I respect politicians and commentators who try to be intellectually honest and consistent, even if it means going against a societal goal they support — such as limited-government conservatives who don’t change their stripes when the issue is abortion or gay marriage. Richard Cohen has a good column in Thursday’s Washington Post about how, even though he is pro-choice, he disagrees with the Roe decision.
Cohen writes: “The prospect of some women traveling long distances to secure an abortion does not cheer me — I’m pro-choice, I repeat — but it would relieve us all from having to defend a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.”
He concludes: “A bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
44 Comments
A woman has a right to an abortion based on “privacy.”
Dumb.
The Supremes should determine once and for all when human life begins and rule on that basis.
As someon who’s raised three kids, I can tell you difinitively, that it’s not an independent life-form until it’s left home. And sometimes not even then!
Recent stats on abortion in USabortion http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04.pdf and search on ‘abortion’
Not totally germane to the topic, but facts, figures, and perspective are good to know.
Overturning R v W is not the answer, IMHO. Abortions are down from a high of 1.4MM in 1990 to 853K in 2001, though Alaska, California and New Hampshire did not report their abortions to the CDC in 2001.
For arguments sake, let’s say the Supreme Court or Congress does pass a law that the fetus is a human at the point the heart starts beating. Now what? If a women wants to get an abortion after that point, she will. 40% of abortions are on fetuses over 9wks, 21% over 11 weeks, 12% over 13 weeks.
Science proves that life begins at the moment of conception. You can split hairs and philosophize all you want, but if it’s not alive, then it won’t grow. The true question is: Does our society allow someone who is not ready, willing, or able to be a parent the choice to prevent another human being from having life? It IS a life that will come to fruition unless something is deliberately done to prevent it from doing so. Whether you are prochoice, prolife, or somewhere in between, at least be honest about what abortion really is.
Damoon,Science proves no such thing; it doesn’t even address it! That’s a question for philosophers, who have many widely diverging answers to that one, each with it’s own reasoning. The question of when life begins, or even if it begins, is far, far from settled!
You’re full of bull on this one, Jed. Science proves that life begins at conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg and the cells start to split. To say philosophers should settle the question is stupid. It’s just the basic science of reproduction. Like I said before, if it’s not alive, then it won’t grow, and that’s true for all forms of life.
Damoon, Jed is correct…
If what you say were true, then why is the issue of abortion such a hot topic issue? While embryonic development begins at conception there is no nervous response or heart action for quite some time. A blob of several dozens of cells, while having the potential to develop into a human being, is certainly not a human being. Further, the definition of “life” that everyone is concerned about is the moment when the human spirit becomes active..and that is not an issue that can be settled by science, at least at this time. Cloning, for example, involves no fertilization, yet leads to a living, breathing, being. If life is defined strictly in term of conception, then the result of cloning cannot be considered “alive”, which is ridiculous. The iss of when “life” begins is, as Jed said, an issue for ethicists and philosophers.
Yes, but when does that zygote become an independent life, or does it ever? Is it human at the moment of conception, or does that develop later? What is human? For that matter, what is life? Crystals grow, and are not considered alive. DNA is an aperiodic crystal. Is it alive? Since enzymes are what effect DNA replication, are they what’s alive? Are viruses and prions and proteins alive? What is it that makes us human? Our DNA? Our brains? Our reproductive organs?Those are real questions, and they don’t have solid answers yet, and may never. And a lot depends on how we answer them. A wrong answer may get us in real trouble down the road. A lot of the troubles we have today are a result of operating on answers we now know are wrong. Scientists don’t have them, and won’t. That’s the territory of philosophers.
Casinos are suppose to be the savior of our economy and school funding. Remember! That is the same promise the Native American mobsters gave to their people. Telling them that it will bring them out of poverty and reservation life will be a golden palace that everybody will envy.
After decades of Indian Casinos, what has come with that promise? More poverty? Yeah!
I don’t care if we get a Casino or not, but I do know that a Casino will not be the savior of all. It actually will not do anything and fund very little. $200 million dollars a year to the state (maybe), when the state has a budget close to 11 billion?
The state can sneeze $200 million in cost savings, if it wanted to, but it will not. The state government workers (all of them) are going to make sure that they have their jobs for life.
I have noticed something about you Joe. You do have a lot to say, now if you could just figure out where to stand to say it!LoL
At the moment of fertilization, a human being starts to form, unless nature or man interferes (by the way, the heartbeat starts at 18 days).My question is: Does one human have the right to deny life to another human for whatever reason?When you justify abortion by telling yourself it’s not alive, it’s not human, it has no “spirit”, whatever, you’re not dealing with the real issue. Abortion prevents a human from having their time on this earth. Is that justifiable?
