Requiring viewing of pre-abortion ultrasounds: I’m with Crist on this one
Governor Crist of Florida has vetoed legislation that would have made viewing of their sonograms mandatory for women contemplating first-trimester abortions:
Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed a Republican-backed bill that would have required women seeking a first-trimester abortion to pay for an ultrasound exam and, with few exceptions, view the image or have it described to them by their doctor…
“Individuals hold strong personal views on the issue of life, as do I,” Crist wrote. “However, personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary.”
Even if it’s Crist saying it, he’s right.
How is it that Republicans, who are supposed to favor a hands-off attitude towards government intervention in medical treatment, have ended up sponsoring such a profoundly anti-libertarian bill? I know, I know: Republicans are not necessarily libertarians at all.
It is unclear whether first-trimester abortions in Florida already feature ultrasounds in most cases, as they appear to in Oklahoma. A related Oklahoma bill would have required that “the abortion facility…turn the screen at an angle where the mother may view it. She can see it if she wants to look.”
There’s a lot of information out there for women contemplating abortion. There are books and pamphlets with photos of the developing fetus in all stages of development, and Right to Life groups have focused on getting this material out there.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, albeit a terribly wrenching and controversial one. But doctors, nurses, and ultrasound technicians involved in the abortion process should not be required to follow this agenda of forcing a woman to view her own sonogram; that crosses a certain line that violates their rights and hers, IMHO. What’s next—requiring doctors to show the woman the remains of her aborted fetus?
Agreed.
Less government people !
Change people’s hearts and minds.
Keep federal funds from aborting.
Personal responsibility requires less government not more.
My ex-wife (not at the time) and I became pregnant. She was from Europe just here “for a year”. You can guess the rest of the story. In Oregon, if you went in for an abortion, you had to see a picture of the “required” ultrasound. Mind you this was 1998. We saw the ultrasound and the picture which they gave us (at no extra cost) and needless to say, we had a son 8 or so months later. I have never regretted that ultrasound or the decision to forgo the abortion.
While I am not particularly happy to have spent time with my former spouse, my son is a fine young man, whom I love very much. My life has taken many unexpected turns due to this decision, some of which I could have done without, but I HAVE NEVER FOR A MINUTE REGRETTED THE BIRTH OF MY SON. Perhaps this was what was in the mind of the bill’s sponsors. We could have had an abortion which was legal, but the ultrasound gave us pause, which was all we needed to make the right decision. Some times a pregnant pause (pun intended) is all we need to make to “do the right thing.” No regrets here.
A sound position for governor, IMHO. Government is not your parent, your nanny or your pastor, and never should be. To teach moral simply is not its function. But a pause to come to your own well-thought decision can be a reasonable legal requirement; it is already on the books for some other private matters, like getting married or requiring a divorce.
There’s very little reason for abortion in the United States. Without immigration, our population growth is minimal.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
The “privacy right” is a false right, bad law and unconstitutional. Privacy is not an absolute right and is subject to other demands. If you are a witness, does your right of privacy protect you from testifying? It should not be invoked to void the state law. The ultrasound requirement is state law, not federal law.
Since abortion has been proved to have deleterious psychological effects precisely due to the fact that a life has been negated, it makes sense to show the woman the life that is existing within her. If the abortion then occurs and there are psychological problems, denial will be less likely and she will more quickly seek counseling and help.
The ultrasound event recognizes the right of the man who may not want the abortion to occur. It also recognizes the potential baby and the very common sense observation that the consequences of one’s actions, such as getting pregnant, should fall upon the acting person.
The choice still belongs to the woman; the ultrasound law does not take that away. If there seems to be a punitive element to the law, that is more than balanced by the rights of the others involved.
I started out to agree with Neo, but then was moved by Will’s post. So, I’ll agree with Mitch Daniels (as quoted in the Weekly Standard’s profile) – a truce, a little breathing spell wouldn’t be amiss and I don’t think it would hurt the pro-life cause at all and I consider myself pro-life.
We are going to need a lot of energy to get our financial and geopolitical house cleaned up and the politicians need to focus on that.
Thank you, Neo. I’m glad we share the view on this topic.
The possible justification for such a law is “informed consent”. Informed Consent is required for all medical procedures, and it is not unreasonable that, in this case, “informed” includes learning about the state of the fetus.
At the other extreme, I once knew a social worker who was encouraging unwed, pregnant teens to have abortions. She never referred to the baby at all, but instead described the procedure as “removing the products of conception”. Cannot such encouragement and dissimulation also be viewed as “expanding the role of government”?
Informed consent requirement can be provided in a form of mandatory consultation with family psychologist. It is better than to inflict a psychological trauma to teen-age girl.
Judith, did you see that Huckabee is attacking Daniels for his position? I agree that we need a breathing spell, and I don’t think that making abortion a constant legal battle is the way to change hearts and minds. Abortion is part of our current social value system, which values children as long as they don’t cause inconvenience or can be used to push political agendas. Avi once said that children should be raised to become good parents. I think if people understood what he meant and did more to ensure that 17 years olds felt some responsibilty for 5 year olds, society’s view of abortion would also change.
Every person has the right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman’s choice by prohibiting abortion.
The question is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but, Who decides? The individual woman, or the government? If you’re opposed to abortion, don’t have one, but don’t try to impose your morality on others. Abortion is a personal choice between a woman and her doctor.
What WIll posted: wonderful. Did he need 0 Government intervention to come to his conclusion? If so, it’s regretable that he could not make his own reproductive decisions….
Sergey, don’t overestimate the effect of counselling for teenaged girls. It’s hard to counter the social pressures, be they not to have the baby because it will ruin their life or in the opposite direction where having a baby because is cool or means that someone will love them. Education about the meaning of parenthood has to start before the hormone surge of puberty.
LTEC: Informed consent does not require viewing of the actual sonogram photos of one’s own living fetus before an abortion. There are many other ways to convey information about what’s going on, as I wrote in my post.
LTEC: only if the social worker was working for the government, rather than a private agency.
“Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, albeit a terribly wrenching and controversial one.”
Accurate, as far as it goes. Legal and moral are not the same.
“Every person has the right to choose.”
But who decides who qualifies as a person?
Government intervenes in everything already. Law is all over everyone’s bodies. Everything about abortion is argued from a consequentialist viewpoint.
