Mars Hill Elder Gary Shavey wrote a letter to the Seattle Times. It’s chock full of nuts, so I thought I’d share with the congregation. It’s especially horrible that it’s making me defend Nicole Brodeur!*
To the Seattle Times:
Insinuating Infanticide
Oh my
This letter is in response to the column written by Nicole Brodeur titled, “Having to make this Choice.” Nicole Brodeur’s column was on the recent Supreme Court decision on “partial-birth” abortion. Although I am aware, and she is quite clear, on her stance on abortion this column seemed to sicken me with the logical outworking of what she was promoting through an emotional argument that takes anyone down the slippery slope of abhorrence at the reality that may come. I think that the column is pretty clear that she is not really promoting anything purposely but as a columnist she is leading people, who read her column, through persuasion.
Isn’t the point of writing a column to promote something purposely? And, “seemed to sicken me”? You would think you would know if you were sickened or not.
If anyone were to recall this column, Nicole uses a couple that had a planned pregnancy. This couple, then 22 weeks into the pregnancy, found out about a malformation in the brain of their baby. Then here is the crux of the column, does a couple end the life of an unborn child in the womb rather than agonize over the struggle of life for the child outside the womb? The linkage between a diagnosis of brain malfunction of an unborn child to that of a child born critically ill is clear. Then in this column we see that abortion is the better choice. Why would parents go through the agony of seeing their child struggle through “heroic measures” to attain life then ultimately die?
Look, if the family wants to keep the child that’s their decision. And the state should be doing everything that it can for any children that are born. But ultimately this decision is incredibly difficult for any family to make. And seriously, fuck you for thinking that you can make it for them.
Pause for a minute here. What has just happened? There is a major shift taking place here. We would rather kill the unborn child than give the opportunity of life and letting nature take its course? The link was already made, that the option was, “if death was soon after birth what difference would it make if death happened in the womb?” The couple in the column grieves their child even though they made the decision to extinguish life in the womb. Where do we go next with this type of thinking? Do we start jumping on the bandwagon of Dr. Singer (professor at Princeton) that promotes the option of killing babies after they are born (infanticide) because they will die anyway or they are a major inconvenience to the parents and society? This all seems like a decision of convenience for the parents apart from the thought of sanctity of life. It seems that the slippery slope is that if parents are able to end life of a child in the womb because of the possibility of a critically ill life, then there is nothing stopping parents from killing their child outside the womb anywhere up to 9 months after birth because of a critical illness that may pervade a child.
I know, and the only proper infanticide is biblically approved infanticide. Like when a child who, “curses his father or mother must be put to death. He has cursed his father or mother and deserves to die.” It sounds harsh, but if the B-I-B-L-E The Book for me says it, it must be moral.
Seriously, according to Broderur’s column, the family already has one child. Should we subject that child to poverty as well as the parents so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of a few out of the mainstream Christians?
And what the fuck kind of slippery slope is that? Birth is a much more clear line than the consequentialist notions of Dr. Singer or the life magically becomes worth saving at some point in the womb approach of the Christianist faction. It is the clearest line in the sand. But please, go on and tell us how giving women choices over their own bodies is a step on the road to fascism.
Close friends of mine in California had just delivered their third child in late 2000. Little did they know that their daughter would have a rare skin disorder called Epidermolysis Bullosa, which basically means the skin does not adhere to the body along with other major complications internally. The mortality rate the first year is 87%. Besides the agony of losing their child along with the million dollar medical bill why didn’t they just extinguish life rather than live with the burden and loss of their little one? This is the option being promoted. Fortunately they did not and she is still alive to this day. She will never have a life normal to that of the average American girl but the parents and community are glad to be blessed that she is still around. There is something about the society promoted by Dr. Singer and even suggested by Nicole Brodeur that is very saddening. The ramifications of enabling choices to preserve convenience and the pre-emptive strike of avoiding agony of lost loved ones may be extremely damaging to our society, if not already. The thought that my friend’s little girl along with countless others would not have made it past their first birthdays, is astonishing. May we think past the pragmatics of today to the peaceful world we are suppose to drive towards. Where would we draw the line? When does the topic shift to euthanasia of burdened elderly people or to that of any handicap that puts a burden on society? This sounds all to similar to the paradigm that drove the fascist regimes of World War II.
Brodeur isn’t suggesting anything beyond that people should be able to abort if they chose. Even late term. For whatever reason they chose. She isn’t advocating infanticide, hell she isn’t advocating people make the same choice, and the line she has is clear as day. Christ.
Nobody is saying your friend has to or should have had an abortion. What we are saying is that what was the right decision for them might be the wrong position for other people.
Thanks,
Gary Shavey
Welcome,
Carl Ballard
* Having to defend her isn’t actually so horrible. I may not be her biggest fan but I did meet her once and she was perfectly delightful. And this column was spot on.
“Nobody is saying your friend has to or should have had an abortion. What we are saying is that what was the right decision for them might be the wrong position for other people.”
No, no, no, no, no! Right-wing, evangelical, Christian fundamentalist values are the ONLY acceptable values! Every woman on this planet must bow to the whims of an Iron Age god, who both (a) demanded the execution of non-Israelite children, back in the day, and (b) demands that all modern fetuses be brought to term, without exception. (For, if a fetus is not brought to term, how can the resultant child be killed during a war of divinely-ordered conquest?)
Only after we understand that all women (and their bodies) exist to serve men, can we embrace the morality of the Mars Hill Christian Church. Only then can we understand that manly pastors become fags because their wives grow fat. And if you cannot see that equation, then thee is truly a tool of Satan! Praise Jeebus, and pass the collection plate!
I noticed that Mr. Shavey neatly segued from talking about a fetus with a brain malformation (for which the death rate is 100% the first 24 hours after birth) and a child with a severe skin disorder which has a high, but not 100%, death rate.
People at Mars Hill can’t tell apples from oranges, so they think they are the same.
