Edited to add: I’ve recieved many responses to this post, most of which are variations upon a single theme. Rather then try to address each comment individually I’m responding to those here.
Abortion has weighed on this country for 35 years, not only because it is a very emotional issue, but also because abortion touches on so many other issues as well. It is not just about Female Reproductive Rights, the Rights of the Unborn, the Right to Privacy, etc. It is also about Male Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, Rule of Law, and Personal Responsibility. I do not believe there is a solution that could possibly please all the people all of the time, but I do believe there is an abortion position that does the least amount of violence to all of these rights and principles. Here I present a grand unifying theory on the power of abortion, reproductive rights, and parental rights that does just that. I call it the Pro-Rights abortion position.
The 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The authority and power to decide whether a woman may or may not have an abortion is not a power granted to the United States Federal Government, nor is is a power prohibited by the Constitution to the States. Therefore the Power to decided whether a woman may or may not have an abortion is one that is reserved to either the States respectively or to the People. The question then is whether it is the States or the People to which this power is reserved.
The 14th Amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The key word there is ‘born’. As a practical matter we do not abort children a day before they would naturally be born because it is obvious the child is capable of surviving outside of the womb. A child that is capable of surviving outside the womb should be considered the same as having been born, with regards to citizenship, because it is capable of doing so. A fetus should achieve citizenship as soon as it is able to survive independent of the womb.
Accepting that the word ‘born’ implies “an ability to survive independent of the womb”, the 14th Amendment becomes clear that until such time as a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, they are not a citizen of the United States. If the unborn is able to sustain it’s own life outside of the womb then it is indeed a citizen, and the state’s interest is clear as it has a responsibility to protect the child’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the fetus cannot sustain it’s own life then it is not yet a citizen, and has no rights that the state is authorized to protect. As such, the Power of Abortion is the People’s until such time as the unborn is capable of being born at which time the Power of Abortion is accorded to the States. Functionally this means that the Power of Abortion is the people’s during the First and Second Trimesters, and the state’s during the Third Trimester.
During the First and Second Trimesters which People have the Power of Abortion? As the fetus is not considered a citizen before the Third trimester it can only be considered property during the First and Second Trimesters, but whose property?
Each of us owns our own body. This is a self evident truth that our country is built upon. No man can own another, no government owns any person. Our bodies are our own. Our organs cannot be taken from us unless we give consent for them to be taken by signing up as an Organ Donor, our blood can not be taken unless we decide to donate it, and we own our genetic material. The fetus is made up of equal amounts of genetic material from a man and a woman and as such they have joint ownership of the fetus. It is the consenting act that results in impregnation that represents the deepest of social bonds. Throughout human history humanity has acknowledged that both man and woman bear equal responsibility to the life they are bringing into this world. In all other respects, both the man and the woman have equal say over the fate of their child. Why should decisions regarding abortion be any less? All people own their genetic material. It is from that ownership and the bond represented by the consenting act that reproductive rights can be derived.
As it stands now a woman can unilaterally abort a fetus thereby dissolving the deepest of social bonds and the responsibility that goes with it without ever informing the man. She is, for all intents and purposes, destroying his genetic property without his consent. This violates the reproductive rights of half the population. All men and women are created equally. The fetus is equally the genetic property of both the man and the woman under a bond made willingly.
If the fetus was conceived in the course of rape then the rapist by default has forfeited his right to determine the fate of the fetus and the woman should be able to exercise the Power of Abortion as she will. However, if the fetus was conceived with the consent of both parties, then it should follow that it would need to be aborted with the consent of both parties. The man should be informed that the fetus exists and his consent should be gained before an abortion is performed. To do otherwise would deny men reproductive rights.
The state has an interest and duty in safeguarding the genetic property rights of both the man and the woman as it would for any property rights issue. Should a dispute arise between the man and the woman as to whether or not the fetus should be aborted it would fall to the state to arbitrate as it would any other property dispute. If their genetic material were not bound as one there would be no issue. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish. In the case of a fetus, however, the properties are bound together. Destroying the property of one is destroying the property of the other. The state does not have an interest in allowing any citizen to destroy the another citizen’s property. A woman aborting against the will of the man is as much a violation of his genetic property rights as a man perpetrating trauma to a woman’s stomach to induce miscarriage would violate hers.
In the case of a minor the rights of the legal parent or guardian necessarily supersede the rights of the potential father. A parent’s or guardian’s permission is required for every other medical procedure, not to mention relative inconsequential matters such as a school trip. It makes no sense that a parent would not have authority, in regard to their under aged teen, over the very significant medical procedure of abortion. It is in the State’s interest to support and respect the integrity of the family unit, as the family is the foundation of our society. A minor should be required to have the consent of at least one parent before an abortion can be legally performed.
Should complications arise and the unborn were to pose a threat to the life of the potential mother, then her own vested interest in life and liberty takes precedent over rights of any parents, guardians, or potential fathers.