Forcing someone to learn/see/experience something is coercion, and to be avoided. Except when the life of another is at stake, it may be the best available choice. The law is an attempt at something possible, perhaps a lesser evil from both viewpoints, than actually having to face the issue directly and legally define the moment a person begins.
The next step, if the coerced sonogram law were to pass, would not be to view the remains, but to have the parents (both!) watch the procedure live, in real time.
There is a universe between reading Old Yeller and having to actually shoot your own dog.
I agree with Sergey:
“Informed consent requirement can be provided in a form of mandatory consultation with family psychologist. It is better than to inflict a psychological trauma to teen-age girl.”
I agree with P. D., better to murder a baby than to inflict psychological trauma on a teen.
Zipper, a 8-week fetus is not a baby.
Boy, that’s so predictable.
I basically agree with the post but won’t go into detail right now.
expat, thanks for the tip about Daniels. I hereby resolve to get off my duff and check the man out. (Huckabee’s opposition is a strong endorsement. Huckabee alarms me even more than Palin does, but I’d love to see him take on Obama in 2012: in the Democratic primaries.)
“How is it that Republicans, who are supposed to favor a hands-off attitude towards government intervention in medical treatment, have ended up sponsoring such a profoundly anti-libertarian bill? I know, I know: Republicans are not necessarily libertarians at all.”
I’d say, to answer your question, that many have bought the argument (and/or lparty line) that life begins at conception… ergo this is the killing of a person.
I don’t believe it btw, I think it starts during the middle of the second trimester… at which point, despite being a libertarian (or perhaps, because of it), I don’t think abortion should be legal. Murder is murder… a person is an individual and the state exists to protect them. A state that enables their murder, rather than seeking to protect their life, is illegitimate.
PS
I also believe the slippery slope arguments. Whenever the left feels confident about abortion they start trying to move towards euthanasia. Now with the government in control of medicine we should all be wary of this… it’s going to start as an option and end as mandatory if you need expensive medical care (you might not need to take a suicide pill, they’ll just withhold care for more and more things… including things they could help with but don’t want to).
Whether they’ll then go full circle (back to forced sterilizations of people they don’t like), I don’t know.
neo-neocon Says:
“LTEC: Informed consent does not require viewing of the actual sonogram photos of one’s own living fetus before an abortion. There are many other ways to convey information about what’s going on, as I wrote in my post.”
Of course “informed consent” doesn’t require anything in particular, but honest people can disagree about what it should mean in any particular case. A friend of mine recently had a kidney transplant. He was forced to watch three (rather frightening) videos about the procedure and the aftermath before he could get the surgery, even though “there are many other ways to convey information “.
By the way, I am not a supporter of the Republican-backed bill, and I support legal abortion early in the pregnancy. But I think opponents of the bill should be more clear about what they think is adequate for informed consent. Do they think talk about “removing the products of conception” is adequate? Would they be satisfied by “mandatory consultation with a family psychologist” without any specification about what the psychologist should say? Would they insist on the woman viewing pictures of fetuses other than her own, as neo-neocon seems to suggest?
I have little sympathy for a teen who, as a consequence of her actions, might be subjected to “psychological trauma” when confronted with the reality that life was taking form within her.
I don’t see how it is a psychologist’ business if a woman decides to abort. Prescribing her a mandatory visit to psychologist implies she’s mentally disturbed, not in her right mind and altogether needs a psychological help and/or evaluation. How is that better?
Really. I’d rather get over a state-mandated sonogram of my intestines than go to some charlatan doctor with a power to pronounce me insane.
Tatyana, you may not call it a baby, but when I viewed my ultrasound of my first-born at around eight weeks, she had a face, a body, little hands and a discernibly beating heart. They are not just “clumps of cells” either.
Barb, you might think you saw all that, and I will say I see a man on the Moon.
When I saw several sonograms of my son few days before going into labor, I couldn’t see anything at all.
Oh, and at 8 weeks they are definitely clumps of cells. A bloody sponge, something resembling a tiny piece of liver. I’ve seen that, too.
Barb,
also, I don’t see a problem for women who think like you. If you’re convinced that your 8-week fetus is a baby, then you make a decision to carry to labor. But you have to no right to impose your decision and your prejudices on other women.
This is a personal business, not State’s.
Tatyana, you are jumping to conclusions about a psychologist declaring someone insane. There are lots of issues that come up in a counselling session, including whether a woman or teen is making the decision of her own free will. I once counselled a 15-year-old who initially wanted to have an abortion without her parents’ knowledge. On talking to her, I learned that she had a good relationship with them. I told her that I thought such a big secret might change that relationship and she should think about it. After about a week and a half, she left the letter confirming her pregnancy on her dresser where it was found by her mother, who called me and angrily asked what was going on and why she hadn’t been notified. I told her that leaving the letter on the dresser was her daughter’s way of saying she didn’t want to go through an abortion alone. She did have an abortion, but her parents were with her through the experience. I talked to her later and she said things were OK between them. She was a kid who didn’t want to disappoint her parents, but she decided to risk that rather than build a wall between them.
Sometimes counselling can help a person face the bad choices they had made and take control of their own lives and decisions. It doesn’t have to be about insanity. Some of these patients are very alone and need someone to talk to. Confronting them with their sonogram may make things much worse for them, but leaving them alone with their decision can also be bad. Of course there will be women who have thought things through and don’t need that counsellor. There will also be some, especially teens, that no counsellor can reach.
I don’t like the pro-choice people who try to convince people that abortion is no big thing. It should be a big thing, which is not to say that I am for hellfire and brimstone finger pointing. I would just like our society to do more to convey to young people the wonder of a new life and having children as well as the responsibilities they bring.
expat:
sorry, but I can only repeat what i said before: as long as a psychologist has a power to pronounce someone insane, or even simply in need of meds – I have not a smidgen of trust for them. That’s a profession too easily subverted by hacks and simply not veru scrupulous people – and which affords them too much power over an individual.
that teenager you count as a victory might have resolved her little miscommunication problem with her mother on her own, without your getting involved at all. if she never went to a consultation with you, and then left the note for her mother to find – the mother had no psychologist to call, would she/ she would just go to her daughter and asked her directly.
And that’s how the things should be.
The terms “pro-choice and pro-life” are misleading – but that’s beyond the topic of the post.
We can tread our opinions on abortion, and appropriate term, etc etc – but the issue is not that. The issue is State’ interference in personal business.
If a woman wants to engage services of a psychologist – personally I disapprove – but I wouldn’t call for State prohibition for such privately chosen service. Same goes to abortion, pro or contra: it’s a deeply personal decision.