Remember – these Publicans don’t want you to have an abortion because that violates the sanctity of life. But then, if you’re poor and black, they don’t give a good golly fuck whether or not your kid starves to death or dies from lack of pre-natal care. That’s your problem. Just don’t abort the kid. Wait to let it die after it’s born. Makes perfect sense to me. NOT!
I’m sure that Puddybud, the exemplar of Christian values and the expert on systematic theology, can clarify things for you and point out your errors. His impressive command of homiletics is sure to persuade you. We are lucky to be frequently visited by such an articulate representative of God.
Are you a Spartan? Sometimes an Atrocity is an Atrocity
Carl,
You disappoint me.
Dissing good people because they feel that full term fetuses have rights is bad science. The kind of magic belief you want to9 have in birth is no better than the fundies belief that a fertilized egg is a person. Both are magical po9ints of view.. Concern for the right to life of a late term infant is as reasonable as concern for any other stage of life.
First, let me set aside the fuzzy thinking. The Supreme Court did NOT rule out late term abortion. The Court, IMO wrongly, outlawed a specific procedure the Justices decided was barbaric. That procedure involves allowing all but the head to be born, and then destroying the head. There are good medical arguments about this way of killing a late term fetus, but the Court found that it was OK to rule the procedure out because there are other ways to kill the fetus that are less gruesome. The right to a late term abortion was NOT affected by this decision.
There is no magic about birth, we can choose to have a baby be born earlier and, with amazing effort, replace the womb and keep a fetus alive, as a “baby” in an incubator. Indubitably, at some time, we will have the ability t gestate a human fully in a lab vessel too.
When a mother .. or both parents or the state … decides it has the right to late term abortion, then we will be as bad as the Spartans. Do you remember how these nice people put excess babies, esp. girls, out to to dies in the wilds? or howe about those Rumanian AIDS filled orphanges? .. or our own lack of funding for care of the newborn but poor?
This ought to be an area of moralist agreement, right or left. A late term baby and its mother deserve a great deal of respect and care, just as newborns and infants deserve the care of the err ahhh village.
Do women have special rights during the last months of gestation? Of course, but so do their children.
SeattleJew
Dissing good people because they feel that full term fetuses have rights is bad science.
He’s not dissing someone for the view they have of the fetus’s rights. He’s dissing them for the view they have of the mother’s rights.
When a mother .. or both parents or the state … decides it has the right to late term abortion, then we will be as bad as the Spartans.
Absolutely incorrect. As long as a fetus is dependant upon the mother for survival, the mother is sole determinant of whether the life of the fetus can be terminated. Any less than that is a moral transgression. If a fetus can survive outside of the womb, and removing that symbiotic bond is no more of a risk to the mother than an abortion, then you have a case to prevent a woman from having an abortion. Otherwise, it’s a human rights violation.
My personal view is late term abortions for reasons other than medical neccessity should not happen. I also believe that it is not a federal issue but a state issue.
re 7: … and it will only become a Federal issue for you if you think that is the most expedient route for you to control someone’s behavior that you disagree with — under the guise, of course, of protecting the foetus.
Is being born without a brain a medically necessitous matter in your view?
“tiny earll says:
re 7: … and it will only become a Federal issue for you if you think that is the most expedient route for you to control someone’s behavior that you disagree with — under the guise, of course, of protecting the foetus.
Is being born without a brain a medically necessitous matter in your view?
06/11/2007 at 9:51 am
Can you read?
I think being born without a brain would be a medical necessity….
And no, I am not condoning controlling someones behavior, rather that I believe that this is a states issue not a federal issue.
5 “Bad science”? More to the point (and being that what prompted this thread is an exchange between Christians), dissing anyone, period, is bad Christianity. I suspect it’s not particularly good Judaism, either.
Hey, in this day and age, if it was the norm to kill teenagers for cussing at their parents, there’d be a hell of a lot of infanticide going on.
I don’t see abortions being made illegal. I thought we settled this matter back in 1973.
I don’t see abortions being made illegal. I thought we settled this matter back in 1973.
We did, but fake libertarians like you keep voting for Republicans so it’s an issue again.
My brother-in-law and his wife were forced to make this choice last month. The details are uncanny-about 5 months into the pregnancy, it was discovered that the baby’s brain was not forming correctly and they chose to end the pregnancy knowing that the baby would not survive birth. They do have one child (3yo girl, very sweet) I can’t imagine having to make this decision. It has upset the entire family, who continues to grieve. Fortunately, physical recovery has been good.
The BIG Kicker here…this should really get Goldy going-My B-in-law is WA Army Nat’l Guard (returned last year from Iraq) and S-in-law is Navy (stationed on the Licoln). The military refused to pay for this medical procedure because it was not “medically necessary”! Good thing they had fabulous Doctors who insisted that this really was not a choice as the baby likely would have died in utero, jeopardizing Mom’s health further. The military has conceded and paid. WTF is wrong with the military?
thehim,
Who pissed in your corn flakes, pardner? I don’t give a rip about abortion. Get one or don’t get one: I don’t care.
If i’m a fake Libertarian what are you? A fake “progressive?”
The military refused to pay for this medical procedure because it was not “medically necessary”! Good thing they had fabulous Doctors who insisted that this really was not a choice as the baby likely would have died in utero, jeopardizing Mom’s health further. The military has conceded and paid. WTF is wrong with the military?
Actually, this would have gone through TriCare, which is an HMO run by a private company under contract to the DOD under rules written by Congress and the administration. Elective abortions are generally not covered under TriCare, as Congress and the administration have long considered it to be too much of a hot potato.
As HMOs go, they’re actually pretty good most of the time.
Some HMOs pay for elective abortions, some do not, but most will question a late term abortion if it is not necessary for the health of the mother, which this one clearly was.
Just because the doctors were fabulous, doesn’t mean that their billing departments are. If the medical necessity is not clearly spelled out, TriCare will kick it back.
Who pissed in your corn flakes, pardner? I don’t give a rip about abortion. Get one or don’t get one: I don’t care.
