A Discussion of Abortion — Part One: Setting the Stage
It is easy to conclude that people cannot have a productive conversation about abortion. We live in a society where barking and simplistic sloganeering often substitutes for serious debate. In that environment, one can hardly be blamed for believing that discussions over issues as contentious as abortion are simply pointless.
But, on reflection, it is my sincere hope that this is not the case. I am a fervent believer that Roe and Casey should be overruled, and that the issue of what abortion regulations are permissible should be returned to the states. I believe this primarily because I think that such a contentious and divisive moral issue deserves to be debated amongst the people, rather than dictated by the courts. If I believe this, then I have to believe in the polity’s capacity to discuss this issue in rational terms.
I recognize that the American people are deeply divided over what abortion restrictions should be allowed. And yes, there will always be fringe elements who try to shape the debate entirely towards their own ends. But it seems to me that Americans of good will ought to be able to reach some consensus on how to treat this issue that is satisfactory to decent people of common sense — if the courts would only allow it.
It is in this spirit that I’d like to begin a multi-day discussion of the issue, guided by some questions suggested to me by a James Q. Wilson abortion essay, which I first read years ago, and which I just finished re-reading moments ago. I can find no link to the essay on the Web — which is a shame, because the essay was decisive in helping me form my opinions about this controversial issue. [UPDATE: Here it is. Thanks to commenter Steve.]
Rather than set forth the thesis of the essay all at once, I’d like to throw open some questions, one or two at a time, and give you commenters room to discuss them. I’ll probably jump in myself to the extent I have time. It’s best if you don’t try to guess “where I’m going with this,” but rather just try to answer the questions honestly.
I’m genuinely interested in reactions from people from across the political spectrum, and I’d like to invite people who rarely comment to fully participate. At the same time, I’d like to invite the firebreathers on both sides to either refrain from commenting, or try to tone down your responses. I’d like to get a real discussion going here without resort to tired sloganeering.
Here are the first questions I would like to throw open for discussion:
1) For you, is abortion in any sense a moral question, or is it purely a question of individual rights?
2) What, for you, defines when a fetus is entitled to moral respect?
I have many more questions over the coming days, but let’s start there.
UPDATE: I have some commenters asking: what does it mean to say a fetus is entitled to moral respect? Some clarifications are in the extended entry.
[Extended entry]
Well, I intend this to be a wide-ranging discussion (and it’s going great so far!), so I don’t want to overdefine terms. But to give you an idea what I mean, let me define the extremes to give you a sense of what I’m aiming at. If you clip your toenails, you are discarding (and thus killing) living cells — but they aren’t entitled to any moral respect. Those cells are a part of your body and your right to decide that they are excess cells clearly outweighs any interest in life that the individual cells might have. Conversely, murdering a live human is also killing living cells, but the collection of cells that makes up a live human being is entitled to great moral respect, and society deems it a great offense to destroy a human life.
Where along this spectrum do fetuses fall? At what point do regulations become justifiable? At what point does ending the fetus’s life become something that the state should prevent in most cases? These are the questions that interest me. This should give you a better idea of what I am getting at with these questions.
I used to think that both sides of this issue were right. That odd conclusion saved me from developing my own concrete views… My girlfriend in college had an abortion and that was a relief at the time. Today I realize that I wold be the father of a 27 year old. So, with that brief background… Q1.: Over the years, it has become a moral issue. Now that I am not in that situation of having to make that decision, some would say that it is easy for me to throw the moral card, but I truly believe that today I would choose to save the child. Q2.: Ask any mother-to-be when she starts respecting the fetus. For most that I have known, it starts when the pg test turns blue. That’s when she (and others) start to care for the child (fetus).
Just my opinion based on my experience. I don’t feel badly toward anyone who thinks differently. It is just what has happened to me.
RCC (87d48f) — 2/13/2006 @ 5:53 pmGee, I get to go first?
To me, it’s both, but the anser to both is the same. It is my belief that an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a living human being, and as a living human being, has a right to life which may not be ignored. I tend not to argue the moral position, simply because it is subject to the arguments of others that moralioty cannot be imposed.
The moment of conception, when a living human being is created.
Dana (a90377) — 2/13/2006 @ 5:53 pmDarn! Didn’t type fast enough to be first!
Dana (a90377) — 2/13/2006 @ 5:54 pmMy $0.02:
1) It’s both. I believe that abortion is in most cases evil, but that in some cases it may be the lesser evil (this is analagous to my view of war). I also believe that it is a moral choice that individuals should be allowed to make without the interference of the state.
2) This is more difficult and less clear-cut, and i don’t have a bright line answer. Sometime after conception and before birth.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/13/2006 @ 5:56 pmSorry, Dana… didn’t see you standing there! š
RCC (87d48f) — 2/13/2006 @ 5:57 pmAphrael: [alt][155] makes the Ā¢ symbol! š
One point to note, since it’ll be asked anyway: taking the position that a living human being is created at the moment of conception means, logically, that I cannot take the position that abortion ought to be allowable in the cases of rape or incest.
Dana (a90377) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:01 pmThis might hurt a bit…
1. It is a case of individual rights. A person should have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Well, within reason anyhow. No doctor would amputate your healthy arm just because you wanted to and I don’t see the courts saying you could if you wanted to, so within reason, it is a case of individual right.
2. When the fetus can survive outside the womb (with or without medical assistance) it should have all the protections allowed by law. I believe this is somewhere around 18 – 22 weeks.
I’m a pretty moderate conservative with some liberal leanings (guess where I’m liberal!) and this is the toughest issue I believe any of us face. You said you wanted discussion of all viewpoints, I believe I’m first to be different. Don’t bite!
Phil (7bc46b) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:13 pmPhil,
Not only will I not bite . . . I’ll bite anyone who bites you for articulating a different perspective in a respectful manner — which is all you have done.
Patterico (de0616) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:17 pmDana,
Two further follow-up questions:
1) What do you define as the moment of conception?
2) Do you believe in birth control?
Patterico (de0616) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:18 pm1) I feel abortion is a mixed question of morality and individual autonomy. A fetus is always a potential human being, and ending its life should not just be rationalized away by calling it “a bunch of cells” or something else insignificant. Conversely, I cannot automatically attribute human qualities (and the corresponding respect) to an undeveloped life from the moment of conception.
2) I’m a little confused as to what you mean by “moral respect.” A fetus is always entitled to some respect as a potential human being, though I think this interest is outweighed by the mother’s individual autonomy until the point of viability. I feel viability is the point where a fetus would be entitled to moral respect as a full human being.
Matto Ichiban (ab0734) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:19 pmaphrael,
You say: “I also believe that it is a moral choice that individuals should be allowed to make without the interference of the state.”
How broadly do you define “interference”? Do you believe that the state should not enact any restrictions whatsoever on abortion?
Patterico (de0616) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:23 pmQ1) Abortion is a moral issue. If personal rights are invoked, the baby-to-be has rights, as does the mother, and the government has the duty to protect the rights of them both (as those rights are determined by the people).
Q2) The ‘product of conception’ is entitled to at least the same consideration as an egg of a spotted owl.
While I have my opinions, I’m not in favor of a court legislating for either side. Let the people thrash it out in the context of the public square. If states decide differently–so be it. Each will then suffer or prosper according to the dictates of their decisions.