Frankly, I think it’s so personal, that nobody has a right to offer their personal opinion or advice, including on public forum; only a freely chosen doctor and maybe a woman’s parents, if she’s below age of consent. It’s not anybody’s business.
Least of all – State’s.
The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes a child in utero as a second victim and the perpetrator is not even required to have knowledge.
Is there any objective difference between the fetuses in two women, both at exactly the same stage? Yet one fetus, by virtue of its mother’s desire for the baby to live, is legally a person if an attacker destroys the baby; but the other, by virtue of its mother’s desire to end the baby’s life, is not a person. Shall another person be able to decide someone else’s personhood?
In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority–James Madison.
One thing is certain: Science has made us aware of some facts since Roe v Wade. The baby feels pain much earlier than believed, even by 8 weeks.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#By%208%20weeks?%20Show%20me!
If you’re pro-choice, why shouldn’t it be an informed choice? In any other medical procedure, they show you pictures and videos to make sure you understand what will be done.
I saw a video shot undercover at Planned Parenthood. A teenager was asking about abortion and the counselor was telling her that her 11-week pregnancy was “not a baby at all. Nothing like a baby. Just a clump of cells.” I too saw the ultrasound of my son at 11 weeks. He was stretching his legs, rubbing his eyes and doing flips. Most defintely he was a baby.
So I’m not against the requirement of the mother seeing an ultrasound and hearing what the abortion will entail. Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to lie to these women. It wouldn’t be tolerated in any other medical setting.
Tatyana, you are simply wrong. At 8 weeks (or six weeks after conception, since “weeks” counts from the last menstrual period), a fetus has arm buds, a distinct head, knee joints, and a beating heart that can be seen clearly on an ultrasound. A few weeks before birth, it is hard to see anything on the ultrasound because the parts of the baby overlap.
If you want to see a drawing and ultrasound of such a fetus (and I’m quite sure you don’t), you can find it here:
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-8-weeks
Confusing an 8 week fetus with something “like a liver” or “a clump of cells” is just a lie people use so that they will feel better about abortion. Sorry.
No, Will did not need government intervention. He and is significant other merely made their decision after seeing that indeed, there was a “baby” involved. It’s quite powerful actually. Just ask any woman or couple who couldn’t wait to have a prenatal ultrasound after learning that they were pregnant. As to the arguments regarding informed consent, you get much more information when you go to the doctor to get your “hangnail” removed…
Your mileage may vary with the whole deal. I struggle with the whole abortion debate. I think morally, its not great. I see the libertarian argument to leave it to the individual. There is angst all about. I do not see the harm in having a look at what you are destroying. It may help you in your decision making process.
So, the obvious question is when does this fetus become a human? That question illuminates why abortion “rights” advocates fear required ultrasounds. Because the revealed answer to the question would not please them.
My 7 month twin grand children sure looked human the first time I saw them. At thirteen they are very human, lovely ones. Now, if they had been viewed invitro, at 6.5 months would the conclusion be different? I think not.
Neo I am sorry, but the argument that the government should not be involved is fallacious–unless you try to pretend that those little critters are something other than humans. Unless of course you believe the government should sanction murder, or child abuse, or a host of other crimes against the weak and helpless. I am pretty conservative, and near libertarian in some respects; but, I believe that among government’s limited legitimate duties is protection of the weak and helpless.
Medical procedure? Well then, it should be defined as a medical procedure of last resort; one in which one life is sacrificed for some greater benefit. I believe the law would define that as justifiable homicide.
An innocent human being is about to be killed, the ultimate violation of his rights: it’s not unreasonable for the state to offer his mother a chance to see the boy before his life is taken.
Abortion is first-degree murder. Those who think it is wrong to view the consequences of one’s actions are liberal hypocrites. If an unborn chld is merely part of a woman’s body, like an appendix, what is wrong with viewing the remains? Liberal hypocrites, like most on the post, don’t want women to understand that an abortion kills a human being. Why not? Privacy concerns, my butt. Murder is not a private matter. Such total hypocrisy. You will not see me here again. Adios.
“So, the obvious question is when does this fetus become a human?”
This is the crux of the question isn’t it? That answer decides everything, at least of the most part (I know of more than a few women who say they believe it is a separate life and murder but want the ability to abort anyway).
So, for example, at all the following stages abortion is illegal: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst800.jpg (that isn’t up to the end of the first trimester yet). At 8 weeks – or 48 days – it *is* more than simply “like a liver”, though not really recognizable as a human like either.
There are really only two clear lines to be drawn – never and up until birth. If you do anything else then the argument is where to draw the line. As such if we are arguing where to draw the line then it would be best if we all stepped back and realized we are all just being arbitrary, it is not like something amazing happens at 12-14 weeks (or any other line you draw) and it suddenly becomes “human” or a “separate life” – it was always human and a separate life, we just decided it was OK to end it’s existence before hand for personal reasons.
For myself anything past stage 12-13 (weeks 5-7) on the linked chart constitutes more than a “wad of cells” or “like a liver” and we ought to have it non-abortable. To me basically the formation of a brain is where the line is drawn. After that you can only kill if you fear for your life or severe bodily harm (just as you can any other life). Morally I have a personal issue with the so called “day ofter pills”, yet practically and legally I do not. I think clearly life starts before that, just that the brain has a significance.
But then, that’s my line. I think it makes more developmental sense than the first trimester – there is a distinct change there that occurs. The “trimester” broken down by time, not developmental status.
“So, for example, at all the following stages abortion is illegal: ”
Big whoops – make that legal 🙂
I had to look at the x-rays of my teeth before they’d do any work. Amazing how that’s not controversial. It’s a matter of informed consent– and a CYA for doctors.
Tatyana, I worked as a counsellor in family planning clinics. I had no authority to declare people insane. My primary job was to ensure that patients were informed about birth control methods, but more importantly, I was supposed to establish a relationship so that they would feel comfortable calling us if they forgot to take their pills or if other problems arose. One such problem was the “late period.” Our doctors would do a pregnancy test and then I would talk to them to refer them for obstetric services or sometimes for an abortion if that was what they chose. I am not sure you realize how much misinformation is out there or how difficult it is to sort out the factual from the myth when relationships are involved. Not all mother-daughter relationships are great. Not all “boyfriends” are supporting and honest. Sometimes people don’t know who they can turn to.
I’ve read all the comments so far, and it just makes me sad.