Having an ornery morning, pardner. Just pointing out that the only reason that the abortion matter wasn’t fully settled after 1973 was because modern Republicans have been very successful at redefining issues of personal liberty in ways that only suit large corporations. Much of the “Libertarian” movement in this country fell for it, and that’s why we’ve been sliding backwards on issues of personal liberty in the past two decades.
If i’m a fake Libertarian what are you? A fake “progressive?”
Maybe. I consider myself more of a libertarian than a progressive. I just have trouble believing that any person who considers himself a libertarian can be more wary of Democrats than Republicans right now. Maybe I’ve misread you (or maybe there’s a different person leaving comments as ‘Libertarian’ at SP).
@16. Now that you mention TriCare, I remember that being discussed. (I am not military, so unfamiliar with how this works). I think what happened is exactly what you said, the doctors had to spell out that it was necessary. Thanks for the clarification. Its a shame though that they had to deal with seemingly mundane stuff during one of the hardest times of their lives. I am ever grateful they had the choice.
seattlejew @5……well, it’s finally happened. i agree with you 100% on this.and you said it very well.
look….as a woman i can point out to all the men on here that while we women are fascinated by your interest in abortion we find it a little self serving too. remember the days when if you got someone pregnant you had to take responsibility? isn’t this whole “we want women to choose” just a really convenient way for you to be bigger flakes than you already were?
come on!
we have alot of choice already. do you have any idea how many different and very effective birth control methods there are today?
aren’t you the group of people that hate big corporations? well…then you should talk to planned parenthood…they have been making alot of money from misery for a very long time. why, with all their “help” hasn’t this problem been solved? do you ever ask yourselves any honest questions like this?
no?
yup….it’s a thinker……….
@6 thehim
YOUR religion is not better than that of the fundies. YOU may believe there is magic moment when the fetus becomes a baby and that that moment is when the ears pass the labia, but such a POV has no more validity thahn the Spartans’ claim to have the right to kill newborn girls or the fundie claim to “know” that life begins at zygosis.
C-sections alone should show yuo that you are wrong. If a an 8 month fetus is viable by c-section, would you claim that a mother has the right to end the fetus’ life? I would not agree with yo anymore than I would agree with any other arbitrary, unscientific belief.
Would a self-done abortion at that time be murder? Personally I think so, but I have enough respect for the complexity of the question to feel this needs to be a social decision. Do I think it is murder t end the life of a severely malformed 1 month old? Again, I tend to the view that personality and life are the same thing so if the baby can not be a person, I would feel it si OK to end this life BUT, I would very much want a social decision on such a difficult issue.
And then we have the Spartans and modern societies where female children are uneducated.
SeattleJew
ALL
I hope,.despite Lee’s message, that everyone here realizes that the Supremes did NOT rule vs. late term abortion. The ruling was against one way of doing such an abortion. IMHO this was an absurd ruling and I agree with Lee that the intent was to erode Roe, BUT lets at least get the law correct.
SeattleJew
Roe vs the Constitution ..
time for an amendment or law?
I am not na attorney though I did stay at a Holiday in several times.
That said, I find the reasoning behind RvW pretty wierd. I think we would all be a lot better of with a clean law or amendment securing a woman’s rights to the first trimestre against ANY interference. OTOH, the last timester seems to me to be a very real and debateable issue. I think it would be a good thing to bring some order to this mess.
But then there are fundies, fundies to the left and the right, who “know” the unknowable.
“… remember the days when if you got someone pregnant you had to take responsibility?”
Actually, you had to take her to Sweden, where you could then buy her a safe, legal abortion. Or, if you were well-connected, you could procure for her a safe, illegal abortion here.
If you think some men will take responsibility for their sexual adventures, please ask Henry “Homewrecker” Hyde or the (very) late Strom Thurmond. Both guys spent a lot of time, and our money, trying to make abortion unsafe and illegal. ‘Cause they believed in personal responsibility. For women.
YOUR religion is not better than that of the fundies.
Not the point. You’re saying that it’s possible that theirs is better than mine and that they can impose their morality on me.
YOU may believe there is magic moment when the fetus becomes a baby and that that moment is when the ears pass the labia, but such a POV has no more validity thahn the Spartans’ claim to have the right to kill newborn girls or the fundie claim to “know” that life begins at zygosis.
Exactly, that’s why if you make a late-term abortion illegal, you are infringing on the rights of a pregnant woman. If it’s a religious conclusion (as you admit), it is forbidden for the government to decide it. That’s how our constitution is set up. We have freedom of religion.
C-sections alone should show yuo that you are wrong. If a an 8 month fetus is viable by c-section, would you claim that a mother has the right to end the fetus’ life?
No, and I said that explicitly in my comment. Are you unable to read or are you being retarded on purpose?
Would a self-done abortion at that time be murder?
If the mother had an avenue for saving the child’s life, then yes.
Do I think it is murder t end the life of a severely malformed 1 month old? Again, I tend to the view that personality and life are the same thing so if the baby can not be a person, I would feel it si OK to end this life BUT, I would very much want a social decision on such a difficult issue.
This is an extremely difficult question. My personal opinion is that you’d have to have consensus between both parents and a review board of medical professionals before allowing it. I would not consider it a violation of church and state, however, if a state outlawed it.
I hope,.despite Lee’s message, that everyone here realizes that the Supremes did NOT rule vs. late term abortion.
Excuse me? When did I say otherwise? Are you putting words in my mouth again, jackass? What the fuck is wrong with you?
That said, I find the reasoning behind RvW pretty wierd. I think we would all be a lot better of with a clean law or amendment securing a woman’s rights to the first trimestre against ANY interference.
I’m not a lawyer either, but on this we agree. Telling a woman that she cannot have an abortion is a violation of the First Amendment, because the determination of when human life begins is a moral decision based within the framework of one’s religious beliefs. Telling a woman that she cannot have an abortion is a clear violation of her freedom of religion.
I was going to stay out of this mess, but here’s where I must jump in.
For the purposes of these laws, the decision as to when human life begins is a legal decision.
