"If a pro-lifer wants to restrict abortion, again: define the details like gestational cut-offs and exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and concerns for maternal health, and their reasoning. " Isn't that what the Mississippi Gestational Age Act was attempting to do? Gestational limits, Parental notification, and differentiating maternal mental from physical health are all efforts by the Pro-life side to find a common ground in a pluralistic society. When reading "Roe" and more importantly Casey's "undue burden" standard the reader should understand that the Court rendered meaningless the Pro-life efforts to deal in specifics.
The essential question is when does human life begin? Once human life begins, then it is the responsibility of the State to protect that life. One person rights end where another person's rights begin. This is the whole of the law. It is ensconced in our foundational document, The Declaration of Independence of "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Does anyone else find it ironic that one of the most rational and educated articles on abortion is by a doctor who admits he was not rational or educated on the subject until very recently?
Abortion is murder and must be prescribed except the tragic cases where two lives will be lost rather than only one if the life of the child isn't taken, as in for example, an ectopic pregnancy. Human life exists obviously from conception.
There always has been a middle ground. The pro abortion side preferred legalizing infanticide as in Virginia and New York's laws dictating that infants born alive after an abortion attempt should be left to die. This has never been about women or their rights.. it's about control and keeping the country divided and thus easier to control through emotion and not thought.
The author of this article is to be commended for recognizing that 1) the abortion absolutism of the Democrats and the pro-abortion minority is politically untenable outside the bluest of states and 2) the ultimate absolutist goal of the pro-life movement is politically untenable at this time outside the reddest of states. His promotion of compromise is the favored legislative policy of the pro-life movement. This recognizes that we live in a pluralist society with a federal republican government. This article is not to be commended because of its ethical and scientific legerdemain. Its view of the pro-abortion side of the debate open to compromise with pro-life voters is based on feelings--the yuck factor. Its dismissal of the position of the pro-life movement is bad science. Human life begins at conception. A human being begins at conception (or when the zygote is done multiplying). [Personhood is a philosophical question.] The pro-life absolutist position is that every human life/human being has the right to life and protection from termination by another human. No class of humans should be vulnerable to intentional destruction by another/others. The short-term goal of the pro-life movement is to work for the most restrictive legislation politically possible in a given state. The long-term goal of the pro-life movement is to persuade the majority of the nation to cherish every human life (including the life of both the mother and the child). Our moral obligation to support vulnerable mothers and their vulnerable children will continue.
When human life begins is settled science. Human life begins at conception. It's not a religious or philosophical question. It's not even a question, in terms of science. It has long been known.
Yes, there's a compromise to be made, but not on matters of science and fact.
The compromise needs to be where it's truly needed.
Women collectively need to harness their electoral power to force that compromise.
First, we and they need to take decisive steps to eradicate the image of the 'ideal male worker' and make the workplace truly woman-friendly.
Then we need to build the legal structures so that men understand that every sexual union may entail a lifelong financial and social commitment from which they may not escape.
Have I touched that nerve yet? If men feel uncomfortable about having their unfettered sexual freedom yanked back to the realm of human justice to women and children, then so be it. Yes, we need to go there.
We will never have peace until women no longer feel driven to desperate acts.
You summarized that the pro-life position is that the baby is a human being, human beings have the right to live and not be intentionally killed. Correct; but that throws all the arguments about religion out the window. It's just countering a straw man.
Atheists also believe that taking a human life is wrong. In fact, there are many pro-life atheists.
Most of the abortion support side says it's not a baby no matter what we see in the womb with modern medical equipment.
You write, "no single point in the path from conception to birth could possibly represent an intellectually and morally cohesive “start to life” for anti-abortion legislation."
Just so. The question of personhood begins at the moment of conception. Just because life only takes a moment to begin is no reason to value it less. It only takes a moment for life to end, too.
Just found this. I know enough medicine to understand the science involved. My issue with Roe v Wade is quite different. It was decided without first considering society' s ability to absorb change. Compare that to marriage equality for same-sex couples. It went from That's disgusting to Marriage equality in less than 25 years. Fifty years post-Roe we still have threats of violence.
Not a human? Name one pregnancy that produced a dog, a horse, a cactus or a tree. Humans produce humans, unless we are Dr Frankenstein or psychotic lab scientist.
Compromise? Half a dead baby? Get real. As a strict Constructionist, find the issue X (here abortion) in the Constitution. Any exemptions, quote them exactly from the Constitution. Not found, case dismissed, go to your state court.
You wrote:
"But what would a middle ground on abortion even look like? "
That's easy to answer: Europe. Abortion on demand would be legal until 12-15 weeks at which point it would be illegal.
Great article!