I am Pro-life, and yet I am also Pro-choice, because I don’t see all these pro-lifers stepping up to the plate and offering the love and parenting and extensive monetary resources that will be required to support all the “unwanted” babies and their moms, whose lives will be made even more difficult if not impossible by the unfortunate economic circumstance of becoming a single mom and perhaps having to drop out of school, etc.
Moreover, I am surprised no one has mentioned the fact that ultrasound technology itself is not safe for the fetuses.
Just start googling for a few minutes, and you will find plenty of reason to doubt that this medical procedure is safe, for either the baby in the womb or the mother.
Here is just one example:
“Ultrasound Scans Linked to Brain Damage in Babies”
http://www.educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/ultrasoundandbraindamage19dec01.shtml
Instead of mandating expensive medical procedures that carry risk of harm to both the baby and the mother, we need to change the mindset of this country towards supporting unborn children and their mothers, not just before the babies are born, but especially AFTER they are born.
Yes, in that case, it does take a village.
Our politicians are not going to get us to that place.
Peace.
Laws can not and should not be tools for shaping publc moral. They can not mandate how people should think. In open society it works in other direction: at first, a consensus should be reached what consist a crime and what does not, and only then such consensus already exists, it begins to shape the law.
And, of course, psychology is not the same as psychiatry. Psychologist can only consult. To declare somebody insane, a commision of psychiaters is needed, with compulsive hospitalization for two weeks at least, and this measure needs a court order. (In Russia, at least. Seeing how many obviously insane people roam the streets of american cities, this even harder to do in USA than in Russia.)
What is strange, the same people who advocated government intervention to prevent racial discrimination, an intervention which almost annihilated state rights, freedom of contract for private bisuness and in many cases violated free speech, now play libertarians to justify murder of unborn. There is a glaring contradiction in this position.
Sergey, you are absolutely right about needing consensus. There used to be a consensus about sexuality and parenthood, but it could be pretty harsh on those who fell outside. The result was backroom abortions and mutilation, and deaths. Some of the doctors who originally supported legal abortion had treated or lost one too many patients who had undergone these procedures or had tried to induce abortion themselves.
The pill and the feminist movement changed the discussion from how to best help pregnant women in difficult if not desparate situations to one of how to achieve perfect sexual freedom. Poles developed and hardened, and still women are not being helped. Thirteen year olds are not helped to learn about buiding relationships or parental responsibilties by the hook up culture and free condoms. A young woman who carries a pregnancy to term and then gives the baby for adoption is not seen as someone who has struggled to make a hard but moral decision; she is probably seen as dumb. We have a very hard time conveying a coherent value system to the young because we stopped caring enough about them. We refused to grow up ourselves and therefore provided no role models. Career planning and being cool replaced old norms, and character building was left aside. We have a lot of work to do as a society. I hope that sensible adults will ultimately take the discussion back from the fringes and begin building a new consensus somewhere between the gangsta rap and Madonna side and the side that thinks they can create a world without pre- or extramarital sex. A bit of humility and compassion would help.
expat:
I assure you, my life does not resemble a glass bubble.
I’m well aware of strained relationships, misunderstandings, unstable and unreliable boyfriends or husbands.
What I don’t believe that there are not enough ways out there to get information about human sexuality, medical information about pregnancy, abortion and contraceptives, etc. It’s the contrary – it’s practically everywhere you turn to!
I think the whole system of Planned Parenthood is unnecessary, not just a slot for psychologist in their staff.
I was supposed to establish a relationship so that they would feel comfortable calling us if they forgot to take their pills
Does a regular Dr. practice, in any specialization, keeps a psychologist on staff so the patients will be comfortable calling in when they forgot to take their pills? Maybe, if they assume they are dealing with imbeciles – but even then I don’t think they’d go as far.
Geez.
If I forgot to take pills (for anything – say, high blood pressure or rash suppressant) I call the doctor and ask! No intermediary needed.
Nobody is more interested in their own health than people themselves. Interfering as a “shoulder to cry” only prolongs infantile cluelessness. No wonder there are so many “unwed mothers”, with such an abundance of contraceptives in every drugstore and ever second MD being a Gyn! They all rely on “counselors”! Talk about Nanny-State.
Value systems of atheist hedonism and of a traditional Judeo-Christian moral are not compatible, so moral consensus is hardly possible in forseable future. Their coexistence is not stable or sustainable, too. One side should eventually prevail. Which one is everybody’s guess; but hedonistic moral, as any other form of nihilism, is self-destructing device. Historically, such contradictions were resolved by mass conversion or Great Awakening. May be, to start a new one, even bigger slumping into morass of moral depravity is needed.
Oh, and about power to declare insane:
The biggest damage inflicted on children, on their relationships with their parents, on their mental stability, ability to trust people and understand themselves is done by so called “child psychologists”.
These hacks are the worst, most heartless and cruel part of whole legal system. Judges in custody courts send children to “evaluations” and make the victim (the parent) to pay for this compulsory self-inflicted lashing! And then they announce their ruling based on the most stupid, insensitive and simply wrong paper the charlatans produce!
Nice racket, to prey on helpless.
I have seen lots of people who behave as if they would not give a rat’s ass for their own health. Availability of information does not mean people would bother to learn something. There are millions of illiterate when education is free and universally available, and even more millions who never read a book while books are available for free, too. Only when they got in a serious trouble, they began to seek help, and here is a place for psychological consultation.
If people don’t give a rat’s ass about their health – that’s their choice. They want to die – that’s their choice.
Nobody but people themselves can decide what to do with themselves.
Doctors have no right to assume they know what’s is better for a person. In fact, nobody has that right – not a priest, not a psychologist, and definitely not the State.
These custody courts are packed with insane liberals, who under disguise of protecting child rights destroy parental authority. My relatives in USA had a very unpleasant experience with this system. Even the most traditional punishments for bad behavior these hacks consider to be violation of children rights, and to redress such violations they mandate thousand time worse treatments. I would always prefer, as a child, a harsh smacking from a parent than to be torn apart from my family in government custody.
Doctors are specifically educated to know better than patients themselves what is good for their health, especially if patients are ignorant and illiterate. To give a professional advice is one of the main functions of a doctor.
JustAmazed-
try opening your eyes. Crisis pregnancy centers are all around, and effective enough that Planned Parenthood tries to wipe them out with restrictive laws.