Even if a person belongs to religion says that a person is not human until after their fourth birthday, the law still will not allow them to strangle two-year-old children. Forbidding that practice may be a “clear violation” of freedom of religion, but even that freedom is not absolute. (Been to many human sacrifices recently?)
The law in Washington has (wisely, in my opinion) placed that line at 24 weeks, which is widely considered the point of viability. No religion picked that time frame.
Even though she may desire an abortion after that point, the only allowable reasons are for her immediate health or safety. That is the current law here, as I understand it.
People are free to use their religious beliefs to influence their vote. If enough people decide that human life begins at conception, then, regardless of the reason for that choice, then that is where the line will be placed. It will be a legal matter.
Lots of laws are based on religious beliefs, but become secular when placed into the statutes. Telling a person that they cannot steal is not a violation of the separation of church and state.
The people that place the beginning of human life at conception have every bit as strong an argument as those that place that beginning at 24 weeks, or at birth (or even at age four).
My own position on abortion is a bit conflicted. I simply do not consider it to be my right to use the force of law to require a woman to risk her life carrying a fetus to term.
Even so, I would oppose having a doctor perform a C-section at 24 weeks, even though that procedure might be easier on the mother than waiting until the fetus was fully grown.
As I said, my position is a bit conflicted.
But, in the end, regardless of the motives of the lawmakers, the legal definition of the beginning of human life is much like the legal definition of the end of human life. It is a matter of law. That’s what we’re all arguing about.
Even if a person belongs to religion says that a person is not human until after their fourth birthday, the law still will not allow them to strangle two-year-old children. Forbidding that practice may be a “clear violation” of freedom of religion, but even that freedom is not absolute. (Been to many human sacrifices recently?)
The difference here is difficult and this is where a lot of people get tripped up when discussing abortion. After a child is born, the notion of religious freedom for the mother goes out the window. The only reason it applied before is because the fetus and the mother are symbiotically attached to each other and rely on each other for survival.
In the past, I used to use the highly hypothetical example of siamese twins that couldn’t be separated without both dying. What if one of them kills someone? Do you put both in jail, violating the right of the innocent one? Or do you let the guilty one go free, rejecting the justice demanded by the law? The point is that there’s no ideal situation, and therefore you have to weigh the relative harm to humanity.
Abortion is similar. You have a symbiotic relationship where a developing fetus is dependant upon another human being for its survival. Until the point where that symbiotic relationship is broken (the point where the fetus could survive independently), the right for the woman to have an abortion is a basic human right. After that point, the only reason a woman should be able to have an abortion is if the fetus is not viable outside of the womb, or if the life of the mother is in danger. Setting that date arbitrarily (24 weeks) rather than allowing for doctors to make that determination is a mistake.
Simple statement: I think abortions are wrong and I would not encourage anyone to have one. However, I will not judge anyone for having or not have one because the choice is theirs, for whatever reason they come up with.
Reason
Lee ..
You miss the point. YOU have no more basis to declare that personal rights begin at birth than the fundies to declare that rights begin at implantation.
Also late-term abortion is NOT illegal under the SC decision.,
Lee said, Excuse me? When did I say otherwise? Are you putting words in my mouth again, jackass? What the fuck is wrong with you?
There are few things wrong with me and likely with you too. If I may brder on the insulting, you all to easily slip into low oratorical gear when your blogger wheels start spinning. For my part, I like to play word games of a different kind. Hashem will forgive us both (grin).
That said, the tenor of your message and of a lot of liberal discussion about this issue has totally missed the point. The Court’s reasoning is … rational. If the State of Washington wants to have a law against this way of doing abortions, the law may be inane, but it is not against the Constitution.
Lee said, I’m not a lawyer either, but on this we agree. Telling a woman that she cannot have an abortion is a violation of the First Amendment, because the determination of when human life begins is a moral decision based within the framework of one’s religious beliefs. Telling a woman that she cannot have an abortion is a clear violation of her freedom of religion.
The only thing we agree on here is that you are not a lawyer. For your benefit:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There is absolutely no way that this can be read as having buttsweat to do with a woman’s rights to abortion any more than it can be read as a right to slavery, public nudity, carrying a dagger on an airplane, refusal to use vaccines, etc.
Just because religions have a lot of irrational beliefs, the First does not guanratee the right to all lack of reason.
Let me use MY religion as one example. I am, as you know, a devout atheist who accepts Judaism as my tradition. You may not like that or may, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether my fellow citizens agree with me on any issue of governance, As it happens, I believe in the rigtht to polygamy.polyandry. My religion permits this, but US law forbids it on the basis that one can not consent to this particular form of legal relationship (of course it is fully legal to live in a commune and screw whoever yo want).
Returning to Reason, I would argue that third term abortions should not be allowed irrespective of the woman’s rights because at this point the fetus is viable and has enough central nervous system to be considered sentient. This over-rides the woman’s property rights over that which is within the confines of her body and even her personal rights to what may be done to her to safeguard the baby’s life. I would, however, provide a social means for over-riding this right of the unborn for a wide range of reasons including Mom’s health, viability of the fetus as a functional baby, etc. NOTE: nothing in tis paragraph is based on any revealed truths, just on simkple science and an effort to maximize the protection of sentient life.
@25 John
You are wonderful! Reason is so rare!
SeattleJew
@26 Lee
Sorry Lee but your science or logic are faulty. Siamese twins can be, as you note, interdependent. In that case the laew is difficult.
This is NOT the case with a third trimester fetus and its mom. These babies are like siamese twins with a minimal connection. To use your hypothetical, suppose Mike and Jo are connected by a skin brodge at the belly. Suppose Mike wants to be separated but Jo says no, this wold intervene in his rights. The law would rule that Mike must make this sacrifice.
The only reason for allowing third term abortions at the mother’s will is an irrational decision that the mom has magical rights over the baby.
SeattleJew
Lee … 24 weeks
Yes this is arbitrary and it is highly likley we will have the technical ability to rescue life at earlier stages soon. However, following YOUR reasoning, this may mean a woman loses her rights t an abortion EARLIER!