ManlyDad (b0f23e) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:23 pmThose who choose viability as the point where a fetus is accorded moral respect: do you believe in any restrictions whatsoever on a mother’s autonomy before that point?
Patterico (de0616) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:25 pmThough I am addressing questions to specific people, you should answer them if you agree with the commenter at whom I directed the question.
Patterico (de0616) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:26 pmI think abortion should generally be illegal after viability, and steps should be taken to make sure it doesn’t happen except when there are severe health problems, or the like.
Before viability, I suggest using the prior restraint doctrine, if the fetus has developed beyond the embryonic stage to the point where all organs are in place. If parent(s) abort a non-viable but formed human being, then the parent(s) can go to jail afterward, and or be severely fined. But don’t punish the doctor, because that would effectively impose a prior restraint on women seeking safe abortions. The objective of using the prior restraint doctrine in this way would be to deter pre-viability abortions, without resorting to physical compulsion.
I wrote about this idea at http://www.abortionlaw.org
If people don’t think the prior restraint doctrine could be effectively used as described above, then my second alternative would be to just go ahead and use prior restraints to protect any fetus that has developed past the embryonic stage (which ends at two months after conception).
Andrew (08ba2c) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:40 pmI support some previability restrictions, such as parental and spousal notification. The privilege to have an abortion is not absolute, and other duties may be imposed by law.
Matto Ichiban (ab0734) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:42 pmI suppose the first question that should be resolved in participant’s mind is the question of the sanctity of human life. As we see all to often in this world, both individuals and individual cultures give varying degrees of sanctity to human life. If, as a sentient species, we wish to survive then this is the first question that should be answered to frame the discussion.
My answer is the natural one. For survival of the human species we must acknowledge such sanctity. You may be surprised to find that many who may join this debate don’t
RiverRat (54c18d) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:46 pm1) For you, is abortion in any sense a moral question, or is it purely a question of individual rights?
I cannot separate individual rights and morality. That which ought to be a right is moral; that which is immoral (wrong behavior) ought not be a right.
2) What, for you, defines when a fetus is entitled to moral respect?
A fetus is entitled to respect when it becomes “viable” in the general meaning of that word (capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions). That is, a fetus can survive and be born except in the case of a natural miscarriage (which is no one’s fault) or an abortion (which is the fault of the person(s) who allow it and do it). An abortion, at any stage of fetal development, is therefore the taking of a defenseless life, and it ought not be allowed except when there is truly a choice between the life of the fetus and the life or physical health of the mother.
Abortion for other reasons (e.g., the mother’s convenience or the possibility of a birth defect) is eugenic. Abortion for such reasons relaxes society’s attitude toward the taking of life, in the same way that a killer can become inured to killing. From abortion we will go to involuntary euthanasia of the aged and infants to involuntary euthanasia of those deemed by the political process to be eligible for it. The line must be drawn somewhere, and I would draw it at conception — even in cases of rape and incest.
Tom Anger (5ea92c) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:53 pmThe first question is a false dichotomy. If you believe unborn babies have individual rights then abortion is simply a question of competing individual rights (the motherās and the babyās) to be decided by one’s morality. Which gets us to question two – when does an unborn baby have individual rights?
Conception? That is sticky because many conceptions do not result in pregnancy (i.e., the zygote does not implant in the uterus but simply washes out in the next menstrual cycle). Also, what do we do with all those frozen zygotes out there?
I’ll table this decision for now and argue from the premise that a baby is entitled to all individual human rights at least when the baby develops a brain stem. It may be earlier, but babies develop brain stems very early. An unborn baby with a brain stem is indistinguishable morally from a newborn baby. Iāve seen them both. There really is not much difference, other than size. You have to pull a Peter Singer and argue that infanticide should be legal if you believe that killing unborn babies with brain stems should be legal.
(Full disclosure: I just came from my wife’s ultra-sound appointment for our second baby. He (I want a boy) is three months old now, just creeping out of his first trimester, nowhere near viability outside the womb. Yet he, like our first, was quite active in the ultra sound. I didn’t see him suck his thumb, like I saw with our first at three months, but he’s just as much of a baby now as he will be in six months when he’s born. The thought that my wife could legally kill him (1) for any reason, (2) whenever she wants up to and including when he’s half-way born (3) without even telling me, and (needless to say) (4) without my permission, boggles my mind. She would never do that though, which is one reason why I married her.)
What about the womanās personal autonomy? Doesnāt she have the right to do what ever she wishes with her body? No, of course not and you are silly for even thinking such a thought. Not even the most radical libertarian (when I say radical, I mean a libertarian who would have no problem with doctors performing voluntary physical mutilation/amputation to satisfy perverse sexual desires) believes you have a right to kill an innocent human being if your life (or serious injury) is not threatened (a point I’ll get to later).
But in any event, letās give the personal autonomy argument some weight. Does the mother’s autonomy outweigh the babyās right to life? As the father of now two children, one inside and one outside, and as any parent will tell you, believe us that babies are much MUCH less trouble on the inside than outside. If you think being pregnant is an inconvenience, try being a parent to a newborn. Being pregnant is a mild inconvenience. But Iām a man, you say. Yes, but I have a pregnant wife. I know from whence I speak.
If it is justifiable to kill your baby to avoid inconvenience to your personal autonomy, you ought to be able to kill your newborn, who is a LOT more of an inconvenience outside than inside. Since you canāt do that, you canāt kill your unborn baby for mere āpersonal autonomyā reasons.
Does it matter that once a baby is outside, anyone can sustain its life, but while it is inside, only the mother can? To answer that it does matter, you have to also hold the position that it would not be murder if parents let their newborn starve, because it was a mild inconvenience to care for him/her, in a situation when no one else was willing to take care of the baby. The fact that adoption exists does not relieve parents of their primary responsibility to care for their child. If a couple is, say, sailing on a boat across the Pacific Ocean with their newborn, and their shipmates decide not to help with the baby, can they just give up whenever they feel like they are being too inconvenienced? Think of any other situation where immediate help from others is not available. Can you simply allow your baby to die for convenience reasons? I hope you answer no.
The situation would have to be so dire that caring for the baby would put the parentsā life in danger to justify killing and/or neglecting it to death. There may be extreme circumstances usually only the subject of fiction where such a situation arises. The same rules apply to an unborn baby. Most pro-life advocates support a ālife of the motherā exception in the dire situation where we must choose between saving only one of two innocent lives because only one can be saved. Choosing between two innocent lives is a terribly thorny philosophical question with no clear consensus (Iām a philosophy major, I know). To allow killing an innocent life where no such choice need be made is simply immoral.
Is the unborn baby just a parasite? Ok, then is a leach a parasite? A leach sucks on you from the outside. Ticks suck on you from the outside. Whether an organism sucks on you from the inside or outside makes no difference as to whether it is a parasite. Thus, newborn babies are parasites just as much as unborn babies. āDetachingā your newborn baby āparasiteā without providing for alternate sustenance (i.e., adoption) is murder. Since killing born babies is murder, so is killing unborn babies. Formula? Give me a break. It is easier to breast feed than stir up formula everywhere you go. From a pure labor requirement point of view, breast feeding is much less of a drain on bodily resources.
Iām sure some of you who are pro-killing babies will complain about the dire circumstances many women find themselves in, where abortion is the only way out. I dispute that on the facts. At least in the U.S., it is hard to conceive of a possible situation where the situation is so dire that the woman cannot give birth to the child then give it up for adoption.
