. The possibilities from taking away the womans right to choose are really endless. The government already has too much power over it’s citizens. Does anyone honestly think that the government should have the right to say you have to have a child or you can’t. America is supposed to be a free country. Yet, Americans can’t do drugs or sell their bodies for sex. Morality comes into play and the Bible always wins. Americans have the illusion of freedom. The majority rules, unless of course it’s unconstitutional like; I don’t know taking away someones pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Again as long as it follows closely as to what the bible allows and says is acceptable.
The controversial issues in America are the conservatives(conservative in one direction or another) trying to assert the views into the legal system. These veiws rarely give more freedoms to the American people, usually they only restrict. How long will Americans take away their own freedoms? The minority does their homework and enforces some new policy, because of a wording error or misinterpretation of a document. The majority rules but, the minority changes the rules to better suit them. If anyone has been watching the news lately they have probably noticed that the minority has been gaining some steam. Nobody is safe!

Posted by: chad at February 4, 2005 09:57 AM

Thanks for the honest reply David.
If you notice, I ask more questions when dealing with this issue, than offer my opinion. Hope nobody minds my crazy questions.

“I can find no justification for the state, or Constitutional basis for the state, invading a woman’s life and dictating her actions and choices”

Could this not also be an arguement for assisted suicide?
I know its not really on the abortion part, but I think it does have alittle to do with the aakash original post.

PS
Has the homepage been hacked or something?

Posted by: kctim at February 4, 2005 10:00 AM

Adolph Hitler got into sterilization to rid society of undesireable people too. You are in great company there oldwolfe.

Uh, oh. David just invoked Godwin’s Law. I declare this thread unofficially over :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 4, 2005 04:10 PM

kctim, I suppose it could be used that way. The Constitution was written by the founding fathers with a number of goals in mind, not the least of which was to insure the greatest liberty for its citizens from intrusion by the extreme power that a government potentially has over its citizens, through police power, the courts, and prisons. They recognized the necessity for a milita, police power, and the courts and prisons to be used to help preserve order, civil resolution to conflicts, and protection of citizens from others and government officials who would deprive them of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without just cause.

This underlying doctrine of the Constitution speaks directly to laws aimed at victimless crime today, including suicide, but, regretfully, the founding father’s doctrine falls on far too many deaf ears.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 5, 2005 03:08 AM

The problem with discussing Roe v. Wade is that too many people believe that it was decent judicial review, because they like the result. After reading the actual opinion, I was disappointed by how much it actually was legislation disguised as a product of the judiciary.

Posted by: radicalmiddle67 at February 5, 2005 04:29 PM

I actually quite like the arguments in Roe V. Wade. They are very well thought out, and if we used the judicial responses as the basis of our debates here, we would be much farther along.

I have a confession to make. I am two months pregnant. At two weeks, I discovered I was a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis. My husband went in for testing. If he ended up being a carrier we would have had a 25% chance of having a child with CF. Testing of the fetus to verify can happen at 11 weeks at the earliest. While some people who have CF live into their 40s, others die very young. My particular mutation tends to be harsh. Many children born with it have double lung transplants, among other surgeries, and still don’t live. But sometimes it is milder, and the child only has to go to the hospital a few times every year.

In any case, my personal belief system is that every life is incredibly precious, and incredibly mundane (as Walt Whitman says “Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I contain multitudes.”)

Care for severe disabilities is hard, but I also know it can be extremely rewarding. I also know, however, that primary caregivers live, on average, ten years less than their counterparts.

In any case, my husband came up negative for the mutation. So the whole conversation became moot.

However, as I was struggling with these thoughts, I was also debating the issue on this blog. While I respect the views of the men that I was debating with, I don’t see why these men should have more of a say in my decision making than I do.

I am not a statistic. I am not a story. Why are other people’s morality superior to my own? Why are their answers better than my answers? How can they be certain that I will not bear a child who will live in agony and die in two months of asphyxiation? Why do they get to decide that I am morally obligated to take that risk on the behalf of my child?

Sure, someone can soothe themselves by believing that God only gives poor outcomes to sinners. But do you really believe that? Would you say that to a woman who is watching her one month old slowly die?

We made a decision, for a member of my family, to do everything we could to save her life. She lived, without the ability to communicate in any way, for four years. I still, to this day, feel guilty about pursuing the “life at any cost” path.

Life can’t be packaged in neat little boxes with the labels “good” and “evil”. We don’t exist in a vaccuum.

All of this is to say, these conversations take place in a philosophical background. Sure, we have fun debating the large-scale philosophy, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of these decisions, all of this rhetoric no longer seems so clear.

On this specific topic, I feel like humanity would be better served if we concentrated on providing services and care to pregnant women and young infants, and worked on changing our culture so that adoption was seen as a wonderful, stigma-free alternative. Instead, concentrating on the sinnification and legalities of abortion seems to me to be judgemental at best. In any case, it indicates a basic mistrust that millions of women aren’t capable of making good decisions.

I just wish I saw more topics that talked about adoption and contraception and free child care and anti-child abuse, than I saw on “end all abortions today.”

How much time do you spend vilifying, and how much time do you spend creating solutions to the problem?

Julia

Posted by: Julia at February 5, 2005 10:37 PM

[Comment deleted for failing to observe our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger, policy. —-WatchBlog Manager —-]

Posted by: Jess at February 8, 2005 04:53 PM

You have no common sense. Stating that you are anti-abortion but support a womans right to kill her baby and that that is between her and god is a stupid statement. with that logic, you then support a womans right to kill anyone freely and just leave it up to god when she dies and is judged. its very simple, WE ARE ALL human at conception. to passivly allow these humans to be chopped up is extremely stupid as we are chopping up ourselves. its the ultimate self-hate/destruction. its jsut a way to get rid of a baby that people dont want. it might open up a can of worms but thats no reason the make beleive a fetus isnt human. IT IS!!! GROW UP and BE HONEST and FIGHT FOR TRUTH

Posted by: Jane Doe at February 18, 2005 09:50 PM