I honestly do not think that this issue is resolvable as long as anyone’s religion, including yours, is allowed to define undefinable things like when life begins or who owns the cpnceptus … Mom, Dad, Guv Gregoire or littleun.
So, faced with no magic, we mere humans need to come to some aggrement on how to apportion rights. We do the same thing in many other instances. That is the brilliance of the American system.
What Would Jefferson Do?
To paraphrase my Buddha, The Jeff said he really did not think it mattered if others believed in 1 god, three gods, twenty gods or none at all. But, the Jeff willingly disowned injuns of their rights because, as He saw it, this was to the greater good of society. Sighh. Such is the danger of having atheists in government. A good believer like yuorself would have known that Indians have inherent rights that could not be over-ridden by the law.
Steve, once again, we’re running into the same problem we always run into you. You’re having having an argument against things I’ve never said. You’re making up my argument out of thin air and then arguing against it. Let’s recap:
YOU have no more basis to declare that personal rights begin at birth than the fundies to declare that rights begin at implantation.
Also late-term abortion is NOT illegal under the SC decision.,
Again, I’ve never said the opposite. I agree completely with this. Can you please cut and paste where I’ve said the opposite.
That said, the tenor of your message and of a lot of liberal discussion about this issue has totally missed the point. The Court’s reasoning is … rational. If the State of Washington wants to have a law against this way of doing abortions, the law may be inane, but it is not against the Constitution.
I disagree with this. I believe (and I know that many Constitutional scholars would disagree with me) it is against the Constitution if it infringes on a person’s freedom of religion. I believe that the determination of the value of the life of a fetus is a moral determination that gets made my the mother, and therefore it is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with that decision. Granted, I also believe that putting someone in jail for drug use is similarly unconstitutional, so please recognize that I’m not arguing from a conventional wisdom standpoint, I’m arguing from a purely logical standpoint, and it’s something that I think this country has been getting wrong for many years.
There is absolutely no way that this can be read as having buttsweat to do with a woman’s rights to abortion any more than it can be read as a right to slavery, public nudity, carrying a dagger on an airplane, refusal to use vaccines, etc.
Baloney. All of those things you mention deal with things that directly affect other people. A woman having an abortion does not. Furthermore, imposing any of those rules that you mention does not impose as difficult a predicament upon an individual as forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy.
Just because religions have a lot of irrational beliefs, the First does not guanratee the right to all lack of reason.
Yes it does. The first amendment guarantees that people have a right to any form of irrational thought, so long as it does not affect another human being. If this is not how it’s interpreted, I find that to be a mistake.
Let me use MY religion as one example. I am, as you know, a devout atheist who accepts Judaism as my tradition. You may not like that or may, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether my fellow citizens agree with me on any issue of governance, As it happens, I believe in the rigtht to polygamy.polyandry. My religion permits this, but US law forbids it on the basis that one can not consent to this particular form of legal relationship (of course it is fully legal to live in a commune and screw whoever yo want).
U.S. law also forbids homosexual couples from being married. To me, that’s a very clear violation of the first amendment as well. Polygamy is fine by me, as long as the wives are not forced into the relationship. From a legal standpoint, we have some difficulty in defining issues of custody and other legal rights, but the government has absolutely no business telling people they can’t be in polygamous relationships.
Returning to Reason, I would argue that third term abortions should not be allowed irrespective of the woman’s rights because at this point the fetus is viable and has enough central nervous system to be considered sentient.
What I’m saying is that unless the fetus can removed and live on its own, it is a violation of a woman’s rights to deny her the right to an abortion.
This over-rides the woman’s property rights over that which is within the confines of her body and even her personal rights to what may be done to her to safeguard the baby’s life.
And you’re doing this based upon a moral justification, not a scientific one. You’re using an arbitrary figure (24 weeks) to impose a restriction on a person’s rights. I disagree with this due to the extreme nature of pregnancy. It’s not a trivial matter, and it shouldn’t be treated as such.
I would, however, provide a social means for over-riding this right of the unborn for a wide range of reasons including Mom’s health, viability of the fetus as a functional baby, etc. NOTE: nothing in tis paragraph is based on any revealed truths, just on simkple science and an effort to maximize the protection of sentient life.
A fetus is no more sentient than the animals we slaughter for our hamburgers. For you to give it more value than that reveals how you’re imposing a religious opinion that you’ve somehow convinced yourself is a scientific one. Back to the drawing board, Steve. You messed up.
Sorry Lee but your science or logic are faulty. Siamese twins can be, as you note, interdependent. In that case the laew is difficult.
That analogy was meant for John. I know you’re not smart enough to understand it.
This is NOT the case with a third trimester fetus and its mom. These babies are like siamese twins with a minimal connection. To use your hypothetical, suppose Mike and Jo are connected by a skin brodge at the belly. Suppose Mike wants to be separated but Jo says no, this wold intervene in his rights. The law would rule that Mike must make this sacrifice.
This is not a valid comparison because both Mike and Jo are human beings. In the case of the fetus and the mother, only the mother is. The distinction goes back to what makes a person a human being. We become human beings through awareness. We have powerful brains that make us aware of the world around us and makes us comprehend life to an extent that we’ve accepted that every life is precious. But it makes no sense scientifically or logically to believe that a fetus, who has no ability to experience the world yet, can have this awareness. That’s why, previous to birth, there’s no justification for conferring human status to a fetus. Just becuase it’s sentient is meaningless. Insects are sentient.
The only reason for allowing third term abortions at the mother’s will is an irrational decision that the mom has magical rights over the baby.
She does have ‘magical’ rights over the baby. She’s carrying it! Jesus, are you that stupid?
Yes this is arbitrary and it is highly likley we will have the technical ability to rescue life at earlier stages soon. However, following YOUR reasoning, this may mean a woman loses her rights t an abortion EARLIER!