What about social stigma? A 15 year-old girl from a devout Christian family in a devout Christian community gets pregnant. Assume we can be reasonably sure this will ruin her social status and she will be forever ostracized from her family and community. Is a secret abortion acceptable then? Rephrase the question thusly ā does social ostracization justify murder? I would feel quite bad for the young woman. I would not allow her to kill an innocent life to avoid serious social troubles. Michael Douglas killed Glenn Close (eventually) in Fatal Attraction, but only after she became a knife-wielding maniac trying to kill him. What if, at the first sign that she might blow the whistle to his wife on their affair, he offāed Glenn? He sure would avoid a lot of social stigma, just as bad as the 15 year-old pregnant devout Christian would suffer. I donāt see the moral distinction between the two cases.
In short, I see no moral distinction between an unborn baby with a brain stem and a newborn baby. Every argument Iāve heard attempting to justify why it is ok to kill your unborn baby in certain circumstances simply falls apart when you apply those identical circumstances to a newborn baby. I hope people will try in this thread. I hope their failure will convince fence-sitters to oppose infanticide.
Ben Pugh (1527b3) — 2/13/2006 @ 6:56 pm#1: Both, of course. Many moral issues come down to protecting individual rights. The abortion issue involves balancing the rights of a woman against the rights of a fetus. One faction holds that a fetus is not a person, and thus has no rights; the other holds that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, and entitled to full protection. There’s a large gray area in the middle to try to find the balance.
#2: Maybe viability; anyway, somewhere in the fuzzy gray area between a clump of cells with no differentiated nervous system and a fully-developed fetus ready to be born. I’d be inclined to base the determination on brain development, but have no particular insight.
Bonus question: Personally, I favor abortion on demand, with no legal restrictions beyond those for any other invasive medical procedure, in the “early term” – however that’s defined. Escalating protection (requirements for medical necessity) may be in order as the nervous system develops; this is a matter for open debate, if only the extremists on both sides will refrain from shouting.
I have a problem with Andrew’s suggestion: surely it’s the doctor, not the parents, who will be in a better position to know if all the fetus’s organs are in place. Thus, if anyone is to be punished, surely it should be the doctor.
Eric Wilner (3936fd) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:07 pmThere’s more to humanity than a brain stem. If this were not so, then killing of any animal would be equally wrong, wouldn’t it?
I win.
That was the snarky response. In seriousness Ben, to echo your first sentence, I think you have set up some false analogies there, and they weaken your argument.
Matto Ichiban (ab0734) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:09 pmThe line for viability keeps moving backward. In the 60’s, a birth weight of 5 lbs was at risk. Today, they are viable approaching 1 lb. Viability is a poor standard for “personhood.”
ManlyDad (b0f23e) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:11 pmEric, the scenario I outlined assumes that doctors behave honestly and accurately, as they are already required to do.
Andrew (08ba2c) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:11 pmI agree completely that Roe and its offspring should be aborted. The decision to permit or outlaw abortion should be left to the state legislatures or the people of the states through initiative or referendum
Q1. Both.
In cases of rape and incest (often a form of rape), the mother has not consented to intercourse and ought not to be forced to accept the consequences of an act to which she did not consent. In the case of a real threat to the mother’s life from pregancy I believe the mother has the right to preserve her life and that the state has no business chosing between two forms of innocent life.
I believe that in all other cases abortion is immoral. Nevertheless, I would allow abortion during the first trimester.
Q2.
Life begins at conception.
Stu707 (18fdc8) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:23 pmAbortion is both an issue of morality and of individual rights (for women).
Iām not exactly sure what you mean by āmoral respect.ā (Is that a legal term?) But instead of writing a volume about it, Iāll just mention some milestones. This isnāt black and white to me by the way; the fetus gets more and more of a human status gradually rather than all of a sudden.
Of course conception is worth consideration, but I donāt believe that a human, fertilized egg has a soul at the moment of conception. Next, the ability for the fetus to feel pain is morally significant. After that, a major event happens when a fetus gains consciousness. I believe that consciousness is the most important occurrence because we legally euthanize those who are certifiably brain-dead (and I believe that is as it should be). In a round-about way, this shows what is most important about being human ā thinking and feeling. Of course there is viability, but at that point I already consider the child a human being in the full sense of the term human being; so viability makes less difference to me than it might others.
A lot of people emphasize the advent of a heartbeat, but a heart is not a thinking or feeling organ. It means a lot to us symbolically; but really it is not that important in the moral context of abortion. However, it might be considered a milestone on the way to viability.
Psyberian (1cf529) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:29 pm1) For you, is abortion in any sense a moral question, or is it purely a question of individual rights?
Answer: It is both. Not because any church says so but because I believe that the unborn child is a living human being. But so is the mother. Whether she should be allowed an abortion because the pregnancy threatens her with death or great bodily harm is a no-brainer. Yes, she should. Incest, rape, child rape (there was a case of a pregant fourteen-year not too long ago in Florida) is hard. Likewise a child who will be be very ill and whose life will be short and painful. I am not wise enough. I want my fellow citizens, through the democratic process, to set the law. A child who is not perfect — Downs Syndrome for example — no abortion. There are many people willing to adopt disabled children. I also trust most normal human beings, once having given birth to such a child, to bond with it and accept it.
2) What, for you, defines when a fetus is entitled to moral respect?
Answer: As long as it is developing normally and healthily and does not threaten the mother with death or great bodily harm.
As I said earlier, I am not wise enough to set all the rules. I would like to see a Right To Life Amendment drafted similar to the 21st Amendment which will leave the question of abortion to the wisdom or folly of the respective jurisdictions. The democratic process of the jurisdictions.
I do not really want Roe’s and Casey’s rationales overruled. I want recognition of a general right to liberty but in an honest way unpolluted by the question of abortion. A Right To Life Amendment, in my opinion, would result in a net increase in freedom.
nk (e116f8) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:32 pmI don’t know about others answering these questions, but I was pro-choice as a young woman. As I became an adult, I realized that pregnancy was not the worst thing that would ever happen in my life. I know that I came to that conclusion partly because at 30 I was more capable and less dependent than I had been at 18. But here is the answers to your questions:
1. Abortion is both a moral question and a question of rights. I don’t believe you can separate the 2. There are competing rights between the fetus and the mother, but, more importantly, there is a moral question about when life begins and which life is protected and when.
2. In my opinion, a fetus is entitled to moral respect at least from implantation and more likely from conception. As my mother used to say, if life does not begin at conception, then when along the way does it begin? I cannot personally find any better starting point. This, of course, brings up all sorts of interesting side points such as (1) devices that prevent implantation; (2) rape, life of the mother, incest; (3) very young girls’ pregnancies, etc. In all those cases, I go back to my 30-year-old take on abortion: pregnancy will not be the worst thing to happen in a woman’s life (unless, of course, she would die having the baby which is a very, very small number at best).
sharon (fecb65) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:32 pmWhatever you guys decide, just don’t make me sit in the back of an ambulance with a 15 year old girl bleeding out from a self service abortion ever again.
paul (464e99) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:40 pmWanna restrict the hell out of it? Fine.
But it has to be available for the desperate ones.
Don’t make criminals out of Doctors and don’t make Congressmen Doctors.
But whatever you decide, don’t put me back in that ambulance.Ever. Again.