Damoon,When you define all your own terms, you answer your own question. Which is no answer at all!
Damoon,
Yes, apparently one human does have the right to deny another human his life, at least here in the US. The relevant section of the Constitution reads
“No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
You may be an opponent to the death penalty as am I, but it is enshrined in the Constitution. Just goes to show you people can have different views on a topic.
I never thought about it until now. I always thought of the above section as pertinent to crime. However, the clause makes no mention of crime or criminal intent, it only says that you cannot be deprived of your life without due process. I know what I’m about to say is a complete misreading of the intent, but I’ll throw it out there just to get the glowing embers burning again.
Irrespective of your stance on human rights issues, like opposition to the death penalty and abortion, the Constitution does seem to permit the denial of life to the individual so long as the individual has received “due process”. If you are defining a fertilized ovum as an individual, does this mean that every abortion case should be decided in a court of law? Should the egg cell, or embryo or fetus get a public defender? Forgive me but it’s late = insomnia sucks.
Jed, how have I defined my own terms? I’m just talking biology 101. It’s really very basic. Why don’t you answer my question? Does one human have the right to deny another human the chance to have their time on this earth?I’m not black and white on this issue, but I’m trying to be as honest as possible about what abortion is.Brian, I never said I was against the death penalty. I don’t think abortion should be totally outlawed, because that won’t work, either. But I do believe we need to be honest about what it means to have one and quit fooling ourselves into believing that we don’t know what life is. We sent a man to the moon, and we know everything there is to know about human conception. As I said before, it’s just about being honest with ourselves.
Damoon,
I guess i don’t see your distinction..you say does anyone have the right to kill anyone else and then you say you aren’t necessarily against the death penalty. You can’t have it both ways. The answer from the constitution and from law is yes..the state (us) has the right to execute someone so long as they receive “due process”..and homicide and rape laws, for example, allow for you to use deadly force if your life is in imminent danger.
I would have to agree with Jed.Damoon says “At the moment of fertilization, a human being starts to form, unless nature or man interferes.”This is a teleological, and not ontological definition. Teleology is the realm of philosophy (You are saying that a “human being” starts to form. Thus, you claim it is not yet formed as a human being. Why then are we obligated to call it a human being, and give it such rights? It is like a lump of clay. You cannot call it a pitcher just because the potter is working the clay in preparation for making a pitcher. Notice the religious overtones – only if you believe the potter do you know what the clay will become. Moreover, an early conception might form a hydatidform mole, which is not a human being, so you cannot categorically say that all conceptions would become human beings. It isn’t really nature interfering, the pregnancy was never going to become a fetus.Biological definitions are ontological; they describe the substance as it is at the time discussed. To biology an embryo is an embryo, not a “human being” however formed or unformed. Biology may describe the progression from embryo to fetus to enfant, but to claim Biological definitions asserts your teleological or rights claims is false.I think, furthermore, that the biological definition of “life” as cellular respiration and replication misses the point. It isn’t a question of the cells dividing, but of independence. My eyebrow hairs are alive (at least at their roots) and dividing. You haven’t called me a murderer for plucking them this morning, because they are part of me – absolutely dependent on my body for growth. So is a conception. Perhaps at viability, we might need to discuss fetal independence, but I doubt that is true at conception. Nor is “but their genes are different” an adequate excuse. Cancer cells end up with very different genes than mine, but I am still allowed to remove and kill them. Then, you say, only if the woman’s life is at risk like cancer. But, I had benign tumors (also with different genes) removed. I wasn’t obligated to support the tumors in the name of their right to biological life.To the point of this whole discussion – the right to privacy may be poor as a strict constitutional principle, but it underlies a lot of other decisions unrelated to R.v.W.
I still say that when a woman decides to have an abortion, she’s making the decision to end the life of another human being. Like I said before, you can split hairs and philosophize all you want. If being independant determines what is human, then what about a newborn? Isn’t a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus just a stage of human development? You can’t become a human being without going through these stages first. Using your logic, Allie, I would say that a more accurate analogy would be that the sperm and egg are like the potter’s clay. What about mid to late term abortion? Is there a possiblity the fetus is going to be something other than human if allowed to continue it’s gestation?Brian, why do you say I can’t have it both ways? You assume that you can stereotype me because I ask that question.Does one have the right to deny existance to another? I would say “yes” in some cases. The reason I asked the question is because so many of you think abortion is no big deal because you deny that prenatal life exists in the first place. That’s where we disagree. I think sometimes abortion might be the logical solution, but I’m not going to deny that, by being aborted, another human being is being denied the chance to exist on this earth.