There are three types of amendments to the Constitution that would alter this argument. Those amendments would need to redefine what a citizen is, to redefine a citizen’s natural ownership of their body, or to outlaw abortion specifically. The likelihood of any one of these amendments being passed is slim at best. It is a reality that a significant portion of America would oppose each of these measures, ensuring that none of those amendments would pass.
The Pro-Rights Abortion position is consistent with the Constitution as written. Above all else, this nation is a nation of the Rule of Law, before which all people are equal. This Pro-Rights Abortion position would bring our nation closer to that ideal. It treats Men’s and Women Reproductive Rights as the same, with no double standard. It places responsibility square on both parties, being both fair and unfair to both equally. It treats abortion as a Private Issue between the potential father and potential mother, until the fetus itself satisfies conditions for citizenship. It respects the Rights of Parents to raise their children as they see fit.
The Pro-Rights Abortion Position does not address whether or not it is life or whether or not the woman has a choice. Viewing the issue though an emotional lens will not satisfy either side of the argument and ensures deadlock on the issue. The Pro-Rights solution views abortion as a matter of citizenship and property rights. In doing so it offers something to like for both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life advocates.
Granting both women and men the same reproductive rights would be logically consistent for Pro-Choice advocates, extending choice to everyone. Here to for, men have been disfranchised from their reproductive rights. What reason would they have to deny men suffrage in regards to the power of abortion?
This argument should also appeal to Pro-Life advocates by firmly restricting Third Term abortions and by making abortions harder to obtain during the First and Second Trimesters. The Pro-Rights position is also a Pro-Family abortion position because it maintains that any abortion decision should be made by the family, whether parents to be or between parent and child. The Pro-Rights position also encourages a culture of responsibility, because both parties could not be sure if the other would be willing to have an abortion and they may find themselves stuck with their choice. America offers freedom, but not freedom from consequence.
We have not been able to resolve the abortion issue in this country because the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with the pure implementations of both of the existing positions. Much of the debate over the Power of Abortion in this country has been about where to draw the line in between those two positions. The Pro-Rights position navigates the middle, where most Americans happen to stand on the issue, by seeking to do the least amount of violence to the many Rights and Principles the issue touches upon. Because of that it is my belief that the majority of Americans would be able to live with a Pro-Rights solution just fine, and the country would be able to gain consensus on the issue.
- John A. Brill
Cross Posted at TheNextRight
Steve Maley
Daniel Horowitz
Moe Lane
Jake Walker
Victoria Coates
Aaron Gardner
I read your whole post.
itsonlywords (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 5:14PM EST (link)But I’m not sure I understand exactly what the Pro-Rights Abortion Position is. Could you sum it up in one paragraph?
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito. ~Virgil
Do not give in to evil, but proceed evermore boldly against it.
This is about the most convoluted argument I've ever read.
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 5:27PM EST (link)And it makes absolutely no sense.
For just one example…
“Survive outside the womb…sustain it’s own life…” is an open invitation to infanticide. A full term new born is 100% unable to sustain it’s own life. It, in fact, needs every bit as much, if not more, attention than that same child in the womb.
It's about doing the least amount of violence
John Brill (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 5:34PM EST (link)It is about doing the least amount of violence to all of the rights and principles that abortion touches upon.
Logic - Fail
Incredible (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 5:39PM EST (link)Yeah, how does it take 1500 words to say that a fetus is a human? I am fine with fighting the incremental war to roll back abortions (IBAPA, Partial-Birth Ban, etc), but we shouldn’t muddle about with which entity has the rights to the “unborn”.
Aside: What kind of concept is “unborn”, anyway? It begs the question, “Unborn what?” The answer is obvious.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson
Join the RedState Strike Force
Every time you hit your keyboard it makes things worse.
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:05PM EST (link)Please summarize exactly how this thing of yours would work. Details. Please.
Oh, and pay special attention to the subject of “viability”. If you have trouble figuring out that request, you should stop posting on this subject.
Oh and, John Brill, you might want to
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:19PM EST (link)read this… and give some additional thought to what ever it is you’re trying to accomplish here.
Survival from minute to minute
John Brill (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:21PM EST (link)I did not suggest or imply that a newborn does not need attention, but that a new born does not need the womb in order to survive from minute to minute.
A fetus needs the womb in order to sustain it’s own life for most of the pregnency. Take a 2 month old fetus out of the womb and as you know it’s not going to survive. You can’t leave it in the other room or with a baby sitter, because it needs the mother’s womb in order to survive from minute to minute.
I understand your basic concept - I think -
itsonlywords (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:28PM EST (link)Of doing the least amount of violence but how, exactly, do you propose to achieve that?
And I’ve got to tell you, after that first read, I don’t see something that will appeal to everyone; rather I see something that will piss everyone off so I’m curious where you’re actually going with this.
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito. ~Virgil
Do not give in to evil, but proceed evermore boldly against it.