Right, she loses the right to an abortion when a procedure with no greater risk to the mother can be performed in order to save the fetus. If there are technical advancements that allow for a fetus at 3 weeks to be easily removed and grown in a dish, than I believe that it’s perfectly fine to pass a law that says that this procedure must be done in the place of an abortion. This does not impose any type of religious restriction on the mother in any way. However, if this results in hordes of children being born as orphans, we could be in a very serious situation if we give in to religious absolutes.
I honestly do not think that this issue is resolvable as long as anyone’s religion, including yours, is allowed to define undefinable things like when life begins or who owns the cpnceptus … Mom, Dad, Guv Gregoire or littleun.
Exactly, my religion is not defining anything. Life begins at conception. Human life begins at some indefinable after birth. This is not religion. This is both science and common sense.
So, faced with no magic, we mere humans need to come to some aggrement on how to apportion rights. We do the same thing in many other instances. That is the brilliance of the American system.
I completely agree. And I’ve done this. You’ve presented your ideas on apportioning right, and I’ve explained why your ideas are wrong.
To paraphrase my Buddha, The Jeff said he really did not think it mattered if others believed in 1 god, three gods, twenty gods or none at all. But, the Jeff willingly disowned injuns of their rights because, as He saw it, this was to the greater good of society. Sighh. Such is the danger of having atheists in government.
Jefferson wasn’t an atheist.
A good believer like yuorself would have known that Indians have inherent rights that could not be over-ridden by the law.
Right, I’m an atheist and I understand that. Jefferson did not. As always, you don’t have a point.
Lee in italics:
Again, I’ve never said the opposite. I agree completely with this. Can you please cut and paste where I’ve said the opposite.
Happy to oblige. .. but I will just stick to this message. That is enuff! Glad we are being polite again.
I believe that the determination of the value of the life of a fetus is a moral determination that gets made m{b?}y the mother, and therefore it is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with that decision.
Lee …
There is nothing in science or law about morality. This is a very reasonable statement of thehim’s perspoanl belifs, your religion?
I also believe that putting someone in jail for drug use is similarly unconstitutional, so please recognize that I’m not arguing from a conventional wisdom standpoint, I’m arguing from a purely logical standpoint,
You have a very odd idea of the difference between logic and personal belief. What is “logical” abut your statement? Nada. You are stating, as you have every right to do, YOUR
I suspect that what you really mean is that, like Ayn Rand,you reject laws that punish people for victimless “crimes.” I suspect you and I would agree on many such laws .. But, none of this has to do with the US constitution.
Baloney.
Fettucine
All of those things you mention (a right to slavery, public nudity, carrying a dagger on an airplane, refusal to use vaccines,)deal with things that directly affect other people. A woman having an abortion does not.
Hunhhhh????? how does public nudity affect others? Do you support the chador then too? You think it is OK to have laws against nude beaches? How does a Sikh carrying his (concealed) dagger endanger others? (on vaccines we agree). BUT … to argue that a woman aborting a viable fetus does not affect other people only makes sense if you somehow decide that a fetus is not a person and the husband has NO rights?
Even if YOU somehow have figured out that life begins with a foot through the labia, MOST of your fellow citizens disagree with you. Moreover, if I happen to be the father of the fetus in question, obviously I have an interest in the outcome.
Furthermore, imposing any of those rules that you mention does not impose as difficult a predicament upon an individual as forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy.
I agree but this has no bearing on the law. Lots of laws effect people, that is why we have them.
I suspect that your problem is that your moral system/beliefs/religion has sanctified the role of the Mom. That is fine. my belief system is sort of like that too.
The first amendment guarantees that people have a right to any form of irrational thought, so long as it does not affect another human being. If this is not how it’s interpreted, I find that to be a mistake.
The first amendment, as far I can see, says nothing one way or another about what people believe. What it says is that the state can not establish a belief system (religion). I rather agree that we should have a right to believe what ever verkuchte things we want to believe. What does this have to do with the thread?
U.S. law also forbids homosexual couples from being married. To me, that’s a very clear violation of the first amendment as well. Polygamy is fine by me, as long as the wives are not forced into the relationship. From a legal standpoint, we have some difficulty in defining issues of custody and other legal rights, but the government has absolutely no business telling people they can’t be in polygamous relationships.
We are not terribly far apart on this issue. I believe in full contractual rights between individuals. I call it a NOK law .. next of kin. Each of us should have the right to declare another individual as NOK and in that cpacity they have assorted rights.
At the same time I think the argument about “marriage” is idiotic. Biologically (that word science again!) the genders are different and it is reasonable to have a word for the heterosexual pairing. This overly heated issue all goes away if the government just recognizes the obvous right of all of us to designate a NOK and then marriage becomes one of whatever number of different living arrangements folks want to have. In most of Europe there is one form or another of NOK laws and the issue of marriage has become much less important than it is here.
I do think there are issues about family structure vis a vis child raising. These are difficult and fairly rare but
it s perfectly reasonable to argue that all other things being equal a mixed gender family is a better way to raise a kid then a single gender. That said, a gay couple who love and support each other are a damned site better parents (or likely to be) than a “married: couple who don’t have those properties.
What I’m saying is that unless the fetus can removed and live on its own, it is a violation of a woman’s rights to deny her the right to an abortion.
This is exactly the present law in our own state. 24 weeks was picked because there is a consensus that the fetus is viable at that point. I am not sure about the “right to an abortion” … I do not think there is an absolute answer because the issue of life is a religious one.
A fetus is no more sentient than the animals we slaughter for our hamburgers.
This is an absurd statement. I could say that a new born baby is no more sentient than a full term fetus but as a sciebntist I try niot to make statements about undefined terms or about things I do not know how to measure.
For you to give it{the fetus?} more value than that (that what?) reveals how you’re imposing a religious opinion that you’ve somehow convinced yourself is a scientific one. Back to the drawing board, Steve. You messed up.
Lee .. YOU are the one making statements of truth, not I. I have made no claim that life or sentience begins at any special moment. I am not sure I have even stated my personal beliefs on the matter.
(Siamese twins) was meant for John. I know you’re not smart enough to understand it.