To me:
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:50 pm1. Abortion is a moral question.
2. A fetus is entitled to moral respect at conception.
1) I don’t believe those are separate issues. If we accept that morality is a code, underwritten by values, that guides us in our life, then the question is not if we use morality but whose morality. And to posit that rights are inherent in the individual as opposed to the group is a declaration of a certain morality. That said, it also then becomes what elements of morality and how much of it is reasonable to codify into law. This is the core argument of the abortion debate. Any decision about abortion concerns morality from lassiez-faire abortion to a total ban. The discussion of the balancing act between the competing interests of fetus and mother and when (or if) the law should step in is a thoroughly moral discussion.
2) A fetus is always entitled to moral respect. The majority of abortions occur prior to 12 week gestation and almost all of them are immoral. But whether we wish to make these immoral abortions illegal is the real question. There are a lot of immoral acts I don’t believe are the province of the law (ie adultery, fornication).
Darleen (f20213) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:54 pmWith all due respect to Paul, what he said is not an argument. Many people sit in the backs of ambulances with people who hurt themselves or were hurt by others. Some who were hurt just because they were not wearing their seatbelts. The “back alley/coat hanger” argument disregards the fundamental question of the respective rights of the unborn child and the mother.
nk (2e1372) — 2/13/2006 @ 8:01 pmI believe that abortion is almost entirely a moral issue. Any kind of individual rights argument gets bogged down when considering who’s rights take priority. I also think that society determines what is moral (remember, slavery was once considered moral). As a side note, I think that this state’s rights issue is often a diversion. Many of the people who currently support state’s rights in this debate would have no problem enacting a federal ban on abortion (and there are many who would even support a judicially imposed ban).
Personally, I find abortion to be very distasteful. If I were a woman, I would not have one, nor would I encourage a partner to get one regardless of the convenience. However, I also believe that the soul enters the body after the first trimester. As such, abortions before this point are not equivalent to the murder of a person. For this reason, I have no problems with birth control, morning after pills, etc.
As a final issue, I work in the healthcare field, and I continue to grapple with the question of whether or not, or in what circumstances, I would perform an abortion. This is an issue that I have still not come to terms with. It is far too complex for a simple answer.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/13/2006 @ 8:01 pmPaul
Ok. But then please help save me from processing yet another case of a 25+ y/o guy who has been having sex with a 15 y/o for over 2 years and its now known she has had more than one abortion that HE obtained for her so he wouldn’t get in trouble.
Darleen (f20213) — 2/13/2006 @ 8:03 pm1. Neither. It is an ethical question, and *nothing* is purely a question of individual rights. I differentiate from “moral” question, because that tends to imply only one answer to our question.
2. A fetus is entitled to ethical respect as a potential added value to society from the moment of conception. This ethical respect does not mean there cannot be laws permitting killing it.
For me, the question is what law brings the greatest good to society? Human life simply isn’t sacrosanct, and isn’t treated as such by either civil or criminal law. We do not give lengthy incarcerations to seat belt violators, even those who don’t belt their kids in. There is no lifetime of jail for negligent driving homicides.
And that’s as it should be. The maximally utile law can be reasonably debated, but an “individual rights” mantra strikes me as misguided, as does a sanctity of life argument.
I have a pretty good idea of where you’re headed here, Pat. I respectfully reject the premise that weighing individual rights vs. moral imperatives is a productive way to go about this. Instead, we ought to determine what law leads to a better society overall.
–JRM
JRM (5e00de) — 2/13/2006 @ 8:22 pm“I am a fervent believer that Roe and Casey should be overruled, and that the issue of what abortion regulations are permissible should be returned to the states.”
Not to nitpick, but congress will have jurisdiction over it too. If it can ban weed, it can ban (and regulate) abortion.
“1) For you, is abortion in any sense a moral question, or is it purely a question of individual rights?”
Its a moral decision each one makes. I’ve noticed pro-lifers talk about how choicers don’t trust the electorate to make these decisions and need the court to make them. The thing is I don’t trust political bodies. I trust individuals to make their own decision about what is the way to act.
actus (6234ee) — 2/13/2006 @ 9:00 pmSome of you are asking questions about what I mean about a fetus deserving “moral respect.” I don’t want to overdefine terms, but I have clarified matters in an update, which you should read.
Patterico (de0616) — 2/13/2006 @ 10:20 pmI like Psyberian’s response:
“This isnāt black and white to me by the way; the fetus gets more and more of a human status gradually rather than all of a sudden.”
This is a prominent concept in Wilson’s essay, and I agree with it. One question we might consider here and which Psyberian has addressed to a degree: what are the milestones you look at?
So far, nobody who has said “life begins at conception” has defined “conception” for me, or said whether they agree with birth control. Yes, there is a trap there, of sorts, but I’m still out to have an honest discussion, so it’s okay if you fall into the trap. Just tell us what you think.
It’s my contention that most people agree with birth control. Doctrinaire Catholics will disagree, and their views have the virtue of consistency. But I don’t think most common-sense people will agree with their absolutist position. If you don’t, then your view has consequences for your views of when life begins, if you believe it begins with the formation of a zygote.
Carry on.
Patterico (de0616) — 2/13/2006 @ 10:29 pmAt what point does ending the fetusās life become something that the state should prevent in most cases?
What is implied by “the fetus’s life?” According to the court in Roe, the right to terminate a pregnancy is not absolute and must be balanced against the state’s legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life.
You’ve still got a thumb on the scale.
steve (ba19a5) — 2/13/2006 @ 10:36 pmsteve,
We’re having a philosophical discussion here. I have a point of view, no doubt. But you gain no mileage by arguing that my philosophical view is at odds with Supreme Court precedent. That much should be completely obvious — beginning with my view that the states should have the right to decide, rather than having their policies imposed by autocrats in black robes.
Patterico (de0616) — 2/13/2006 @ 11:01 pmMatto,
I’m not sure you understood my argument. I was not arguing that fetuses only deserve moral respect once they develop a brain stem, but rather arguing by that point they certainly do. There are some thorny issues with treating all zygotes as entitled to human rights (two of which I named – the large percentage of zygotes that never implant and the thousands of frozen zygotes in laboratories around the world). I did not want my arguments to lose their force simply because someone disagreed with me on the conception v. some later time issue. So I simply skipped over the argument about when a human being is entitled to human rights, and selected a point that everyone should agree the baby is entitled to human rights, and began from there.
Next, I showed that the state of abortion law is abhorrent applied to 2+ month old babies. I believe it is abhorrent for younger babies, too. My argument was simply meant to show how abhorrent the law is well before “viability” outside the womb.
I don’t need to convince people, like you apparently, who believe life begins at conception that abortion is wrong. I need to convince those people who are undecided, or think that “viability” is the right line to draw. If I can move them back from viability, I have accomplished something worthwhile. How far back to go (e.g. to conception) I’ll leave to the rest of you.
Ben Pugh (24cfe3) — 2/13/2006 @ 11:45 pm1. Deliberately taking innocent human life is a moral issue.
2. It doesn’t matter when or whether I (or anyone) respect it or not. Life’s value is not dependent on the moral esteem in which I hold it. It should be protected from womb to tomb.
___
BTW, I don’t think your birth control point holds up. It’s only RU 486 that keeps a zygote from implanting, and I oppose that.
See Dubya (5073f6) — 2/13/2006 @ 11:55 pmI think that’s wrong, See Dubya. I think regular birth control pills do the same thing in many cases.