This position disgusts me
Alberta (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:35PM EST (link)Although I dont speak for humanity.
People are not property. If a person (dont call it a fetus) is still in the first trimestor of developement its not owned by any person.
Heres the easy test. Could you legally buy the rights to the person in the mothers womb, even for a minute? No. That would be insane.
Also, this viability test is also a heathen position. A person can only grow in a womb. There is no scenario that nature provides where a person can grow outside a womb. So this whole concept of viability to survive outside the womb is rendered for what it is, a reality divorced attempt to sanction murder. Look at your viability test the other way. If a person could have been brought to term inside the womb it would have been viable. The only thing that makes it not able to survive is being taken out of the womb.
Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln
Wrong answer.
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:37PM EST (link)Who decides when an unborn child has rights? And precisely when it that, how is it measured and is it subject to review and change?
Who cares?
Menlo (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:38PM EST (link)What difference does it make? You can’t stab a born child to death, even if no one were able to take care of the child and he or she were sure to die. You can’t use a guess of survival chances to decide whether a child can be stabbed to death.
Besides, you can’t tell if the child can live outside the womb unless you let the child come to term.
We’re not talking about discontinuing life support. You aren’t just pulling a plug. Abortions by definition involve stabbing, poisoning, and dismsmbering the baby alive. You aren’t letting a baby die but actually directly killing one.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Come on Menlo. Those are just dicey details
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:43PM EST (link)keeping us from having a reasonable discussion and reaching a conclusion that respects everyone’s rights.
Shame on you.
5
Bill S (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:51PM EST (link)Or watch one of the new 3D renderings of an ultrasound. Anyone who maintains that a baby in the womb is just a blob of cells after those exercises lacks some serious conscience.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Problem statement
Menlo (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 6:52PM EST (link)That’s a tip-off right there. Whether a woman may or may not have an abortion is not the issue. Regardless of the law, who has the authority and power to decide that is whoever is willing to do it.
I don’t know if you noticed, but no one has called for the imprisonment of women. At issue is whether someone licensed by the state to save lives may or may not kill them for another’s socioeconomic or emotional benefit. It’s something done, not something had.
Generally, I only see things worded this way when the establihsment media is doing a report. It sounds absurd when the aim is not to withhold or deny rights.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
I enjoy reading these diaries.
Uma Richie (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 7:45PM EST (link)First, it gives me hope because most of the authors’ viability or functionality test estimates are inaccurate by weeks. The “it’s wrong after the first trimester” crowd usually cites human life criteria present at 8 weeks. A baby would pass John Brill’s “minute to minute” test at 21 weeks rather than six months as he suggests. [Of course, my accident prone four year old, who just entered the room screaming that he bumped his head, still doesn't pass the minute to minute test.] When you are in command of fetal development facts, and you point out someone’s errors, you find out pretty quickly whether or not they selected an arbitrary timeframe.
Second, the human life criteria cited rarely depends on an inherent quality of the child, but rather our poor power to detect brain waves or a hearbeat or to provide life support. Time and technology would help with an incremental rollback if the issue were taken away from the Supreme Court.
Third, there’s always room for the what ifs. In this case, what if the mother is a surrogate carrying a child who is genetically unrelated? Or can four genetic grandparents overrule two genetic parents? After all, the baby would be their “genetic property” too.
I'll try to summarize...
Diogenes314 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 8:42PM EST (link)A) If a woman (or human incubator for the anti-abortion folks) is in danger of her life or health, she can do whatever she wants.
B) If the human incubator is a minor, her parents decide (except in Kali, they just shot that down).
C) If neither A) or B) applies…
D) If the fetus is viable (able to live outside the womb) it is a citizen and protected by the constitution, regardless of the human incubator’s wishes.
E) If D) doesn’t apply, it is joint property of the human incubator and sperm donor, the human incubator has no say in the matter unless the sperm donor agrees.
Unless…
F) The sperm donor is a rapist, then the human incubator can do whatever she wants.
That was fun.
I missed G)
Diogenes314 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 8:54PM EST (link)G) The human incubator is under contract and has no rights. Except maybe A). The genetic grandparents have no rights, unless the genetic parents are minors with too much cash. Then they become G) by proxy. Unless the surogate is a minor, then her parents are B). Of course if the surrogate father rapes the human incubator all bets are off.
The minute to minute test...
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 9:26PM EST (link)NO teenager ever qualified for that one.
It's about doing the least amount of violence...
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 9:28PM EST (link)Oh yeah, where was my head earlier. :>(
If you want to do the “least amount of violence” perhaps you might want to consider not chopping up the unborn child into tiny pieces or soaking him or her in a caustic saline solution.
Just a thought…
And excellent option.
itsonlywords (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 10:21PM EST (link)To my way of thinking.
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito. ~Virgil
Do not give in to evil, but proceed evermore boldly against it.