"If a pro-lifer wants to restrict abortion, again: define the details like gestational cut-offs and exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and concerns for maternal health, and their reasoning. " Isn't that what the Mississippi Gestational Age Act was attempting to do? Gestational limits, Parental notification, and differentiating maternal mental from physical health are all efforts by the Pro-life side to find a common ground in a pluralistic society. When reading "Roe" and more importantly Casey's "undue burden" standard the reader should understand that the Court rendered meaningless the Pro-life efforts to deal in specifics.
The essential question is when does human life begin? Once human life begins, then it is the responsibility of the State to protect that life. One person rights end where another person's rights begin. This is the whole of the law. It is ensconced in our foundational document, The Declaration of Independence of "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Does anyone else find it ironic that one of the most rational and educated articles on abortion is by a doctor who admits he was not rational or educated on the subject until very recently?
Abortion is murder and must be prescribed except the tragic cases where two lives will be lost rather than only one if the life of the child isn't taken, as in for example, an ectopic pregnancy. Human life exists obviously from conception.
There always has been a middle ground. The pro abortion side preferred legalizing infanticide as in Virginia and New York's laws dictating that infants born alive after an abortion attempt should be left to die. This has never been about women or their rights.. it's about control and keeping the country divided and thus easier to control through emotion and not thought.
One of the best pieces on abortion I have ever read. I will be sharing it widely. Thanks
The author of this article is to be commended for recognizing that 1) the abortion absolutism of the Democrats and the pro-abortion minority is politically untenable outside the bluest of states and 2) the ultimate absolutist goal of the pro-life movement is politically untenable at this time outside the reddest of states. His promotion of compromise is the favored legislative policy of the pro-life movement. This recognizes that we live in a pluralist society with a federal republican government. This article is not to be commended because of its ethical and scientific legerdemain. Its view of the pro-abortion side of the debate open to compromise with pro-life voters is based on feelings--the yuck factor. Its dismissal of the position of the pro-life movement is bad science. Human life begins at conception. A human being begins at conception (or when the zygote is done multiplying). [Personhood is a philosophical question.] The pro-life absolutist position is that every human life/human being has the right to life and protection from termination by another human. No class of humans should be vulnerable to intentional destruction by another/others. The short-term goal of the pro-life movement is to work for the most restrictive legislation politically possible in a given state. The long-term goal of the pro-life movement is to persuade the majority of the nation to cherish every human life (including the life of both the mother and the child). Our moral obligation to support vulnerable mothers and their vulnerable children will continue.
When human life begins is settled science. Human life begins at conception. It's not a religious or philosophical question. It's not even a question, in terms of science. It has long been known.
Yes, there's a compromise to be made, but not on matters of science and fact.
The compromise needs to be where it's truly needed.
Women collectively need to harness their electoral power to force that compromise.
First, we and they need to take decisive steps to eradicate the image of the 'ideal male worker' and make the workplace truly woman-friendly.
Then we need to build the legal structures so that men understand that every sexual union may entail a lifelong financial and social commitment from which they may not escape.
Have I touched that nerve yet? If men feel uncomfortable about having their unfettered sexual freedom yanked back to the realm of human justice to women and children, then so be it. Yes, we need to go there.
We will never have peace until women no longer feel driven to desperate acts.
We have a "complicated mess" because we have lost all moral anchors, as morality itself is now understood to be relative and situational.
You summarized that the pro-life position is that the baby is a human being, human beings have the right to live and not be intentionally killed. Correct; but that throws all the arguments about religion out the window. It's just countering a straw man.
Atheists also believe that taking a human life is wrong. In fact, there are many pro-life atheists.
Most of the abortion support side says it's not a baby no matter what we see in the womb with modern medical equipment.
You write, "no single point in the path from conception to birth could possibly represent an intellectually and morally cohesive “start to life” for anti-abortion legislation."
Just so. The question of personhood begins at the moment of conception. Just because life only takes a moment to begin is no reason to value it less. It only takes a moment for life to end, too.
Just found this. I know enough medicine to understand the science involved. My issue with Roe v Wade is quite different. It was decided without first considering society' s ability to absorb change. Compare that to marriage equality for same-sex couples. It went from That's disgusting to Marriage equality in less than 25 years. Fifty years post-Roe we still have threats of violence.
Not a human? Name one pregnancy that produced a dog, a horse, a cactus or a tree. Humans produce humans, unless we are Dr Frankenstein or psychotic lab scientist.
Compromise? Half a dead baby? Get real. As a strict Constructionist, find the issue X (here abortion) in the Constitution. Any exemptions, quote them exactly from the Constitution. Not found, case dismissed, go to your state court.