That stupid “oh, you pro-lifers only care about babies before they’re born, you don’t do anything to help!” thing hasn’t been accurate for most of my adult life, and I’m getting really bloody tired of it being offered every time the topic comes up. There are billboards all over the place– what more can they do to spread the word? Unlike abortion services, they don’t get money off of this. The pro-aborts do. (and yes, it’s pro-abort until they actually start supporting both sides of the “choice” thing)
Can Maternity Homes always use more funds? OF COURSE!
Do crisis pregnancy centers always need volunteers and supplies? Of course!
Crisis food centers always need help, too– that doesn’t mean that nobody does anything about the poor and the hungry, it means there’s an on-going demand.
‘just amazed’ is not a sincere person — for one, it’s completely disingenuous to claim to be pro-life and pro-choice; the two are simply incompatible. Two, I know dozens of people who have adopted children who were due to be aborted; the adoption of these children is never an issue. I have personally supported two single moms with their children. I have done my part, as have countless others; I have a strange suspicion that ‘just amazed’ has not done his/hers.
If the “PEACE” at the end of ‘just amazed’s’ comments, didn’t wrap and tie up your conclusion that ‘just amazed’ functions as a type of concern troll whose real function is to launch an ad hominem attack, then read the comments again. It’s a flat out hate attack against people who really are concerned, altruistic and moral.
Nobody but people themselves can decide what to do with themselves–Tatyana
Children. And the ultrasound requirement applies, in the majority, to children. That’s a consequence of “take your finger right off that ole repress button,” mentality. Here, perhaps, is a conundrum for libertarians: Should the State be so uninvolved that your child be allowed an abortion without your knowledge?
“Nobody but people themselves can decide what to do with themselves.”
Unless the person in question has not yet developed to the point of moral agency (adulthood), or has lost previously attained agency. A person aged four weeks pre-birth doesn’t get a choice against the forceps.
Line-drawing over the commencement of personhood always leaves someone out. Unless the line is drawn at conception. Or unless we impose an annual Adulthood Qualification Test to determine who is allowed to speak for themselves and who is a ward of the state. Thus the personhood debate is tyranny of the majority. It is not a logically-derived assessment, but a matter of social whim.
Relatedly, but a different pony to whip, there is no right to privacy. Privacy is essentially the keeping of secrets. If one wants something to remain secret, tell no one.
What is really being argued in privacy discussions is a “right to confidentiality”. Which is silly in terms of non-alienable rights. Once the secret is passed beyond the self, it is alien. All you can do is trust and hope.
Interesting opinions all.
I was once a limited pro-choicer because of my concern of non-support for unwanted offspring. But that is a false concern. There are lots of good contraceptive measures available to all consenting sex players. Failing to do that and then murdering the fetus is a profound moral and social crime. All other negligent actions have lawful and moral penalties, be it prosecution for vehicular homicide while driving drunk, or malpractice litigation for removing the wrong kidney.
As I’ve once observed here on the illegal immigrant issue, and the claim the USA needs them as workers: what about the 50 MILLION American lives taken by abortion since Roe? Those kids would have filled those jobs. Some would be physicists. Instead, we get Mexico’s bottom of the barrel, at enormous financial, political, and social cost.
Murder is murder.
There are some posters who are just blathering now.
Three points are at issue.
1. Should a conservative/libertarian welcome government intrusion in a woman’s “choice”. That is a non-starter if the choice is to kill a viable baby. We expect government to protect the innocent. In fact we now have the ridiculous instance where people who support abortion, also support charges of multiple murder if a pregnant woman is killed. How the hell anyone can resolve that within their thought process, or moral framework, is a total mystery.
2. When is a baby viable? And what does one mean by viable? That is open to some debate. I would say that viable is defined as any time that the potential child would be born normally in the absence of interference. In other words, at any time you can detect a life. Ultrasound, anyone?
3. There are medical issues. Clearly, there needs to be a framework to allow for these.
You are absolutely right on the immigration issue.
I hesitate, however, to call abortion murder. No religion values life more than Orthodox Judaism, and they do not call abortion a capital murder per se, precisely because of the issue of whether the fetus is a person or not. However, Orthodox Judaism is not constrained to naturalistic arguments but relies on Torah–the instructions for living from G-d. By this standard, abortion is only allowed (after 40 days–the standard period of probation) when the mother’s health and life is in question.
Oldflyer: the law in question is about first-trimester abortions.
I’m with you neo on this one.
Me, too.
Neo, not sure I follow you. The law I cited has to do with the recent practice of charging double murder when a pregnant woman is killed. It has nothing to do with the term of the pregnancy.
I am well aware that law used to differentiate between early and late term abortions. I assume that no such consideration is given at this time, since partial-birth abortions seem to be acceptable to the courts.
My other point is directed at alleged Libertarians who say that it is not the government’s business. Fallacious. Also deeply ironic, since most “pro-lifers” are anything but Libertarian on most issues.
However, if you believe that a fetus becomes viable after the first tri-mester, then so be it. As I say, I would argue that a viable baby exists from the time that it can be detected (certainly detected to have a heartbeat), since it will presumably survive without intervention to jeopardize its survival.
I am a month away from my 75th birthday. Some may say I have a vested interest in the discussion; because if a child can be defined as expendable, what then of a person in their declining years? Actually, I have little doubt as to how that issue will be resolved as Obamacare falls apart. The pro-choice crowd will then decide in this scenario that it is actually the Government which has the choice of whether to expend resources to sustain life.
Oldflyer: I’m talking about the subject matter of the post, the Florida law that Crist vetoed.
Oldflyer: Check out Agenda 21 and what they call “sustainability.” If you’re eating and not “producing” you’re a net energy drain, so . . .
OldFlyer,
My other point is directed at alleged Libertarians who say that it is not the government’s business. Fallacious. Also deeply ironic, since most “pro-lifers” are anything but Libertarian on most issues.
And the fallacy being…?
“Deeply” ironic, er? Not just ironic, but deeply? Tz-tz.
Where, pray tell, id your info comes from, re: “anything but Libertarian on most issues”?
Add-m to above comment:
OF, I presume you made a typo in the above quote, i.e. you meant “pro-choicers”. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Tatyana, my info springs full blown from my mind just as does the information of most posters on the internet. In skimming your posts for instance, I found little verifiable hard information.
Neo, sorry. I did not realize that the discussion was still about Crist. Seems like it had evolved into a much broader theme. Interestingly, Crist seemed to have no problem with that particular law until he got his butt beat in the GOP race and decided to run as an Independent, dependent on the Left wing. It remains to be seen whether this stunt will endear him to sufficient leftists in Florida to overcome the bad taste it will create for his former base.