You start out from a faulty assumption
AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 10:24PM EST (link)I’m with you when you start but you go slightly off the rails when you get to the point of saying the 14th Amendment only applies to one that is “Born” as in physical birth. Birth can also mean when one becomes a sentient being.
You really go off the rails however when you say that a baby is only viable in the third trimester. Children have been born and survived as early as the 4th month of gestation which blows your thesis out of the water.
My Christian beliefs tell me that life begins at conception and the 14th Amendment protection of a fetus as an autonomous human being should begin then.
However, taking a purely secular and scientific view of this I would say this:
If clinical death occurs when there is no heartbeat and a cessation of measurable brain waves then the same should apply to a fetus. When these two conditions exist the fetus becomes a sentient and autonomous being and the 14th Amendment protections of that person should apply at that point.
So…using my reasoning…when does a fetus become a sentient and autonomous human being entitled to all the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment?
There is an audible heartbeat in a fetus at 3 weeks gestational age and measurable brain waves at 6 weeks.
IMHO by a legal definition of life based on secular law, a fetus is a live human being at 6 weeks gestation….given that most women don’t even know they’re pregnant till 8 weeks…Abortion should be illegal period based on the concept that one person’s rights end when they impose themselves on the rights of another.
A mother’s rights do not supersede the rights of her child who is alive using the legal definition of when life ends as a guide to point to when ot begins.
Pearls meet swine...
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 10:29PM EST (link)but nice try Ace…
That's not correct.
Menlo (Diary) Monday, November 24th at 11:39PM EST (link)First, the Constitution uses birth or naturalization for defining citizenship. The preborn are not citizens. Of course, neither are the millions who cross our borders each year, whether legally or illegally. They seem to get the same if not more rights than legal citizens. Lack of citizenship doesn’t justify killing.
Second,
My Chrsitian beliefs tell me no such thing! The Bible uses a lot of metaphors and figurative language on that, but no one then knew when life truly began from an objective and scientific standpoint. That’s why infanticide was commonplace. Regardless, it is totally irrelevant and will only lose credibility for the pro-life position. We cannot and do not need to rely on beliefs to know when life begins any more than we do to know that the sun is a star.
The brain analogy is false too. Clinical death requires no chance of regaining consciousness. The heartbeat of course begins before abortions are possible (at 4 weeks). I think most women are aware of pregnancy well before 8 weeks given that half of all abortions do occur before the 8th week.
Scientifically, there is no debate or disagreement. It is unquestionably, objectively, and observably true by biological definition that a whole distinct living human organism begins precisely at fertilization (not before, and not after).
That discovery was made in 1827, and it led to the prohibition of abortion in all states and much of the world. The medical profession lobbied for the restrictions on that basis. Abortion was not originially prohibited for reasons of faith or personal moral behavior or even risk to women. It was prohibited because science had just confirmed when new life began and doctors knew their place was to KEEP FROM destroying human lives.
Avowed Bible-hating atheists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton were vehement opponents of abortion. It was never a religious issue (outside the Catholic church) until some person or group made it one presumably in the 70′s. I don’t know who as I was not yet alive.
Faith is not a proper bases to oppose legalizing abortion, especially when the scientific facts are in our favor.
Unless the pro-life movement can substantially increase the percentage of atheists and agnostics and other non-Christians who are pro-life, it has lost claim to the rational basis it once held, and it is doomed to fail.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Please note,...
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 12:25AM EST (link)I said my faith tells me life begins at conception…the science and I agree with your comment about 1827 but an agnostic or atheist would argue that they bled people in 1827 to purge people of their devils so what does it prove to say they thought life began at conception in 1827.
I’m playing devils advocate with my analysis and discussion by taking a non religious position and extrapolating the considerations…If a person ceases to be a person or alive at clinical death which by definition is when there is no longer measurable brain activity then life by definition begins when brain activity begins.
The heart starts beating at 3 weeks gestation…I don’t know where you got 4 but I’ll buy that…measurable brain waves can be measured at 6 weeks, though that’s disputed by the pro death crowd). regardless the brain and central nervous system are present by 8 weeks.
As for the bible not mentioning when life begins, you couldn’t be more wrong…
From Jeremiah 1:4-5
From Psalms 139:13-16
Finally…I agree with you that killing is killing and all abortions should be stopped…but I think even the most ardent libertarians would see the reasoning here and agree that given that one person’s rights cease when they impose themselves upon another…then a mothers right to terminate a pregnancy ceases when her rights impose themselves upon the person she is carrying in her womb! If it moves the ball to limiting abortions to the first term only at least we’ve eliminated abortions during 2/3s of pregnancies which will save lives in the millions as we work to limit them in the first as well.
Mbecker...note your obscure biblical reference and statement I failed
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 12:38AM EST (link)but I don’t see you refuting anything factually!
Please enlighten me further with your wit and wisdom…by all means.