Patterico (de0616) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:01 amI disagree that a human being’s “moral value” increases gradually. As I’ve learned about the biology, it seem increasingly probable that these things happen suddenly.
In a previous comment, I mentioned that an embryo becomes a fetus at about two months from conception. Incidentally, states like Califoueat point to identfy when “murder” can occur. “The third party killing of a fetus with malice aforethought is murder . . . as long as the state can show that the fetus has progressed beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks.” See People v. Davis, 7 Cal. 4th 797, 814 (1994).
Anyway, here’s some of the biology. “At eight weeks, “the danger of a miscarriage . . . diminishes sharply.” Lennart Nilsson, A Child is Born 91 (1990).
“At two months of age, the human being is less than one thumb’s length from the head to the rump. He would fit at ease in a nutshell, but everything is there: hands, feet, head, organs, brain, all are in place. His heart has been beating for a month already . . . . With a good magnifier the fingerprints could be detected.” Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 7-10 (1981) (testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune).
“Lively activities [are] observed by ultrasound in the tenth week, when babies rarely pause for more than five minutes.” Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life 62 (1996).
Integrated brain functioning has been verified about seventy days after conception. Peter Steinfels, Scholar Proposes ‘Brain Birth’ Law, N. Y. Times, Nov., 8, 1990 at A28.
Nine weeks after conception, the baby is well enough formed to bend her fingers around an object in the palm of her hand; in response to a touch on the sole of her foot, she will curl her toes or bend her hips and knees to move away from the touching object. Valman & Pearson, What the Fetus Feels, British Medical Journal, (January 26, 1980).
“Until the 9th week there is no apparent difference in the external genitals of boys and girls. . . . [but] in boys in the 9th week . . . the testis releases a burst of male hormones . . . and the phallus stays.” Christopher Vaughan, How Life Begins: the Science of Life in the Womb 74 (1996).
By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. Hopson, Fetal Psychology, 31 Psychology Today 44 (October 1998).
The more we learn about biology, the more confirmation we have of the importance of this long-recognized dividing line between an embryo and a fetus.
Andrew (00954b) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:10 amIt looks to me like they work by preventing ovulation in the first place.
[Also by thickening the walls of the uterus, preventing implantation of a fertilized egg (zygote). Your link contains a (poorly described) reference to this. — Patterico]
See Dubya (5073f6) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:12 amSorry, I hit the “Submit” button too soon.
I disagree that a human beingās āmoral valueā increases gradually. As Iāve learned about the biology, it seems increasingly probable that these things happen suddenly.
In a previous comment, I mentioned that an embryo becomes a fetus at about two months from conception. Incidentally, states like California use that point to identfy when āmurderā can occur. āThe third party killing of a fetus with malice aforethought is murder . . . as long as the state can show that the fetus has progressed beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks.ā See People v. Davis, 7 Cal. 4th 797, 814 (1994).
Anyway, hereās some of the biology. āAt eight weeks, āthe danger of a miscarriage . . . diminishes sharply.ā Lennart Nilsson, A Child is Born 91 (1990).
āAt two months of age, the human being is less than one thumbās length from the head to the rump. He would fit at ease in a nutshell, but everything is there: hands, feet, head, organs, brain, all are in place. His heart has been beating for a month already . . . . With a good magnifier the fingerprints could be detected.ā Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 7-10 (1981) (testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune).
āLively activities [are] observed by ultrasound in the tenth week, when babies rarely pause for more than five minutes.ā Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life 62 (1996).
Integrated brain functioning has been verified about seventy days after conception. Peter Steinfels, Scholar Proposes āBrain Birthā Law, N. Y. Times, Nov., 8, 1990 at A28.
Nine weeks after conception, the baby is well enough formed to bend her fingers around an object in the palm of her hand; in response to a touch on the sole of her foot, she will curl her toes or bend her hips and knees to move away from the touching object. Valman & Pearson, What the Fetus Feels, British Medical Journal, (January 26, 1980).
āUntil the 9th week there is no apparent difference in the external genitals of boys and girls. . . . [but] in boys in the 9th week . . . the testis releases a burst of male hormones . . . and the phallus stays.ā Christopher Vaughan, How Life Begins: the Science of Life in the Womb 74 (1996).
By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. Hopson, Fetal Psychology, 31 Psychology Today 44 (October 1998).
The more we learn about biology, the more confirmation we have of the importance of this long-recognized dividing line between an embryo and a fetus.
Andrew (00954b) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:12 amInteresting question, but the wrong one, I think. Your question prefaces this argument: Is human life sacrosanct?
Because, once you set up the question to be “when does a fetus gain moral respect” you suggest that once the fetus gets to that point, it would be sacrosanct. This false dilemma forgets the woman, who is a fetus that has aged sufficiently to meet any definition of moral respect, but let’s ignore that argument for the moment.
Human life, as practiced by humans, is not sacrosanct, and never has been. Only in religious teachings is life sacrosanct (and humans invented religion).
Humans have been killing other humans since, well, God let Cain kill Abel. If God wanted to see just how far his “free will” experiment would go, I guess he found out pretty quick. In fact, only 4 people EXISTED when the first murder occurred.
This is part of the human experience (an unfortunate part of it, I grant you, but, well, there it is.)
Humans have killed other humans for many reasons. The most common reason throughout history that humans have killed other humans is to steal their natural resources (usually food.)
So let’s dispense with the “life is sacrosant” issue. We as humans have never, ever believed this or practiced such a policy. We are INCAPABLE of it at any rate.
However, just because human killing is part of our shared experience doesn’t mean that we should strive for it. In fact, I believe the opposite. I believe we should be generally against it for a variety of reasons, some of them philosophical and some of them practical. I for one, don’t worry too much about getting through the average day having to defend my life. I have this luxury even though that has not been, historically, the way most humans have lived.
The question sets up a false dilemma: Is it EVER acceptable to end a human life? Well, I think we all know the answer to that – of COURSE it’s sometimes the ONLY CORRECT thing to do.
And so we are left with the question of when a fetus is deserving of some “moral respect,” which I will assume you mean to define as “it would be wrong to kill it indiscriminently.” Well, can we agree that it’s ALWAYS wrong to kill indiscriminently? I don’t think a woman ever has an abortion indiscriminently. I don’t think it’s possible.
The problem with trying to decide WHEN it is OK, and when it is NOT OK, to have an abortion is that we cannot predict all the variables. Would it have been wrong for Hitler’s mother to abort Adolph? Would MORE lives have been saved had she taken this decision? If life is the thing you are intent on protecting, then, it seems that you would WANT Hitler’s mother to have aborted him.
Since we can’t predict whether an abortion SAVES more lives than it COSTS, it is a question that cannot be answered. The debate CANNOT THUS BE about whether life is so sacrosanct that we should never have abortions. Some abortions would result in the SAVING of more lives.
So, what should the debate be about? Should there even be a debate? People have been aborting babies since our existence. (Abortions in prehistoric times occurred, for example, when mothers gave birth to deformed babies, who were simply left lying on the ground and walked away from.)
And so, I would argue that abortion is an UNCHANGEABLE fact of life; in the same way that DYING is, or WAR is. We all hate war; that’s why we never want to be in one. Yet, humans have been warring since we became humans.