Tying back to the law that inspired the post, how would we all come down on mandatory sonograms for abortions at later points in a pregnancy?
If one takes the non-interventionist view, it would never be acceptable. If one is aiming toward establishing abortion as something akin to murder, anything that might stop a killing at anytime is acceptable.
Otherwise, it is just the Line-Drawing Game. If the living thing with a genetic identity different from its host body is not a person, then we will have many other questions about who qualifies for personhood. The line can be drawn anywhere.
Viability is only a temporary defense against having to decide if all human life merits state protection. Technology will surely be able to figure out how to fertilize and nurture a human embryo without a womb (or a without a womb connected to a legally-qualified “person”).
Viability is a biological issue. Morality is not.
The pro-abortion crowd uses viability to confuse the issue, and to assuage their consciences: it wasn’t killed because it wasn’t viable.
Indefensible.
Are we making any progress with this line of discussion? I don’t see the point.
Oblio: Does anyone ever make progress in discussions of abortion?
My point (which somehow, I think, got lost in the shuffle) is that, given that abortion remains legal, are the Republicans of Florida taking a profoundly anti-libertarian position here? I think they are.
OldFlyer, I was not asking for your opinion about my posts.
You made a strange statement about libertarians (of which I am one), and refuse to explain the basis for it.
You seem to have difficulty understanding libertarian logic. The principle is independence from government’ control over the life of individual. It is a part of a wider principle – minimization of intrusion into personal life from anybody – as long as a person does not intrude into the life of others in a forceful violent way, he is free to do what he sees fit with his life – and certainly with his body, health or mental state. Thus, 2 conclusions where the topic at hand is concerned:
a) State has no business mandating what a person should do with his/her body. Abortions, contraception, euthanasia, suicide, etc are NOT subject to government concern. It is not State’s place to demand that a woman go obtain a sonogram (and pay for it!) before she makes a decision concerning her body, her health, her potential child and her life.
b) Nobody have any business to dictate a woman what to do with her body – to use contraceptives or to abort or carry to term – unless she asks for advice. Not a priest, not a psychologist, not a social worker, not even a neighbor. Likewise nobody has a right to deny you death if you decide your time has come – or vice-versa, if you are set to go for a Guinness world record for longevity – unless you volunteer to listen to others’ opinion.
It is very simple, really – when you internalize the guiding principle: accepting other people as equals, as capable to exercise judgment and respecting their right to do so.
Snapping at me reflects poorly on you…I’d hate to be you when I’m 75.
I have to conclude, sir, you’re the one “blathering”.
Carry on; I’ll not pay attention to what you say, from now on.
Neo:
The FL Repubs are, IMO or best guess, trying to craft an anti-abortion persuader, in full recognition that ABs remain legal. You can tag them as “anti-libertarian”, but so what? They’re not libertarian, I’m not libertarian, most of us are not, and neocons surely are not.
You surprise me.
“..strong personal views…as do I.”
Trust me, Too Tan Charlie hasn’t had a strongly held view on anything except keeping Charlie ever in our sight here in Florida. Must–that’s MUST–hold office, by Gawd. May Arlen Secter, former holder of the Overweening Desperation Award, be but a preview of Mr.Perfect’s future.
…And as technology continues improving, the pro-life proselytizers may have even more powerful images at their disposal i.e. Facebook and a new iPad application called Hello Baby-Pregnancy Calendar which tracks the development of an unborn baby week by week “at simulated life-size.
Philistines will always be easily swayed…
I do not expect that the current cultural war on abortion or euthanasia can be resolved any time soon. The core questions are essentially religious ones: sanctity of life, is human life in human jurisdiction or not, when human life begins, etc. All these are articles of faith, no rational argument can have any weight in such matters. Eventually, nihilists will abort themselves and became extinct tribe, leaving the world to breeders. But it can take a lot of time.
Neo: rarely, and hardly ever in a political context.
“It is very simple, really – when you internalize the guiding principle: accepting other people as equals, as capable to exercise judgment and respecting their right to do so.”
Too simple to me: I can not accept that sinners and fools are equal to righteous and wise, and that the first are really capable to exercise a SOUND judgment. A long experience shows that this is not really so, and I can not respect foolhardy stupidity.
I agree with you that Republicans are taking an anti-libertarian stance, but I don’t think they are wrong to do so.
“Does anyone ever make progress in discussions of abortion?” Yes, but a mind and heart are hard to change.
The mandatory sonogram laws are effective because science proves what the pro-life movement has claimed all along; when you abort you kill a life. Are we human or are we going to allow ourselves to be reduced to mere animals killing the weak and unwanted for money, convenience, greed, selfishness…? What have we become?
As a 10 year old child I was abandoned by my parents and turned over to the state. It sucks to be “unwanted.” Peter Singer advocates for termination up to two years after birth. Seems like an arbitrary number but its just to get you to accept the idea in the first place…foster care is such a burden on the system. Oldflyer, we should all be concerned.
‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ We’ve stopped loving ourselves.
Amoeba is a life. A microorganism is a life. A bacteria is a life. Sperm moving inside vagina is alive, too. Contraception, then, is an unquestionable Evil.
What a narrow-minded, fundamentally authoritarian and tyrannical outlook you guys have. Where is your American individualism?
NJcon was abandoned – so now she(?) wants to force women to keep unwanted babies. “For the children”, of course. And “for their own good”.
Individualism is a pagan vice of non-believers. Judeo-Christian moral is not individualistic: it is personalistic. Personalism recognizes not only individual rights, but personal responsibilities, and ties them together: without responsibilities there are no rights.
“Amoeba is a life. A microorganism is a life. A bacteria is a life. Sperm moving inside vagina is alive, too.”
The distinction is that, at conception, the life is both human and possessing an identity distinct from both parents.
I understand this is magnificently inconvenient. But the logic is sound.
Either the state has cause to protect all human life, or we play the Line-Drawing Game. Age, accident, and genetic endowment can leave people no longer viable. Why does the state have any more or less standing to act on behalf of such persons?
The form, depth and persistence of the state’s protection are a follow-on question. So is the prospective penalty for those who kill in various circumstances. Perhaps abortion deserves an affirmative defense, just like killing someone who is trying to murder you. But the human in the womb lacks mens rea, so there will have to be another justification.