See below...I hit "Reply To This" but it made a separate post
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 12:41AM EST (link)nt
In law school I learned that it is a crime to fire a gun at a person even if they were falling off the 100th floor of a skyscraper at the time and would have tied from the fall anyway
JSobieski (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 12:53AM EST (link)So whether or not a fetus would survive outside the womb is irrelevant—it is the abortion that is the proximate cause of death.
It is abortion that rips the fetus from the proteciton of the womb.
You cannot fire a gun at someone just because you think they are going to die anyway.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
But Exodus 21:22
charliehall Tuesday, November 25th at 12:55AM EST (link)treats the death of a fetus as a property crime, not murder.
Charlie Hall
still a crime isnt it?
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 1:01AM EST (link)nt
Well
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 2:23AM EST (link)I would argue that the intent of blood-letting was not to kill or harm but to cure illness or disease. In an abortion, the only intent 99 percent of the time is to kill and eliminate a human life. Moreover, the prohibition of both practices was a progressive move.
Again, clinical death requires the inability to gain brain activity.
Yes, the heart beats at 3 weeks. However, abortions are not possible before 4 weeks.
Ultimately though, people who favor abortion will admit they know (correctly) when life begins, but they deem it irrelevant. They concocted the notion of a “person.” Even Planned Parenthood and NARAL will, reluctantly, tell you that. The last thing they want to do is to talk openly and honestly about fetal development.
I think people can interpret those scriptures differently. “Life” has a different meaning and context there. They aren’t really definitions. That doesn’t in any way mean abortion is not a sin. However, so is hating someone. We can’t make that illegal. All sin is equal to God, and it’s not adequate for laws applicable to those outside the church.
I agree with you on second trimester abortion mostly because it eliminates the second wrong of needlessly inflicting possible pain and torture (and it has the support of 2/3 of the public). Abortions can involve many separate wrongs, and eliminating one is always a good thing.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Sorry Ace. I was being too cute.
mbecker908 (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 8:08AM EST (link)Yours is an excellent comment and right on point. The argument should smother the guy, it’s as close to flawless as it gets. He’s, IMO, a touch dense.
Thus…
Your argument is the pearls, he’s the swine.
Read that earlier in the day
John Brill (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 10:51AM EST (link)when it was posted on the National Review
And it is because I am unsettled by abortion and how far to the left it has gone in this country that I have tried to come up with an argument that would move abortion to the right.
More like sophistry battling incohearance.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 11:08AM EST (link)But you generaly tend to see a lot of both whenever this subject comes up.
Ahh...my apologise...I read it backwards...
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 1:01PM EST (link)thanks for the props
I think we agree for the most part...
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 1:14PM EST (link)if we can only eliminate abortions at the current time to the first and sacond trimester then that’s progress and those who support an all or nothing approach are quite simply fools. Let’s move the ball where we can move it and educate people where we have a problem moving the ball so as to make it easier to move later…
My argument is based on the fact that we have a legal definition of when life begins…the legal system is crying out for a definition of where life begins…you are right that if brain waves can be measured and most abortions aren’t possible till eight weeks then as I have defined it all abortions would be considered murder…period…
As for your comments about torture, I don’t disagree though my question is, why do you assume that a fetus/child can only feel pain during the third trimester when the brain and central nervous system is substantially formed by week eight and completely formed by week nine which is well withing the first trimester?
Correction
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 1:15PM EST (link)we have a legal definition of when life ENDS…the legal system is crying out for a definition of where life begins
It's in the middle of course
John Brill (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 1:46PM EST (link)“I don’t see something that will appeal to everyone; rather I see something that will piss everyone off so I’m curious where you’re actually going with this.”
Such is the danger of trying to navigate the middle. No one gets everything they want and so everyone is unhappy with the compromise. That’s how you know you got a good compromise.
But I’ve explained this to Pro-Choice and Pro-Life people I know. At the end of it I ask if they could live with it, and they say they could.
The Pro-Choice still have thier choice and the Pro-Life have more lives come into the world.
But more americans would accept it then yours
John Brill (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 2:06PM EST (link)Thank you for your measured comments ace.
However faulty you think my premise is, the fact is that more Americans would be willing to accept it then yours. If they were to accept it then less abortions would be performed then currently are. That’s something.
I’m not trying to be precisely scientifically correct. I’m trying to find a position that the majority of Americans could agree on. Most Americans agree that the third term should be off limits as they understand that the child is viable. Moving the line of citizen from 6 months to 5 or 4 would be another fine public debate worth having.
Over here
John Brill (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 2:09PM EST (link)mbecker,
More thoughts over here.
I agree with you.
John Brill (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 2:22PM EST (link)Restricting abortions to the first and second trimester is part of the solution.
But if we are to achieve consensus in this nation then the question can’t be about life, because if you want to be technical about it life begins before birth. A sperm and an egg are living cells. They are living. They are alive. They are life.
But as you say, “those who support an all or nothing approach are quite simply fools.” which is why the citizen argument appeals to me.
And again, thank you for your measured comments.