Lee, Lets not have a silly name calling exercise. I suspect after an MD, a PhD, and several decades as a professor I know a bit of biology.
Your own ideas of biology are, well, pretty far from current. In the case of the fetus and the mother, only the mother is (… a human being. We become human beings through awareness. We have powerful brains that make us aware of the world around us and makes us comprehend life to an extent that we’ve accepted that every life is precious.
I am not sure I can even parse the grammar here. This seems as religious as the discussion I once read in the Bhagvada Gita about the “essence” of life, “Atmen.” The Gita, perhaps like thehim, teaches that life IS synonymous with breath. Is this your idea?
But it makes no sense scientifically or logically to believe that a fetus, who has no ability to experience the world yet, can have this awareness. That’s why, previous to birth, there’s no justification for conferring human status to a fetus.
You are Hindu! I have always wanted to understand Krishna!
Just because it’s sentient is meaningless. Insects are sentient.
Really???? In Disney cartoons?? Lobsters too? Guess I better not boil any more lobsters. What do you mean by entient? Is this different from “awareness” since you think humans, but I assume not insects, are aware?
She does have ‘magical’ rights over the baby. She’s carrying it! Jesus, are you that stupid?
Sorry, I thought YOU were claiming to be rational. Women bear kids. That is just biology. I feel we need to have laws that recognize pregnancy, even though the effect is of necessity sexist. That idea is based on the obvious biology. There is nothing scientific about a woman,s right to end a pregnancy of a viable fetus.
The mother loses the right to an abortion when a procedure with no greater risk to the mother can be performed in order to save the fetus.
I think you are getting there, You need t understand that the risk here is relative. Birth itself is a real risk to the mother.
my religion is not defining anything. Read your own words above about “awareness.” The you go on with MORE reigous statements, some of which are pretty fundie, Life begins at conception. Well, I know that Catholiccs and Muslims believe this. I am not usre about other religions.
Human life begins at some indefinable after birth. This is not religion. This is both science and common sense. YOU (not I) have argued above that human=awareness and made the statement that awareness only begins after birth (Atmen again?).
I’ve explained why your ideas are wrong. I don’t think I have said waht I personally believe.
FWIW, Obviously the woman’s right to her own life must come first. Other than that, I think the first trimester should be under control of the mother or, in certain cases, the responsible adult (e.g. I do not think a ten year old should be allowed to bear a child). I think the second trimester should begin to invoke some rights of the father, certainly he has the right to know his partner is pregnant and should have some say in any decision. I do not know how to make the balance here, but at a minimum, a second trimester abortion should invoke the father;s right to know and there should be a requirement for consultation between the parents and a responsible third party. After that I would lean to the mom having the final right. Third trimester is very hard. I d believe a woman can be forced to bear a third trimester baby against her will. please note my use of the term “belief.”
Jefferson wasn’t an atheist. I did not say that he was, but the definition of atheist may be a bit more than we want to do here. How much of Jeff have you read?? have you read his edited bible?
Right, I’m an atheist and I understand (Indians have inherent rights that could not be over-ridden by the law). Jefferson did not. As always, you don’t have a point.
I don’t have a point? If you are a real atheist, then do you believe in natural law? Hve you read Rouseau? Locke? Jefferson himself? Jefferson posited the existence of eternal natural laws. This is part of Judaism I accept. IMO, Jefferson was a devout hypocrite or a pragmatist who conveniently decided to sidestep the natural law when t was in conflict with what he saw as the manifest destiny of America.
coposted at SeattleJew
To all ..
my apologies for the long post. I respect lee but his bad mouthing me is irritating and I actually care quite abit about this issue. The text above, with some edits and links is also on my Blog and it may make more sense if you want to discuss this to use that thread.
SeattleJew
Hunhhhh????? how does public nudity affect others?
Steve, maybe you should walk through Pike Place Market nude. I’m sure someone will explain it to you.
You think it is OK to have laws against nude beaches?
No, I don’t. But I do believe that when children are involved or there’s a public health concern, there’s a justification for disallowing public nudity.
How does a Sikh carrying his (concealed) dagger endanger others?
It doesn’t, but you were talking about on an airplane, where we understand that there’s going to be a specialized security protocol. How many times are you going to make an argument, then completely change the premise of your argument after I respond?
BUT … to argue that a woman aborting a viable fetus does not affect other people only makes sense if you somehow decide that a fetus is not a person and the husband has NO rights?
You’re correct that the father (husband is a poor term to use here) has some rights, but I believe that they don’t supercede the woman’s. A father can not force the mother of his child to continue a pregnancy that she does not want to continue. That’s abuse. And no, a fetus is not a person, in the sense that we recognize that a person has special rights not given to any other living thing.
Even if YOU somehow have figured out that life begins with a foot through the labia, MOST of your fellow citizens disagree with you.
Life does not begin with a foot through the labia. It begins at conception. You obviously didn’t understand my last comment.
Moreover, if I happen to be the father of the fetus in question, obviously I have an interest in the outcome.
Sure, and if you impose that decision on an unwilling partner, I’d consider you an abusive partner.
I agree but this has no bearing on the law. Lots of laws effect people, that is why we have them.
This is a nonsensical argument that completely misses the point I made. The fact that a pregnancy can be a severe hardship that carries significant risk is a major factor in why we can’t take away this right.
I suspect that your problem is that your moral system/beliefs/religion has sanctified the role of the Mom. That is fine. my belief system is sort of like that too.
My belief system is simple. Every person has rights. If men could get pregnant, there would be abortion clinics next to the Starbucks in the mall.
The first amendment, as far I can see, says nothing one way or another about what people believe. What it says is that the state can not establish a belief system (religion). I rather agree that we should have a right to believe what ever verkuchte things we want to believe. What does this have to do with the thread?
What it has to do with the thread is that if a pregnant mother decides that she no longer wishes to continue with a pregnancy, and there’s no way for the doctor to surgically save the child so that it can survive on its own, that the government does not have the right to tell the mother what the value of the life of that fetus is.