If we’re taking it back to the simple point, then, yes, this law is anti-libertarian. But that point is hollow without a discussion of the environment in which the law is proposed. As I blathered much earlier in the discussion, the law is an attempt at the possible, not anyone’s ideal.
It is also no surprise that Republicans are frequently anti-libertarian. Political views lie on at least a plane, not a line. And labels fail to capture the complexity most viewpoints.
Wow. I’ve never heard or seen it expressed that way, Sergey. There is alot in that individual v. personal dichotomy. Christians and Jews serve a personal G-d who demands holiness, ie., responsibilities. Freedom is not anomie or antinomianism–the exact opposite–freedom is holiness. Individualism without personality (G-d)precludes freedom.
Tom (and others): believe me, I know that many Republicans are not especially libertarian. But I think that they should stand for less government intrusion, not more.
And if they are against legal abortion they should work for that goal: to overturn Roe v. Wade and then work for making abortion illegal on a state by state basis. As long as abortion is legal, however, they should keep it between a woman and her doctor, and if they want to inform women about facts about what the baby looks like at different stages, they should support voluntary (not compulsory) educational efforts in that direction.
That would be the correct approach, IMHO.
As far as being a neocon and a libertarian goes, I think you have the wrong idea and definition of what a neocon is (go to my right sidebar under the category “neocons” for more info). Neocons can be quite libertarian—I, for example, am certainly not a doctrinaire rigid libertarian but I tend to lean in that direction, which I consider very very compatible with being a neocon. Neocons support the idea that humans do best with more liberty and say in their own governing. I’m not going to go into the whole neocon thing here; it’s too complex, and if you want to read more, go to that right sidebar.
“I understand this is magnificently inconvenient. But the logic is sound.”
I noticed that the considerations/rights of those who became pregnant are routinely left out of the debate by the pro-lifers on this thread. I’d be willing to bet that the loudest amongst you pro-life bloggers has never been pregnant/will never be pregnant. You are therefore forming opinions based on prejudices and fears which are disconnected from reality.
Curtis – as usual, you ascribe ability to be resonsible only to your co-religionists (btw, what is your religion? One time you speak about Evangelical liturgy you used to sit through, then oyu hint at being Jewish – which is it?)
While in reality it’s exactly the opposite: religious families of most orthodox denominations have several kids, one after another, without a thought or concern for their quality of life.
It’s the secular families who think first – and who care about their kids.
Pablo, you’re right – the anti-contraception crowd have little concern about a mother – a real, live person (talk about “pro-life”) and how having a child will change that life. And what upbringing is awaiting the child who’s not wanted – possibly ending like NJcon did, abandoned for foster care. Also, they forgot, for some reason, that in American history there was already a period, for a long time, when abortions were illegal – so, did it help much?
As Neo said – it is a fact of life and it will remain so, regardless of one’ personal preferences. The topic of this post was interference by the State – and Republicans showed themselves real State slaves on this one.
“I’d be willing to bet that the loudest amongst you…”
Ad hominem. Does nothing to change the logic of personhood.
“you pro-life bloggers has never been pregnant/will never be pregnant”
Ad hominem or argument from authority. Again, does not move the logic.
“the anti-contraception crowd have little concern about a mother”
Bare assertion and/or strawman. Does not change the logic about personhood. Also, moving the goalpost; now we’re talking about contraception instead of abortion? A marvelous example of the consequentialist thinking I decried near the top of this thread.
“if they are against legal abortion they should work for that goal”
As I understand them, that legal move is only an intermediate goal. They really want fewer (zero) babies killed pre-birth. The coerced sonogram is likely to advance the primary goal. Defending purely innocent human life is trump over pretty much every other policy.
Libertarians name a different suit as trump: non-coercion. This is why that school of thought cannot endure independently in meatspace…it is by definition reactionary and behind events. Libertarians depend upon neocons to keep the bad guys at bay.
now we’re talking about contraception instead of abortion?
The post was about State’s interference in personal decision by introducing a law that would make mandatory an undergoing of unnecessary medical procedure and then “shaming” a woman into keeping an unwanted child. And making that woman to pay for it!
So how come we are talking about right to abort altogether? or relative morality of a religious and non-believers? or the term when various factions deem a fetus to be a human being? How many goal posts you moved?
I think it’s vise-versa: neocons need libertarians to remind you of fundamental principles.
And don’t hide behind “innocent human life”. A woman who wants to be in charge of her body is innocent, too.
Bad tag. Sorry, I’ll retype.
now we’re talking about contraception instead of abortion?
The post was about State’s interference in personal decision by introducing a law that would make mandatory an undergoing of unnecessary medical procedure and then “shaming” a woman into keeping an unwanted child. And making that woman to pay for it!
So how come we are talking about right to abort altogether? or relative morality of a religious and non-believers? or the term when various factions deem a fetus to be a human being? How many goal posts you moved?
I think it’s vise-versa: neocons need libertarians to remind you of fundamental principles.
And don’t hide behind “innocent human life”. A woman who wants to be in charge of her body is innocent, too.
“Ad hominem or argument from authority. Again, does not move the logic.”
“Ad hominem. Does nothing to change the logic of personhood.”
Questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. You are evading what I believe you know is the truth.
“A woman who wants to be in charge of her body is innocent, too.”
I just love the silly assertion that aborting women are simply in charge of their own bodies, and innocently so, as an excuse to terminate a human life. Being in charge might be better exercised before unprotected intercourse.
The shabby thinking of the womens-right-to-choose should be mortifying, but hey, let’s just get it on. It feels sooo good. So does driving while drunk.
foxmark, thanks for your good thoughts.
Lovely.
Pablo, I would suggest that you have neither been aborted, nor have you aborted a child (if you are indeed Pablo). Therefore you are no more qualified to speak than the pro-lifers who have not experienced pregnancy. Interestingly enough, Sarah and Bristol Palin, for their individual reasons, are among the best qualified to speak using your standards.
Tatyana, I give you credit for having great gall. You took me to task for not documenting my sources of information; but now you make a huge generalization about the rate with which religious families of most orthodox religions have children. Wow! You are just throwing BS into the mix now.
The law, and Neo’s post, was about what might happen to women contemplating abortions. Contraception is clearly moving the goalpost.
We’re still stuck with a majority definition of personhood instead of a reasoned one.