Lord have nrecy Menlo...I think I may actually agree with you for once!
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 4:07PM EST (link):>)
Heh. No problem.
mbecker908 (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 5:03PM EST (link)Heck, we managed to get through Huckabee on speaking terms I knew THIS wouldn’t be a problem. :>)
I believe
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 5:29PM EST (link)I believe we were referring to the first trimester only. It should NOT be allowed in the second. If it is, we are back to where we are now as third trimester abortions are not done outside of KS and CO (and then for disabilities). Please note at least 2/3 of the public agrees with that sentiment.
As parts of the parents, sperm and egg cells are not distinct; and they are not whole organisms. At fertilization, there is a whole organism of the human species that is distinct from either parent and will be maintained throughout life.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Misreading
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, November 25th at 5:51PM EST (link)Abortions are possible from week 4.
However, I should probably point out that the law does define life beginning at fertilization. However, murder is not based on any definition of life. It’s really only based on what society and/or law enforcement accept as murder.
I assumed they could feel pain in the SECOND trimester. I look to the studies of Dr. Anand who has made these conclusions. He, and most other doctors agree that the brain has no capacity to detect pain before the second trimester. Even so, first trimester abortions are quick enough that there is no time to feel pain. However, it is not possible to measure the same brain activity in the unborn the same way as in the born. It’s hard enough to do it for the born.
Complicating matters, there is no consensus on how brain activity begins and what the available measurements represent.
Of course many in the pro-abortion camp see this as irrelevant.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
LOL...not one of my better moments in time...but it's not like we had a lot to chose from
AceInTX (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 12:37PM EST (link)I wish Fred had taken off…but alas…all that was left to us was a bunch of bad choices
I think...when it comes to the argument of whether we are killing a human being...the human being or potential human being if you will
AceInTX (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 12:51PM EST (link)should be given the benefit of the doubt.
As for:
This is simply not true…there is a universal definition of when clinical death occurs…It’s not when cardiac arrest occurs because the brain continues to function until the time that there is not enough oxygen to sustain it’s function. Ditto respiratory arrest…
There is a distinct and legal definition of when death occurs and that depends on brain function and measurable brain waves. simple common sense and reason would dictate if this defines death then it should apply to when life begins.
I agree that life begins at conception and I oppose all abortions at all stages of pregnancy…my thing is practicality and moving the ball to exclude and eliminate as many abortions as possible as soon as possible…I believe that if the case I am making were argued in court that it could be a winning strategy to at least define when life begins and when the government has a compelling interest in curbing a woman’s right to choose to protect the rights of the person she is trying to kill for her own convenience.
Why I am against abortion...
Attack Mode (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 1:34PM EST (link)We all know the quote above. It is considered one of the principle notions with regard to our nations founding.
Unalianable is defined as:
What this means is that life is a right that cannot be taken away. The question of when life begins is moot because regardless of when it begins it is a right which cannot be taken away, not before it begins or once it has begun. PERIOD!!
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
War. Hunh. What is it good for?
birdmojo (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 2:46PM EST (link)I’m certain that, if we hammered it out, we’d agree that while Life is a right that is inalienable and cannot be taken away, we’d be able to hammer out that there are circumstances under which it is appropriate to end the life of another or, in other cases, to allow the life of another to come to an end despite the possibility of using heroic efforts to keep it going.
Of course, I see the real debate as one of “how much power do you want the government to have to investigate these homicides?”
Or, to put a finer point on it, how much power do you want Obama appointees to have?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire
Bird...
Attack Mode (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 2:57PM EST (link)I agree we could hammer out instances where the taking of a life could be justified, but this ain’t one of those instances.
The reason why is that in this instance there is absolutely no guilt on the part of the life that would be ended.
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
Why is "guilt" necessary?
Achance (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 3:10PM EST (link)In legitimate cases of guarding the mother’s health and life, the fetus is guiltless, but is not the mother entitiled to defend herself?
To my mind, this right of self-defense is equally inalienable, as the mother’s life may not be alienated either, so she can exercise her right to self defense.
Now I well know that the health and life exceptions have been badly abused by the providers, but that doesn’t alter the fundamental point.
In Vino Veritas
Achance...
Attack Mode (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 3:15PM EST (link)On that point I would probably concede that the choice should be left to the Mother and Father, not just the Mother. But as you stated this idea has been abused. I believe it will continue being abused as long as abortion as birth control is the de facto law in this nation. We can’t even begin to consider defense of the Mother as a reason until we get Roe out of the way, at least that is how I see it.
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
I find both Roe and the underlying Griswold
Achance (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 4:15PM EST (link)offensive both in their reasoning and in their assault on the Constitution. It’s amazing how much the fact that Justice Douglas, the old horndog, had just married a new and presumably fertile young wife has impacted our Country.