THe abortion debate is meaningless as long as the debate is about whether we should ALLOW it LEGALLY. It’s going to occur whether or not we allow it legally. Murder occurs, even though it is against the law. Theft occurs, even though we have “banned” it.
And so, the real debate is: What punishment should we impose when abortion occurs? I would argue that further punishment is unnecessary.
Every woman who has an abortion REMEMBERS it for the rest of their lives.
Is that not punishment enough?
RightNumberOne (11dd90) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:03 amWhat I can’t understand about our laws is this: I had to sign a release for my teenage daughter to get her ears pierced, but she could go get an abortion without parental notification.
Jal (a90377) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:33 am“I donāt think a woman ever has an abortion indiscriminently. I donāt think itās possible.”
I would say that women who have 3, 4, 5 abortions are acting indiscriminately. And don’t try to say this is rare, because most of the information Planned Parenthood releases says otherwise.
“What I canāt understand about our laws is this: I had to sign a release for my teenage daughter to get her ears pierced, but she could go get an abortion without parental notification.”
This is one of the big problems I have with abortion as practiced in this country. It is unfathomable to me how I not only have to sign a consent form for my kid to get her ears pierced, but if the abortion facility botched the abortion, I’m still responsible for my kid’s healthcare to make sure she doesn’t die, isn’t sterile, etc.
I can think of many, many good arguments against abortion, but I can’t think of a single argument for abortion that seems compelling. Can any pro-choicers give me one? I’m not being rhetorical here. I’ve been trying to see this debate from the other side, and while the pro-life side seems so clear, I cannot find a suitable counterargument for the “right of the woman.” I suppose the best argument I know of is personal autonomy, but in making that argument, it negates the autonomy of the fetus.
BTW, Patterico, I said the point of implantation precisely because of the birth control issue. There are a variety of birth control methods which work by preventing implantation. While there might be some moral obfuscation by using this point, women don’t have to worry about birth or abortion until after implantation.
sharon (fecb65) — 2/14/2006 @ 4:07 amOur esteemed host asked me a couple of follow up questions:
The moment of conception is when the egg is fertilized by the sperm; this is the point at which the new life develops fully human chromosomes and is capable of life and growth beyond the naturally short lifespan of the gametes.
I do not see a problem with non-abortifacient contraception, meaning that which prevents the fertilization of the egg. In such instances, there is no living human being in existence whose rights have been violated. I do have a problem with “contraception” which acts after conception, those devices and drugs which act to prevent implantation on the uterine wall.
Dana (3e4784) — 2/14/2006 @ 5:21 am#46 Right
I donāt think a woman ever has an abortion indiscriminently. I donāt think itās possible.
I’ve actually be acquainted with a couple of women who had multiple abortions — it was their backup birthcontrol. Indiscriminate abortion goes with sexual irresponsibility.
Sharon
There are some compelling reasons for abortion, ones that some couples take for very tragic reasons: ie with a fetus that will not be viable or a fetus so flawed that its life will not last long after birth. In those cases the choice to have an abortion is a proper moral decision.
Darleen (f20213) — 2/14/2006 @ 6:08 amOh… btw… in Jewish law abortion is permissable under very narrow circumstances. Jewish law considers a fetus as nascent human life — to be treated as any other person unless it comes into conflict with the mother through a direct threat to her life. Then her rights supercede the fetus’.
Darleen (f20213) — 2/14/2006 @ 6:16 amThis is a very interesting thread and there have been a lot of good posts – well thought out and framed.
The issue for me is a thorny one. Being a Christian I would have to say that this is a moral issue. And if I was absolutely true to Christian doctrine, I would say that it should never happen. But, then there are other circumstances. People have already mentioned rape and incest – and as I understand that rationale behind those, not only did the woman not give “consent” (well in most cases – incest may be different in some cases), but there could be serious problems with the child after birth.
I think there is another area that needs to be considered though. And that is the fact that kids are having sex at younger and younger ages. I know of a girl who was 10 that had a “consensual” (if you can call it that at her age) relationship with a 12 yo boy. She got pregnant. What do we do in these cases? Do we require the girl to carry to term? What about the stigma that will be placed on her if we do that? What about psychological harm to her by taking either action? Is a 10 year old mature enough to even know what parenthood is all about? These are serious implications that have to be thought through before we decide on simply banning abortion.
I do not know when at what point a fetus deserves “moral respect”. I have beliefs – mostly along religious lines of thought – but there are always questions.
I agree in most respects that we need more open discussion and debate on this issue. Thanks Patterico (and Psyberian for brining it up in another thread) for opening this discussion up. This is how we learn and form concensus.
Specter (466680) — 2/14/2006 @ 7:07 amRe: Birth COntrol
Shit.
I wish I didn’t know that. That’s not how it was explained to me.
Shit.
See Dubya (5073f6) — 2/14/2006 @ 7:16 am[…] Patterico published A Discussion of Abortion ā Part One: Setting the Stage yesterday evening. He invited his readers to answer two questions, as part of a multiple day discussion of abortion. I chose to answer his questions here rather than just answering in a comment on his blog. Here goes. […]
Minor thoughts » Setting the Stage for a Discussion of Abortion (aa3f29) — 2/14/2006 @ 7:19 am[…] Interesting discussion in response to yesterday’s questions about abortion. Let me summarize what I see in the responses (and please: keep them coming!) and pose some follow-up questions. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » A Discussion of Abortion — Part Two: Follow-Up Questions (421107) — 2/14/2006 @ 8:49 amSee Dub:
I felt a little bad breaking that to you. I can tell you that my understanding is that the pill generally works in the way you describe; it’s just that the potential is there to prevent pregnancy through preventing implantation.
You do seem like a perfect candidate for my follow-up questions to those who accord moral respect at the moment of conception. I hope you will look at those questions.
Patterico (4d4be8) — 2/14/2006 @ 8:53 amDana:
You say:
I do not see a problem with non-abortifacient contraception, meaning that which prevents the fertilization of the egg. In such instances, there is no living human being in existence whose rights have been violated. I do have a problem with ācontraceptionā which acts after conception, those devices and drugs which act to prevent implantation on the uterine wall.
Do you have a problem with the birth control pill? It sometimes operates as an abortifacient. Yet most people (with strict Catholics forming the main exception) are comfortable with the concept of the pill.
Patterico (4d4be8) — 2/14/2006 @ 8:58 amPatterico:
Just to clear some things up about oral contraceptives. Combination oral contraceptives (a mixture of estrogen and progesterone) are the most commonly used pills, and the most efficacious. They act, entirely, by preventing ovulation as they prevent secretion of hormones required to induce ovulation.
Progesterone-only oral contraceptives, which are used primarily on breast feeding mothers (for safety) or as long-acting injectable forms (depo-provera) also prevent ovulation in most cases. However, these contraceptives also increase cervical mucus production which leads to decreased ability for sperm to pass through the cervix and they lead to thickening of the endometrium which prevents implantation.
The morning after pill works entirely by preventing implantation, as by that point, fertilization has already occurred.
Finally, all barrier methods (ie condoms, diaphragms, etc) work by preventing fertilization. So, those that believe that life begins at conception should not necessarily object to barrier methods or combination oral contraceptives.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:29 amThanks Adam.