We (or I, at least) am not talking about a right to abort. I contend only that the fetus is a person that merits state protection. As I wrote, maybe there could be some kind of affirmative defense for abortion conspirators. The right to abort, if it exists, can be only a legal right, not an inherent an inalienable right of humans.
I am not hiding, I am calling you out. I used “innocent” as the shorthand to differentiate from other tangential discussions about capital punishment.
What am I evading?
I have never proposed that a coerced sonogram is not coerced. I have not proposed that a mother deprived of easy abortion is in a difficult spot. Nor have I proposed that an unwanted, unwelcome child is also in a difficult spot.
But that fertilized ova is alive, is human, and has a distinct identity. It is also a complete organism on a biological path of development. If defending human life is any justification for coercion and/or state intervention, the thing subject to abortion deserves state protection.
Which premise do you deny? Not alive? Not human? Not unique? Not whole?
Character and motive may matter in court or in a public debate, but reason doesn’t care who says what, or why they say it.
Here we see a failing of non-divine morality. Yes, the mother may be innocent (but certainly less so than the fetus). How do we weigh two valid sufferings against one another? Without a god construct, it devolves to a purely utilitarian calculation. The fetus is a net burden, so it loses. Humans become means instead of ends.
We live out our destinies in a world of vast and profound complexity, where claims upon our compassion and our judgment compete and often conflict. Deal with it.
The woman’s ability to choose is rooted in her individual conscience, not in her adherence to ancient ancient religious superstitious beliefs or morally superior hand-ringing/meaningless blog drivelers–sound and fury signifying nothing who would accuse her of “shabby thinking”.
A woman’s right to choose also includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion.
You can’t really believe there is anything wrong with that…
We agree, Pablo, that life is hard. But you commit a non-sequitur by raising this “right to choose” as a response to my claim that a fetus merits state protection.
Yes, there may be something wrong with killing another human life merely because its existence is unwelcome or inconvenient.
It seems in your moral system, choice trumps life. If that is close to accurate, whatever ones chooses to do in defense of life is morally equivalent to choosing to take life. And that’s really no system at all. We are then servants of whim and fancy. I think that’s nihilism, wherever it leads.
There’s another aspect that I now realize gets little attention. In the performance of an abortion, the abortionist is also making a choice. This puts the debate another step outside inherent and inalienable rights. The libertarian view cannot hold that a pregnant person has a right to compel someone to perform an abortion on her.
And thus we open the door to arguing about who supports what after all our taxes are commingled…
“It seems in your moral system, choice trumps life. If that is close to accurate, whatever ones chooses to do in defense of life is morally equivalent to choosing to take life. And that’s really no system at all. We are then servants of whim and fancy. I think that’s nihilism, wherever it leads.”
The choice of the mother, trumps the life of the fetus. True statement. It falls to intrinsic value–you are saying that the fetus’s value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of the mother is superior–and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: the mother in this case. Just wrong.
Above all, it’s important to look at the human side of the issue rather than just the logical side. Logic can kill people as much as it can save them. We need to use our human compassion to remember that people are hurting and suffering over moral quandaries which by rights ought to be their decisions, not the government’s.
Keep federal funds from faith based initiatives.
Less government people !
nyomythus –
protection of life is a valid application of government, just as is national defense.
We need to use our human compassion to remember that people are hurting and suffering over moral quandaries which by rights ought to be their decisions, not the government’s.
I reject your belief that ending an innocent human life is a “moral quandary.”
It may make things simpler, but so would killing my sister’s soon-to-be-ex husband– and he’s a lot less innocent.
“Just wrong.” Bare assertion.
Is the fetus living, human, distinct and whole? Why does the mother have superior rights? Aren’t we all equal as people?
Who judges intrinsic value? If we are created equal, then, well, our intrinsic value must be equal when we are created.
I do not argue that an unwilling mother pays no cost. But why make the fetus pay her cost? The fetus didn’t make her pregnant.
The fallback to compassion doesn’t work. Who cares for the unborn?
To back away from logic is to concede that we are ruled by whim and strength. If this were true, then all the arguments about rights of the mother are irrelevant. It is merely a popularity contest. Baby-killers tend to lose those.
“we are ruled by whim and strength”
The first correct thing you’ve posted.
Thucydides-…the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Foxfierfoxmarks both need some schooling in reality and basic truths. If intervention into/on to other people’s reproductive rights and name calling (why so smug? – snobbery is the last refuge of the liberal-arts major) to justify your position feeds your starving soul, then so be it…but you should think about using your pop-culture intellectuality to see just a little further than your own backyard.
It would be much better for everybody if people talk and think about their rights less, and about their responsibilities more. “Rights” are wery unhealthy obsession of modern culture, feeding nihilism. Any demand of rights is inherently divisive and inevitably (and often correctly) perceived as thinly veiled aggression. There is no such thing as absolute right: right of any person stops where right of another person begins. Is a fetus “person” in legal sense can be discussed untill doomsday. In morally and religiously divided society no law dependent on this question can be accepted by overwhelming majority and so can not be enforced; so it is better not to have any law than to have unenforcible law.
Pablo, you are reaching to the point of absurdity.
There is no attempt to compare intrinsic value between the mother and the fetus. The intrinsic value is equal, as it is among all humans in our society. (Or maybe you do not believe so.) The issue is one of innocence and defenselessness on the one hand, and a decision by one who truly does have a choice on the other. The same moral issue by the way prescribes law that pertains to murder, manslaughter, or inflicting injury through malicious action or negligence.
No one has addressed the points of rape or serious health issues in this discussion. These situations present a moral dilemma that is worthy of debate. But, the termination of an innocent life, that originated through a voluntary act, simply because it has become inconvenience to one or both of the participants, is very different kettle of fish.
You are a typical representative of the “Pro-choice” mind-set because you argue everything but the core issue.
Pablo –
Since you’re still just going on assertion and insult, rather than any actual argument, I’m going to have to believe you don’t have an argument.
“NJcon was abandoned – so now she(?) wants to force women to keep unwanted babies. “For the children”, of course. And “for their own good”.”
So, your answer is to kill the children for their “own good.” Geez….. little dictators. I want people to be held accountable for spreading their legs. I could tolerate the anti-life crowd more if they weren’t so religiously superstitious about their points. “Clump of cells” my @$$.
“I want people to be held accountable for spreading their legs.”
The fact that you think you care more about another Woman’s uterus and its “rights” than she does is kinda gross. Why the heck are creepy, middle-aged men and militant lesbians so obsessed with reproductive rights?