That said, at the State level, I certainly would not support a blanket ban on abortion, and I’m not much on “father’s” rights except in the context of a legal marriage. The sperm donor to an unmarried teenage girl has no rights as far as I’m concerned. For that matter, the teenaged girl’s rights are pretty limited in comparison to her parents’ rights.
In Vino Veritas
No guilt. Sure.
birdmojo (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 4:15PM EST (link)I agree 100% that there is no guilt.
So now we just need to hammer out how much power we want government officials to have so that they will better be able to prevent folks from procuring an abortion.
How much information should they need before a judge would agree that the law gives him grounds to grant the police a warrant, for example?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire
Achance...
Attack Mode (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 5:00PM EST (link)I agree again, if the couple is not married than the the Father really doesn’t have a right and in the case of a minor of course the Parents rights supersede the rights of their daughters.
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
Actually Achance and Bird let me clarify something
Attack Mode (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 5:09PM EST (link)And maybe even recant my prior post after further deliberation. In the case of the health of the mother being threatened I would opt for a C-Section instead of an abortion. If the baby is saved and then unwanted the baby would be put up for adoption. After all the concept is that the health of the mother was at risk, not that she wanted to end the babies life.
More later.
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
No it is true.
Menlo (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 5:34PM EST (link)The law does define life, and it says it begins at fertilization. Federal courts have upheld these definitions. Even an abortionist and militant pro-abortion feminists will concede that a distinct human life begins at fertilization.
Their argument of course is that is not enough to constitute a “person” under law. Therefore, it is irrelevant to whether that child is deserving of rights. A few go a step further and say a woman’s right not to be pregnant overrides the child’s rights.
Legal death is not really comparable here for two reasons. First, it requires permanence. Second, all the various means used to determine death are not able to be used on each and every unborn child.
Biology defines life though, and from that, the law does too. That’s not sufficient though for defining who gets what rights.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
How much power do we give government officials.
mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 5:40PM EST (link)Well, in 1973 SCOTUS gave government officials the right to define when an unborn child is entitled to basic human rights. Since that time 40 million unborn children have been slaughtered through that decision and the governmental officials actions as a result.
In addition, we have seen numerous efforts to extend that decision into areas that we currently refer to as “infanticide”. In other words, why limit the power of the government to define the time line for human rights just because the unborn child is now born. For example, medical personnel withholding care of a child who survives an abortion. There are also several high profile academics who have published repeatedly on the subject.
Bottom line, we’ve already done the deed. What the right-to-life movement is trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle.
The same way
Menlo (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 5:59PM EST (link)You would enforce the law the same way and by the same standards most states here did before 1973 and the same way most non-totalitarian nations that prohibit abortion currently do.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
You misunderstand my objection.
birdmojo (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 7:04PM EST (link)It is not that I think that abortion is fine, dandy, or otherwise hunky-dory.
We agree that abortion is bad.
Which brings us to the “so now what?” question… and, of course, the “and then after that?” question.
The rhetoric used by both sides doesn’t really seem to match up with what they think ought to be done.
The pro-choice side argues as if the slightest restriction on partial-birth abortion on demand is the first step with the second step being the repeal of Griswold vs. Connecticut.
The pro-life side argues with one side of its mouth that abortion is murder… while with the other saying that OF COURSE the mother should not be prosecuted if it comes out that she attempted to procure one (or, heaven forbid, actually got one). Why, that’s troll talk to even ask about whether people hiring an assassin should be subject to law enforcement.
Any discussion of “should we compromise, just a little?” on either side of the debate is met with sneering at best and, meanwhile, the state of affairs (which pretty much everybody agrees is bad) continues without looking like anything is going to change.
I’ve heard rumors that a couple of justices have been thinking about retiring but didn’t want Bush to pick the replacements… well, we’ll see what happens with Obama’s picks and whether that changes the format of the debate any.
Maybe if the Republicans just keep doing what they have been doing to this point only harder, things will be different this time.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire
Little help?
birdmojo (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 7:06PM EST (link)“You would enforce the law the same way and by the same standards most states here did before 1973 and the same way most non-totalitarian nations that prohibit abortion currently do.”
Could you give me a handful of examples?
If you don’t want to say “we should arrest doctors and take them to court”, something like “we should handle abortion the way that South Korea does” would work for me.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire
My problem with Griswold...
birdmojo (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 7:20PM EST (link)I think that it was decided incorrectly, by the way. Anything that it did right was done by happenstance rather than design.
Which is not to say that I do not agree that there is a Right to privacy, I absolutely do.
But the problem with (much of) the left is that the only circumstances in which they believe that privacy is okay is when it involves Thingy.
Your livelihood? Nope, the state has a compelling interest. Feeding wheat that you grew on your land with your seed and your water to your horses? Nope, Interstate Commerce. Teaching Young Earth Creationism to your children? Child abuse! The State needs to get involved! Oh, it involves Thingy? Well, that’s nobody’s business but your own.