Damoon, there is a line of cervical cancer cells that has been alive and reproducing now for over 50 years. It is “life”, it is a human cell line, but it isn’t “human life” as used in the context here.
I would suggest that you write down what you consider some of the essential characteristics of “human life” as compared to all other life. Then see if a zygote or an embryo meets the criteria laid out.
I doubt for example, that you can lay down any distinguishing characteristic of a 2 day old human embryo versus a two day old chicken embryo. And I’m NOT talking about obvious things like number of chromosomes.
Damoon- I don’t quite understand your complaint about philosophy. How do you have a discussion about the meaning of a fetus or human beings without recourse to philosophy? Are you admitting that you only have a gut level response? Concerning my pottery analogy. You were the one that claimed the conception starts to form, but is not formed. Sperm and egg might be the water and sand that are mixed to form the clay. Nevertheless, a lump of clay is not a formed pot and a conception is, even according to you, not a formed human. Re independence. I’ll admit, no human, even a hermit, is fully independent of others. Nevertheless, there is an intimacy is the absolute dependence on the gestating woman for a fetus that an enfant does not have. I am willing to entertain viability as a meaningful distinction. Conveniently, the vast majority of abortions occur before that point. Alan Guttmacher Institute claims that 88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks (viability is generally considered to be between 24-28 weeks).
Allie, the heart in an embryo starts to beat after 18 days gestation, the nervous system is forming at that time also. By four months, the baby is completly formed and producing brain waves. I guess to me that what makes an embryo or a fetus different than an eyebrow hair, tumor, or a cancer cell. It’s not reacting on a gut level as much as I am to the science of conception and fetal development. When you suggest that philosophers are the ones who should define when life exists, that’s the same as saying that creationists should determine the validity of evolution. One is based on science and the study of embryology, and the other is not.Can you honestly say that by having an abortion, you aren’t preventing a human from having their life on this earth?If you accepted the fact that a fetus is a developing human, do you think that would change your views on abortion?I’m not sure why viability should be a determining factor as to whether or not a fetus is human, by that statement do you think abortion after a fetus is viable is wrong?I’d like your response to my questions. Your intellectualization seems a lot like denial and rationalizaton to me.
Damoon,
You have reduced an extremely complex issue to a very simplistic result. However, not everyone comes to your conclusion and you owe to them a respect for their arguments.
I would suggest you look athttp://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
for a nice summary of the various theories, their strengths, and their weaknesses. The reason there can be no law regarding abortion is clear – there is no concensus about it.
Damoon-Creationists are neither philosophers nor biologists. They are theists. There is a philosophy of science that real philosophers engage in. When you move from describing biological functions to ascribing worth to them, political or moral, you have moved out of biology and into philosophy or theology.Why does a heart beating or brainwaves matter to you? Why not tell me about fetal hemoglobin or fetal adrenal glands, both are distinct to fetuses? Because you assign heart beats and brainwaves moral worth that isn’t self-evident by virtue of science. Moreover, your embryology is simplistic, at best. True, fetal heart is some of the earliest development. But the heart that “beats” at 18 days is not a miniature formed human heart. It is a clump of regularly depolarizing cells within two fused tubes. Actually, a truly “formed” heart doesn’t really form until birth, when the foramen ovale closes. But, a heart beating has symbolic value to you. Brainwaves, likewise, have symbolic value. Brainwaves are detectable because that is how neural circuitry is formed, by making connections and killing off a vast number of neurons that don’t fit. Your implicit leap to therefore the fetus must “think” or have “awareness” as a developed neocortical process is wrong. Finally, how can you call a fetus fully formed at 4 months if it is incapable of independent survival (even in a NICU) and, according to recent reports, insensate to pain?So, let’s see my personal views. Since the embryo and early fetus are not an independent human beings, I am unpersuaded by “but it could turn into one” arguments. A human fetus generally develops into a human enfant, but that does not categorically assign the fetus preeminent political and moral worth, especially over the political and moral worth of the mother. If the argument is teleological, why stop at conception? Every month I loose a fertilizable egg. It has a 1/4 chance of being fertilized. Am I denying it the chance at life by not attempting to conceive? If you ask, what is special about viability? I ask, what is special about conception, teleologically speaking? Now, viability. I, personally, believe that late-term abortions could be reasonably limited to the health of the mother and major abnormalities. I would think it cruel even to birth a Tay-Sachs or Trisomy 13 child. This is a compromise on my part. I can see how viability, the ability for the fetus to exhibit at least basic independence (i.e. breathing, not unlike end-of-life issues), might give a fetus greater moral/political standing than a zygote. My preference is available safe abortion because I trust women to not make the decision lightly. They know their situation the best and bear the greatest burden in either abortion or birth. Anti-choice people don’t agree. I suppose, I should say guilty as charged to be an intellectual. Whether that is denial and rationalization; well, you are entitled to arm-chair psychologizing if you wish.
