PJM/ On Liberty and Abortion

[twa]

The government doesn't grant rights. We have inherent rights. The Constitution restricts the government's ability to infringe those rights.

We excluding the pre-viable fetus obviously

interesting that viability changes matters when the location and burden on the mother remain

[DjTj]

What are the Pro Choice and Pro Life positions? DJ who argues from the Pro-choice side pointed out his position earlier, I who argue from the pro-life side have the same position (We both would ban abortions once a fetus is viable). Although, I don't think DJ knows he's backing the wrong side given what he stated earlier and I'd wager most prochoicers don't understand that either. I believe most "prochoicers, want limits on abortion but don't know that currently there are no limits and the side they are supporting wants no limits.

I don't think there is a monolithic "pro-choice" and "pro-life" position. The strongest interest groups on either side take extreme positions (abortion at any time vs. no abortion at all), but most Americans fall somewhere in the middle.

I would draw the dividing line on "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" at Roe v. Wade. I support the framework set forth in Roe, and I think that makes me "pro-choice." I look at people who want to overturn Roe as "pro-life."

We excluding the pre-viable fetus obviously

interesting that viability changes matters when the location and burden on the mother remain

Viability matters because it is the point at which a third-party (backed by the power of the government) could take custody of the child and it could live without its mother. I think it is very reasonable to tell a mother at that point that having an abortion without turning the child over to the state would be a crime.

[twa]

But taking custody would require forcing a C section,which would be unconstitutional

I certainly agree it is very reasonable to protect a human, bit of a shame the evidence must be overwhelming to get to that point though.

recognizing a fetuses rights at the point the danger and burden actually increase just seems oddly arbitrary

[DjTj]

But taking custody would require forcing a C section,which would be unconstitutional

I certainly agree it is very reasonable to protect a human, bit of a shame the evidence must be overwhelming to get to that point though.

recognizing a fetuses rights at the point the danger and burden actually increase just seems oddly arbitrary

It is a bit of a shame, but in a world where individuals sometimes make bad choices, the consequences of balancing liberty vs. order will inevitably result in some bad situations.

Drawing the line at viability has nothing to do with recognizing the rights of the fetus. The rights of the fetus are the same from conception through birth. Before viability, those rights are solely within the control of the mother. But after viability, the rights can be controlled by both the mother and the state. The rights of the fetus do not change at viability. The rights of the mother and the state do.

[talk show host]

No the crux of the issue is whether that human with the right to life also has the right to use another person's body.

This is about a conflict of rights.

Let me also clarify in that I am not talking about morality of abortion but legality of it. I agree that abortion is immoral.

You are right in a general abortion debate, but this particular thread was started to focus on the "human" element. thats what prompted my interest in this thread, as opposed to 100 other abortion threads where the womans rights/legal aspects are discussed.

Regarding a conflict of rights, i do agree that is an important issue. When weighing human rights, we have to consider the consequences on infringing on either parties rights. If we say the baby is infringing on the woman's rights and she should be able to terminate it, we are permanently and irrevocably terminating its human life. On the other hand, if we say the woman chosing an abortion is infringing on the baby's rights, then the consequences to her are far less. She is only inconvenienced for a few months. In that perspective, it is only logical to conclude the consequences of infringing on the womans rights are less severe, and she should be required to cary the baby to term. Again, this argument is contingent on viewing both the mother and unborn baby as human beings with the inherent right to live. If one does not accept that all humans have the inherent right to live, or one does not beleive an unborn baby is human, then the argument does not apply.