But the problem with (much of) the Right is that “Community Standards” isn’t that much better a response to the problem. I’ve argued with people on this very board over whether Lawrence v. Texas was “Judicial Activism”. Seriously. People have argued that if Texans want to make sodomy between two guys illegal and arrest them and throw them in prison (presumably sodomy-free prison) that Texas has every Right to do so. And that’s not getting into whether Texas has the right to say “you can’t go on birth control” to women if it’s put to a vote and that’s what the community says (like it could before Griswold).
Meanwhile, both sides seem to be having an auction of privacy rights in order for the one side to ban abortion and the other in order to keep it.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire
OK, maybe my verbiage is off.
AceInTX (Diary) Wednesday, November 26th at 11:43PM EST (link)First I don’t concede the arguement that measurable brain waves are the determining factor in defining death in a legal sense. In fact…this concept is regularly used when determining if a person can be charged with aggravated assault if his victim is on life support with machines pumping his blood for him yet has measurable brain activity. This as opposed to murder when the victim is pronounce clinically dead when his brain activity has ceased.
But for the sake of argument I’ll try a different tack to make my point.
Instead of when life begins we need a definition…of “born” as it is recognized in the Constitution since that term is used to determine when a person is covered by the Constitution and entitled to life, liberty and property.
I am not arguing that life does not begin at conception…I personally believe it does and my ultimate goal is to have that fact legally codified and constitutional protections of a child extended to that point…my argument is simply a way to quantify when a person becomes a person and when the rights guaranteed under the Constitution apply to that person.
I would contend and believe the point could be litigated and a legal premise be built upon the proposition that regardless of religious belief or ideology, that a person becomes a person at the point when that person has a consciousness.
The only quantifiable way I know to prove a consciousness is being able to measure brain activity so at the very least a person is “born” in a Constitutional sense at the point when a measurable consciousness can be proven by measuring brain activity.
I also contend that one citizen’s right to choose to live a certain way or make a certain decision, or take a certain action ends when that decision, action, or choice interferes or otherwise restricts the Constitutional rights of another citizen protected by the Constitution. This is a principle that is nearly universally recognized by the most liberal and libertarian persons in our society.
Given all these facts taken in their entirety, I would contend…and believe it could be legally recognized in a court of law that “born” as used by the Constitution to determine Constitutional protection begins when a consciousness can be proven and that would be when brainwaves are measured at week 6. Given the legally recognized concept that one person’s rights end when the exorcise of those rights impose undue hardship on the rights of another…then the rights of a mother to terminate her pregnancy end when that choice imposes a death sentence on a person with a beating heart and a consciousness as demonstrated by measurable brain activity.
I absolutely agree it shouldn't be allowed in the second trimester...
AceInTX (Diary) Thursday, November 27th at 8:47AM EST (link)my position is it shouldn’t be allowed at all…but if we can get a ban in the third trimester than that’s progress and I’ll take it as I prepare to get a ban in the second. If we can get it banned in all instances then by all means!
Therein lies the rub in the "Health of the mother canard"
AceInTX (Diary) Thursday, November 27th at 8:56AM EST (link)Because the instance in which the life or PHYSICAL health of the mother are extremely rare and in all cases result in the delivery of the child after it has been killed en utero. My issue here is that no attempt is made to save the child.
The reason I call the “Health of the mother” claim a canard is because of the legal games that have been played with that term by defining it to mean Mom might be depressed if she let’s her child live!
That you Mr. aceintx are "giving" a little....
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Thursday, November 27th at 10:45AM EST (link)on this issue is huge. It is like I said on the other post about abortion we must start by getting it down to the first trimester only……it is a winnable argument just by the visuals of the sonograms of babies in the 4th month….WE are a visual people….30 second soundbite…etc, etc. If we are going to get back to the majority there has to be this “give”….WE know that all or nothing is a nonstarter for all issues….just ask the gays in CA.
You have to have a starting point of agreement and abortions being illegal after the first trimester is the START….WE win that and than we work on the rest……oh and that health of the mother issue MUST have to include a second opinion from two doctors NOT a one of them being an abortionist nor a shrink….ie DR TILLER THE BABY KILLER!
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action
Well...I've always been a let's take what we can get person
AceInTX (Diary) Thursday, November 27th at 12:31PM EST (link)and any law that establishes the personhood of a fetus that can be legally killed by an abortion and eliminate the legal means of killing that child is a good thing…At this point I’d settle on getting them stopped in the third trimester at least. Most people think they are illegal in the third trimester and they are not…at least not nationally and that should be a start.
The pro life movement has given up a lot for not pushing abortions in the second and third terms by not forcing the issue and making the pro abortionists defend their extreme positions…particularly on third term abortions.
That's the 2008 election in a nutshell
John Brill (Diary) Monday, December 1st at 4:35PM EST (link)For a while there the best thing he could do was not jump in. He was getting so much coverage because he wasn’t in, but that could only work for so long. The last good date for him to throw his hat in was July 4th. He skipped it by a month and a month is a long time in politics.