See Dubya (5073f6) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:39 amBen,
Thanks for the follow up, and I appreciate your position. My response is that I still think you are taking a position most people agree with (ie, killing newborn babies is morally wrong), then finding a common characteristic between that position and another more controversial issue (ie, both newborns and fetuses have brain stems), and then using that characteristic to import the settled moral position into the unsettled one as if it followed logically. However, this is not the case.
For example, I could say that slavery is morally wrong, both slavery and affirmative action involve racial categorization and discrimination, so therefore slavery and affirmative action are both equally wrong. This, of course, is not a position most people would agree with. For now, though, we aren’t trying to settle the argument, and just saying that you believe life begins at conception answered Patterico’s question. I’m surre there will be more opportunties to expound upon your position.
Matto Ichiban (4d4be8) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:53 amAdam,
It looks like there is an active debate about this. Wikipedia claims that the combination pill thins the lining of the uterus but says that this does not mean that implantation is necessarily less likely. Note that the article concludes by saying that the pill is not an abortifacient anyway, because the medical consensus is that conception is synonymous with implantation and not fertilization — so under this view, it doesn’t matter even if implantation is made less likely. But most pro-lifers don’t share the “medical consensus” view of conception.
Patterico (4d4be8) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:55 amPatterico:
I am getting the information from Harrison’s textbook of internal medicine (I can’t give a link because subscription is required), which is generally more reliable than wikipedia. There is no actual evidence that combination oral contraceptives prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation. The only argument comes from the fact that the progestin-only pills function in that manner, and because the combination pills also contain progesterone they could have the same effect. Basically, because ovulation never occurs, even if combination pills prevent implantation, it wouldn’t matter. Looking at the medical texts, there seems to be much less debate over the mechanism of combination contraceptive action in the medical community than is suggested by that wikipedia article.
There is one thing which I forgot to mention before. And, that is that all of this assumes that the woman takes the pills exactly according to instructions. For instance, it would be possible that someone could miss a couple of days, allowing ovulation to occur followed by fertilization. At this point, she might remember to take the pills and this could conceivably lead to an inhibition of implantation or an induced abortion. Therefore, if a person believes that prevention of fertilization is alright but inhibition of implantation is not, then it would be extremely important for them to follow their doctor’s direcetions carefully.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/14/2006 @ 10:56 amOne of the best discussion threads on the subject that I’ve seen, fwiw.
I suppose that most discussions of abortion start by establishing a foundation similar to the questions which Patterico suggested, whether abortion is an individual right, and whether (and if so, when) a fetus becomes a being entitled to moral respect. It is certainly possible to answer both in the affirmative. Most people would do so. That leaves line drawing.
But before presuming to engage in line drawing, I would propose another part of the foundation. I would suggest it’s the most important part. “You can’t always get everything you want.” Its corrollary of course, is, if you get outvoted, it’s extraordinarily bad form to change the rules to deny the other guy his vote.
Back to the question of where to draw the line. The answer is, of course, wherever the elected legislature chooses to draw the line. Individual legislators will undoubtedly bring to the discussion many if not all of the viewpoints expressed in this thread and the policy that is made will very likely reflect a balance that comes very close to the median. To those left unhappy, regardless of which side you’re on, see the foundation, above, and try to do a better job at persuading the next time the legislature is in session. No end runs around the process under the pretense of protecting some imaginary restriction on legislative power.
TNugent (6128b4) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:40 pmAs a respecter of the law (excepting the traffic division) I would like to say that if a man knew that his “wife” were pregnant on day 2 or 3 after conception and then decided to pummel her with clear intent to terminate the process; would he or would he not be charged with murder? If indeed he would why then should the right to kill at whim not be restricted to his “wife” also?
Steve (41f27d) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:56 pmsteve:
It is likely that there are plenty of inconsistencies in the law. But, that’s not any kind of argument for or against abortion. Ideally, the law would be completely consistant.
TNugent:
I think there are cases where majority rule is simply unacceptable. Earlier, I brought up the fact that slavery was once legal in this country. Sometimes it takes an autocratic authority to correct a wrong. That is why we do have a government with multiple branches and checks and balances. There are times when the majority must be overruled.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:12 pmMy view of morality is that it just a set of rules of behavior which societies have adopted to allow groups of people to work together effectively. Some sets of rules will work better than other sets but I don’t think there is a clearly optimal set so the set of rules (or morality) an individual prefers will depend to some extent on what he is used to and on his personal taste. I also believe that rules which work well for one level of technology (and wealth)may not be appropriate for a different level so morality may vary with circumstance.
Regarding question 1, I don’t believe in natural rights (except the right to rule what you can take and hold) so the question doesn’t make much sense to me. Individual rights are granted by society and society can include or exclude the right to have an abortion as it chooses.
Regarding question 2, I think society has an interest in the treatment of a fetus not because of what it is but because of what it may become and that interest exists from conception. So I would allow essentially unrestricted abortions but I would not allow the mother to take mutagenic drugs or otherwise seriously damage the fetus without killing it. Incidentially I think society also has a similar interest in regulating the treatment of human egg and sperm cells if they are going to be used to produce new people. This would extend to cells discarded from your body if technology improves to the point that these can be used to grow clones.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:15 pmAdam, the power to rewrite the constitution at whim is not among the “checks and balances” conceived by the founders. Your statement that sometimes the majority “must be overruled” is astounding — is the condition to such an outrageous action any particular violation of a specific constitutional limitation, or is it merely an action by the majority with which you disagree?
If you want to argue that something is too important to be trusted to the processes of republican government, then you need to persuade enough people to support an amendment to the constitution to remove that issue from those process. Your example of slavery makes my point — it (and its legacy, Jim Crow) is the one and only circumstance that justified the sort of judicial action that Brown v. Board represented. That truly was, as Judge McConnell (I think) called it, an act of judicial statesmansship. In sharp contrast to the fabrication of a theretofore unimagined constitutional right to abortion, the Court in Brown v. Board merely stepped into the breach left by Congress’ failure to fulfill its duty (at least a moral one, which accompanied the powers granted) under the enforcement clause of the 14th amendment — a failure produced by the perpetual Dixiecrat filibuster (if there is a worthwhile constitutional amendment, it would be one that would limit debate in the Senate and permit a simple majority to require a floor vote). No new rights were invented, no new restrictions on state power, other than that which restricted states from treating its black citizens as second class citizens.
The Court isn’t the primary guarantor of liberty; rather our form of government is, and it doesn’t work if citizens aren’t given equal status under the law, and it doesn’t work if those rights enumerated in the first 8 amendments are impaired. But it works just fine without judicial rewriting of the due process clause of the 14th amendment to change the emphasis from the process that is due to a notion of liberty not contemplated at the time of ratification of that amendment.
It’s probably an overstatement to say that the constitution contemplates no “liberty” apart from specific guarantees of the first 8 amendments and the general assurance of liberty obtained through participation in the processes of government, but it’s not much of an overstatement. The right to choose abortion is a “liberty” only to the extent that the state legislature hasn’t chosen to regulate it or limit it. It’s different from and inferior to (in terms of the level of constitutional protection) freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc. Most people happen to agree that it is good policy to permit most abortions early in pregnancy to be matters for a woman and her doctor to decide. Perhaps that’s a good policy, but that doesn’t make it one mandated by the Constitution.