This is exactly the present law in our own state. 24 weeks was picked because there is a consensus that the fetus is viable at that point. I am not sure about the “right to an abortion” … I do not think there is an absolute answer because the issue of life is a religious one.
That’s why it should be made by a doctor. 24 weeks is arbitrary. A doctor should determine if that’s true on a case-by-case basis.
This is an absurd statement. I could say that a new born baby is no more sentient than a full term fetus but as a sciebntist I try niot to make statements about undefined terms or about things I do not know how to measure.
How is that absurd? What exactly can a fetus see, smell, taste, feel, or hear? It’s inside a womb. Is that too giant a leap of logic to simply put 2 and 2 together and recognize that a being inside a closed space is less sentient than one that’s out in the open?
Lee .. YOU are the one making statements of truth, not I. I have made no claim that life or sentience begins at any special moment. I am not sure I have even stated my personal beliefs on the matter.
I know that I’m the one making statements of truth. That’s why this is so goddamn frustrating. You’re talking out of your ass, saying absolutely nothing of value, and yet you still think you’re contributing to this discussion in some way. There’s more to debating than just misunderstanding the position of the person you’re arguing with, Steve.
Lee, Lets not have a silly name calling exercise. I suspect after an MD, a PhD, and several decades as a professor I know a bit of biology.
That wasn’t a biology question. It was a logic question. And the fact that you can’t tell the difference is why I try to avoid overly complicated examples when I argue with you.
I am not sure I can even parse the grammar here. This seems as religious as the discussion I once read in the Bhagvada Gita about the “essence” of life, “Atmen.” The Gita, perhaps like thehim, teaches that life IS synonymous with breath. Is this your idea?
Not really. If anything, I should have said ‘human’ life, rather than just life at the end of that sentence. Life is a clinical distinction. Trees are alive. Insects are alive. And, of course, a fetus is alive. Human life is something beyond that. Human life is something that the law treats as being more important than other forms of life. In other words, other forms of life can be ended by humans in ways that you can’t do with human life. The question here is when does that human life begin. The point that I’m making is that since the qualities that make human life so special don’t happen until after birth, when an infant begins their sentient discovery of the world around them, that it doesn’t make sense logically to confer those rights to a fetus.
You are Hindu! I have always wanted to understand Krishna!
I thought Hindus believed in reincarnation?
Really???? In Disney cartoons?? Lobsters too? Guess I better not boil any more lobsters. What do you mean by entient? Is this different from “awareness” since you think humans, but I assume not insects, are aware?
I may be misusing that word, perhaps. To me, any creature with antennae is sentient. It’s possible that that’s a misuse. And yes, sentience and awareness are two different things, and are part of the distinction between humans and non-humans (although I’m curious whether it can be argued that certain highly intelligent mammals are aware enough to warrant certain legal protections).
Continuing later…
Sorry, I thought YOU were claiming to be rational. Women bear kids. That is just biology. I feel we need to have laws that recognize pregnancy, even though the effect is of necessity sexist. That idea is based on the obvious biology. There is nothing scientific about a woman,s right to end a pregnancy of a viable fetus.
There’s nothing scientific about the 4th Amendment either, but there’s a logical basis for it. You’re conflating science and logic. The problem here is that you’re trying to make a scientific determination of when human life begins but ignoring a boatload of logic concerning how the law is set up.
I think you are getting there, You need t understand that the risk here is relative. Birth itself is a real risk to the mother.
Exactly!! Now you’re getting it! So do you understand that forcing a woman to undergo that risk when the alternative is to end a life that it not yet human is a violation of that woman’s rights?
Read your own words above about “awareness.” The you go on with MORE reigous statements, some of which are pretty fundie, Life begins at conception. Well, I know that Catholiccs and Muslims believe this. I am not usre about other religions.
It’s not a religious determination, it’s a scientific one. Life does begin at conception. When human life begins is a religious determination that every pregnant mother decides for herself, but logically, there’s no basis to make it the law that human life begins before birth.
YOU (not I) have argued above that human=awareness and made the statement that awareness only begins after birth (Atmen again?).
Exactly, and it has nothing to do with religion. You keep thinking that this is some belief I’ve arrived at through faith. It’s not. It’s the conclusion that I reach when I use logic.
FWIW, Obviously the woman’s right to her own life must come first. Other than that, I think the first trimester should be under control of the mother or, in certain cases, the responsible adult (e.g. I do not think a ten year old should be allowed to bear a child). I think the second trimester should begin to invoke some rights of the father, certainly he has the right to know his partner is pregnant and should have some say in any decision. I do not know how to make the balance here, but at a minimum, a second trimester abortion should invoke the father;s right to know and there should be a requirement for consultation between the parents and a responsible third party. After that I would lean to the mom having the final right. Third trimester is very hard. I d believe a woman can be forced to bear a third trimester baby against her will. please note my use of the term “belief.”
I agree with a lot of this, except for the end. I believe it’s a human rights violation to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will.
I don’t have a point? If you are a real atheist, then do you believe in natural law?
What an odd statement. The term atheist means lacking a belief in a higher power. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “natural law”, but in one sense of the term that I’m picturing, I probably do.
Hve you read Rouseau? Locke? Jefferson himself? Jefferson posited the existence of eternal natural laws. This is part of Judaism I accept. IMO, Jefferson was a devout hypocrite or a pragmatist who conveniently decided to sidestep the natural law when t was in conflict with what he saw as the manifest destiny of America.
It’s well known that Jefferson was a hypocrite. He had fantastic ideas about the equality of man and about liberty and justice, but he couldn’t square any of that away with his overriding contempt for ‘lesser peoples’ (Indians, Africans, Moslems). Sounds like someone else I know.
my apologies for the long post. I respect lee but his bad mouthing me is irritating and I actually care quite abit about this issue.
Steve, if you don’t want me to ridicule you, then stop trying to accuse me of being racist, and stop insinuating that I’m making arguments that I’m not making. In case you’ve forgotten, this is why you were banned from commenting at Reload, because you didn’t just do it to me, you did it to Boss Tweed as well.