You obviously have given the subject much thought, as I have. To me human is human. Whether a fertilzed egg, embryo, or fetus, if not tampered with, the end result is the same, a human being. If a pregnancy is terminated, then a human being is denied the chance for life. Maybe keeping abortion legal is necessary, but I have an issue with those who condone the idea that abortion is something other than what it is: preventing a human from having life. Sometimes the truth is just that simple. From an “arm chair psychologist” to an “arm chair philosopher”, I guess we just disagree.Thanks for the discussion, Allie.
Damoon-I appreciate that you are willing to entertain that reasonable, thinking people can come to different conclusions on this issue. That is really what I think is lacking in this debate. Now, I really do have to finish my paper on abortion for my med ethics class, thanks for the help.
Brian,Thanks for that link-much information there to read at lenghth, and digest. Josph Campbell also wrote on the history of abortion in the early Christian culture, with some surprising insights.
Allie,Thanks for making some of my points much better than I could. And welcome aboard! Your level of expertise and ability is much needed here!
Jed and Allie, tonight, go outside and gaze at the stars, then smell the air and feel the breeze on your face, after that go pour yourself a glass of wine and snuggle up with someone you love. Then go call your mom and thank her for giving you the gift of life, because it is an amazing and wonderful experience. It’s too bad that many never get the opportunity to live and love life.
Damoon-Whenever someone tells me to thank my mom for being pro-life, I call her up and thank her for being pro-choice. She made a decision to have children when she was ready and prepared to give up the best life she could. No, she never had an abortion, but I am who I am because of her pro-choice decisions. And I thank her for that.
give us, freudian slip I am sure
Aren’t you glad you weren’t aborted? If she choose to “terminate” you, then we couldn’t have this discussion.When I was born, both my parents were middle aged and their yungest child was 16 yrs old (they had 3 children already). My father had just lost his business due to his alcoholism and they had no money. I’m sure many think that the best solution would have been for my mom to have an abortion. I was lucky that she choose to give me life, (she could have had a abortion if she wanted, illegal abortion was not uncommon in those days and several of her friends had them). As it turned out, my father quit drinking because of me, and I had probably the happiest and most loving childhood anyone could have. Not all unplanned pregnancies turn out to be disasters, some times making it through difficult situations and taking the haeder path makes us better people. I’m grateful everyday that I got to live, I love life and I wouldn’t have wanted anyone to take the opportunity to experience life on this earth, because I believe it’s the only time we get to exist. It’s such a mircle and a gift, even when the circumstances aren’t perfect.
Geezz, sorry about the typos, that’s what happens when I try to type with acrylic nail tips and I hit post before preview!!!”taking the harder path” is what I meant to say.
Damoon,My mother was even more ardently pro-choice than I am. She was the one who called me to come help her oppose the fundies at Tiller’s back in ‘92! When I go down to the clinic to escort women past the howling anti’s, I do it in her memory, and in the memory of all those women who died because they didn’t have the right to choose.
Damoon- Your comment points to the fallacy. What could have happened is a meaningless discussion, since we wouldn’t be here to debate it. I am no more or less happy that I wasn’t aborted than the 1/3-1/2 of conceptions that undergo “spontaneous abortion” (miscarriage). Talking about them being “sad” they were aborted is meaningless, so me being “happy” I wasn’t is too. I don’t sit around going what good fortune that particular egg meet one of 40 million sperm. Another sperm/egg combo might have produced “me” and I would equally rejoice in that thinking it the only possible “right answer.” Or no birth occurred, and no consciousness have happened to mourn its cruel denial. The shocking solipsism of the pro-life individual – you really are the center of your own little universe and all history just had to produce you, and it would have been cruel not to. Sure, I am glad you exist. I have many fortunate surprises as friends. I’m glad they exist, too; but as I say I don’t mourn every egg I loose every month that never got its unique shot at life or every failed conception that could have been my best friend or my one true love.
You’re right, when you consider that one sperm out of millions meeting with that one particular egg made us who we are, it’s a lot like winning the lottery just to be conceived!!! As a former embryo and fetus, now I REALLY feel lucky that someone gave me the chance to exist!Sometimes Allie, getting out of our heads and thinking with our hearts gives us a more positive view of life. You should try it sometime.