TNugent (6128b4) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:34 pmTNugent:
My point was not that Roe was correctly decided. It was just that there are times when the will of the majority must be overruled, such as slavery (and you obviously agree with that). So, the debate really comes down to when this can or should be done. I was only disagreeing with the absolutist position expressed in your previous post.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/14/2006 @ 4:02 pmChoice vs. Life
Patterico is running an interesting symposium on [I’ll bet you can’t guess the subject!] over on his site. The first two posts are here and here. It’s an interesting discussion; and although everyone is being relatively civil (so far as…
Big Lizards (fe7c9d) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:32 pmA baby is conceived and should be left to live until death at some time in the future. My parents lived to age 88, I am now 60. Why say some may live and others should die? Do not have any false gods before you.
stackja (37ac81) — 2/15/2006 @ 1:24 amI find it hard to understand how a baby that is sustainable outside the womb is not protected as a human being even in the womb. The child has all of the requisite characteristics of a human being, distinct DNA, looks and acts as a baby, has all of the organs and developed to the point that it can survive and live. To not recognize this fact is illogical. When Roe was ādecidedā the term for viability was considered more like 30 months. Medical advances will continue to push viability back earlier and earlier.
Once the viability is recognized, logically the question becomes at what point do you have a human life. One of the reasons the pendulum has swung against unlimited abortion is the quality of sonograms, in my opinion. To many people have seen what looks like a human at very early stages of development.
Time is on the side of anti abortionists. Medical technology has and will continue to create arguments against the āit is tissueā argument in ways that most adults will grasp in the innate sense of right and wrong. For my part I would like to see abortion outlawed but suspect that over time it will be more and more controlled and restricted but not outlawed completely.
My thoughts.
Bob Jacobs (e582ee) — 2/15/2006 @ 4:37 amAdam, my position might seem absolutist to you, but in practice it is anything but. It leaves policy decisions up to elected, accountable legisltures, so that mistakes (and Roe v. Wade should be considered a mistake regardless of one’s policy preference on abortion) can be corrected by the usual processes of representative government.
And, by the way, there is, both at the federal level and in every state, a check against the power of legislative majorities. It’s called the executive veto. There is no concept of a judicial veto in any reasonable reading of the constitution. There is also no judicial power to amend the constitution in any reasonable reading of that document. The matters which the constitution leaves beyond the reach of ordinary legislative majorities are those matters pertaining to the checks and balances themselves or to those rights without which the checks and balance may not operate (the enumerated guarantees of the first 8 amendments, principally; the guarantees of the post-civil war amendments were essentially that each citizen of a state is to have equal status under the laws of that state, rather than to open a door to judicial invention of previously unknown substantive constitutional guarantees). Everything else is fair game for legislatures (subject to executive veto, of course), whether or not acting wisely. It works very well provided the central government doesn’t stretch the scope of its power beyond those which are specified or clearly implied. Unfortunately, the most significant impact of a federal judiciary acting, as you would have them act, as a veto-wielding check on unwise legislative policy-making, is to weaken the constitutional structures limiting the scope of central government power.
On this last point, refer to actus’ comment above, to the effect that if the feds can regulate weed, they can regulate abortion. Apply the rationale of the dissenters in Gonzalez v. Oregon, assuming that Roe v. Wade is either reversed outright (unlikely) or limited so significantly that it will have no practical effect on laws actually passed by the states (highly likely). If abortion isn’t a fundamental right in the circumstances at hand (and it won’t be, at least in middle or late term abortions where the pregnancy poses no significant risks to the woman’s life or physical health), then the dissenters rationale would support a decision by the attorney general of the US to declare that such procedures are not legitimate medical procedures, the consequence being that the use of federally controlled substances in performing them would be unlawful. In every state whose legislature has acted to protect abortion rights, such an action by the attorney general would be a check on the power of legislative majorities. Compare the action of the AG in our hypothetical to a judicial act reversing a legislatively adopted policy imposing restrictions on abortion. Without relying on the painfully stretched interpretation of the due process clause and the penumbras emanating from the hallucinigen-addled brain of William O. Douglas, why on earth would anyone think that the judicial act is ok, but the executive one is not, unless of course, one is short-sighted enough to sacrifice the process for the sake of a single policy victory?
TNugent (6128b4) — 2/15/2006 @ 6:59 amThere is no way to determine the answer to the ultimate answer of what is human life and what is not. I would think that Roe vs Wade should be overturned on the basis of the fact that to one group it is a matter of a woman controling her own body. To the other group it is a much greater matter of children being killed. Since there is really not mid ground in this debate and the issue is fundamentally not resolvable, I would defer to those who oppose abortion in the interest of national unity especially since women have plenty of access to birth control methods or at least should have.
Charlie (8ea405) — 2/23/2006 @ 4:23 pmMenopause’s Secret Phytoestrogen Natural Plant Estrogen Rebalances Women Men Hormones Level Pueraria Mirifica Natural Plant Estrogen
Phytoestrogen (e15aca) — 9/22/2006 @ 1:10 amSomething for Pro-choicers to concider…..
World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million.
3,500 per day / 1.3 million per year in America alone.
50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.
A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.
And 2% had medical reasons.
That means a stagering 98% may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.
I am a pro-lifer who has no religious convictions at all . I didn’t need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just a good sense of what is right and wrong.
You see we were all once a fetus. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?
You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories. In this day and age with terminations being so readily available and so many being carried out, if you make it to full term
you can consider yourself lucky. Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you. Don’t you think they all deserve the same basic human right, LIFE?
I’m all for contraception, prevention is certainly better than termination.
Did you know you can get an implant that is safe, 99.9% effective, and lasts for three years? Just think girls not even a show for three years, wouldn’t that be great? I think too many people rely too heavily on the last option (abortion), I think if abortions weren’t so readily available people would manage their reproductive system far better resulting in a fraction of the number of unwanted pregnancies.
World wide there are over 50 MILLION aborted pregnancies each year. In America 3,500 terminations carried out every day, that’s over 1.3 million every year, 50% of all cases claimed that birth control had been used, 48% admitted they took no precaution, and 2% had a medical reason. That’s a staggering 98% that may have been prevented had an effective birth control been used. Don’t get me wrong, I suspect the percentages in Australia would be much the same.
Just a lot of unnecessary killing.
At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existence. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.
I am convinced that in the not too distant future, people will look back at many of the practices of today with disbelief and horror.
Want to know how to find humanity-?
True humanity can only be achieved, by concidering others/ caring about others, as much as, if not more than yourself.
Until we do we are no more than an uncivilisation, with all the uncivilised things that we do…
ausblog (55442f) — 10/8/2006 @ 6:30 pmBill Clinton once said that abortions should be available , safe and RARE. He is a very wise man.
I’d like to see an ultrasound in every clinnic to provide a more informed choice, before going through with something they may regret.
I’d also like to see effective birth control made available to all who can’t afford it.
ausblog (057817) — 10/15/2006 @ 5:44 pmIf you think the point of conception is NOT when life begins, and all you have is a clump of cells and not a living human being.
Then at least concider this –
Soon after you were conceived you were no more than a clump of cells.
ausblog (fe1de4) — 11/23/2006 @ 4:43 pmThis clump of cells was you at your earliest stage, you had plenty of growing to do but this clump of cells was you none the less. Think about it.
Aren’t you glad you were left unhindered to develope further.
Safe inside your mother’s womb until you were born.
riklhmntj lcnpy gysuq nedf tdecpfna epryown ampbe
jwghy lfdaxmyk (6c569a) — 8/27/2008 @ 1:47 pm