Jed, I sold the property next door to Tiller’s to Choices Medical Clinic. I probably knew your mom. What a small world!
PS Allie,Yes, yes I know one can’t “think” with their heart, it’s just a metaphor!
Thank you, I am aquainted with metaphoric language and, in fact, emotions. However, I was under the impression that one could or should have a reasonable discussion about abortion. You feel lucky to be alive and you feel that fetus are cute little babies. Ok, that’s nice, tell me again why that means I should agree with you about abortion? Because, if only I weren’t such a cold hearted person, I would feel like you do? Wow, that’s a discussion that is going to move forward.PS -I knew you would like the lottery analogy, though you buy right into the utter solipsism of it.
Allie, Obviously we disagree on what life is and isn’t. My perception on the abortion issue is certainly very different than yours. I understand your logic and I know what an unplanned pregnancy feels like, but I also know how it feels to have another human kicking and rolling around inside of me. To me it’s inconceivable that a fetus isn’t human or alive. At no time did I mean to insinuate that you were cold hearted, but I think you could get out of your head and try to understand things from someone else’s perception. You don’t have to change your mind, it’s just helpful in understanding other people and where they’re coming from. I have a right to my opinions, just like you have a right to yours.I think we’ve discussed the abortion issue reasonabily.Now excuse me while I go and enjoy my life, I’m taking my grandkids to the Pumpkin Patch today!
Damoon,Exactly! We disagree; so how does that become the outright ban on abortion the fundies seek? Why shouldn’t it be a matter of individual choice to follow one’s own conscience? Why is your conscience so much better than mine that it should be codified? If it is a matter of choice, you are still free to follow your conscience and not have an abortion, without trampling on the rights of others who are following their’s?Further, the simple fact that so many people disagree with your position will make the ban you seek unenforcible, with a return of the backalley abortion parlors. Is that really what you want?PS. The fact that you’re here arguing your position probably means you never met my mother.
Damoon,Clearly you must be a closet pro-choice. I understand your position, and I am happy to let you have as many children as you like, planned or otherwise. I will point out where I feel your justifications are faulty, but being pro-choice IS seeing the other side. It says, women can decide that they grant their conception full human satus, they can rejoice in pregnancy, birth, and motherhood, or they can choose not to. You have a right to your opinions, but they stop at your gyn visit and not at mine.
Jed, where did I ever post that I think abortion should be outlawed? You need to listen once in a while. My point is that an abortion is the taking of a human life. I’m not so niave that I think outlawing it would stop it. Just like I said to you and Allie MANY times, abortion IS depriving another human of their time on earth. I have a problem with those of you who rationalize, justify, intellectualize, and philosophize in order to try to turn abortion into something other than what it is, the taking of a human life.
Allie, I’m not prochoice OR prolife. I don’t see any issue in black and white, even though people like you and Jed try so hard to stereotype. I’m trying to be as honest about the whole issue as I can. I believe it is morally wrong to have an abortion just because a child is unplanned or inconvenient, but it’s always been a part of the human condition and will be long after I’m gone. What I have dedicated myself to is supporting and helping women find alternatives. I’d rather be a part of preserving life, rather than condoning the destruction of it.
Let me get this straight – you just want us to admit that that we are “taking the life of humans” -i.e. murdering. We have been over why I don’t agree, just saying it again doesn’t make you right. And, as far as morals go, calling abortion “morally wrong,” but it is ok because humans have always done it is a pretty poor moral stance.As far as helping women find alternatives. Who would disagree?I would rather not be to self-revealing, but I am currently helping a friend who decided to keep her baby. Why? Because I’m her friend, and I respect her choice.
I think I’m right and you think you’re right. If I’m wrong, then I’d rather error on the side of life and giving every person the chance to exist.I never said abortion was “OK”, I just accept it as a sad fact in our culture and I don’t want to see women return to the back alley anymore than you do. But I don’t condone abortion, and I would never help anyone have one and I’ll continue to help women seek alternatives. If that seems hypocritical to you then so be it, I have to do what I feel is right.Abortion for convenience, like child abuse, will always be morally reprehensible to me. Get over it, Allie.Now go have a nice life. I’m done.—–
Damoon,Before we get any further, I’d like to hear your definition of “convenience.” Some of the anti’s I’ve run into classify staying alive as a convenience!
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts — a child — as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters”And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.” (Mother Teresa — “Notable and Quotable,” Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14)