[twa]

Drawing the line at viability has nothing to do with recognizing the rights of the fetus. The rights of the fetus are the same from conception through birth. Before viability, those rights are solely within the control of the mother. But after viability, the rights can be controlled by both the mother and the state. The rights of the fetus do not change at viability. The rights of the mother and the state do.

so the govt ignores or defers on it's obligations until the point proof is overwhelming

Well done on the reply btw

[DjTj]

so the govt ignores or defers on it's obligations until the point proof is overwhelming

Well done on the reply btw

The government does not ignore or defer its obligations. If anything, the governments in many states have been desperately trying to do more to protect the unborn by regulating abortion in various ways. But the Constitution limits the government's power. We have a limited government with limited ability to infringe on the rights and liberties of individuals, even if it is ostensibly to protect the rights of other individuals.

[talk show host]

I

There is a moral question that weighs the rights of the child against the rights of the mother. But the legal question is not between mother and child. The legal (constitutional) question is only between the mother and the government. And on that question, the rights of the mother limit the power of the government.

And I think that a pro-choice position based on the Constitution, rather than moral questions, resolves the differences between abortion and the euthansia scenarios that SoCalSkins has brought up. After birth (and really after the second trimester when the baby is viable), the government can take custody of an unwanted child and make it available for adoption. At that point, it is clearly within the government's power to act. A parent might want to euthanize a suffering child, but we can make laws against that. But we can't make laws about the mother's choices prior to viability.

During the time that a mother is pregnant and the fetus cannot survive on its own, the rights of the woman trump the rights of the government. But once the fetus is viable, government can take the child and can thus outlaw abortion (or euthanasia) from that point forward.

I find your argument interesting, but it relies on variables that can fluctuate.

I'm not going to argue what is currently legal and whether the laws in different states are right or wrong. However, different states have different requirements for when abortion is legal and when it isnt, and the variance can be several months. In some states, terminating a fetus at a certain age is considered murder when other states its considered legal. Essentially, some states consider one fetus as being a human being entitled to certain rights while other states would consider that same fetus as nothing more than cells that could be terminated. Yet, both cannot be right. The fetus either is a human being entitled to life or it isnt. Allowing such variance is no different than if some states said one race or nationality was a human entitled to rights and another did not. In one state, you could kill a person of a certain race with impunity (as you could livestock) whereas in another you could not. As the laws are inconsistent and influx, is it really logical to allow what the government will and will not do (such as taking custody and putting the child up for adoption) to be a crucial part of the equation.

Similarly, viability outside the womb is irrelevant when determing whether the fetus is human and has the constitutional and moral right to life. A fetus might be viable now that wasnt viable 20 years ago. A fetus that is legally able to be aborted now might not be 100 years from now because technology has advanced to make a 2 months old fetus viable. So would a 2 month old fetus born 100 years ago intrinsically be more "human" and entitled to human rights than a 2 month year old fetus now? Are african americans more entitled to life now than they were 150 years ago? No, the difference is the lawmakers and general population of the day simply did not respect that life. In the same manner, people 100 years from now could look back on abortion as we look back on slavery - as a time when the government and general population did not respect the life of a group of humans.

Ultimately, the issue really does come down to whether or not a fetus is human. If it is, then terminating its life for any reason other than that its continued development would, with a certainty, result in the death of the mother, is murder. Just as a fire fighter might have to chose which person to save from a burning building, a choice must be made between the babys life and the mothers. Both will die without a choice being made, so the death of one is unavoidable.

[twa]

The government does not ignore or defer its obligations. If anything, the governments in many states have been desperately trying to do more to protect the unborn by regulating abortion in various ways. But the Constitution limits the government's power. We have a limited government with limited ability to infringe on the rights and liberties of individuals, even if it is ostensibly to protect the rights of other individuals.

I'm having trouble believing that in light of the fact you assert the right to life exists from conception.

Ostensibly seems lacking when a individuals death is certain and real

[DjTj]

I find your argument interesting, but it relies on variables that can fluctuate.

I'm not going to argue what is currently legal and whether the laws in different states are right or wrong. However, different states have different requirements for when abortion is legal and when it isnt, and the variance can be several months. In some states, terminating a fetus at a certain age is considered murder when other states its considered legal. Essentially, some states consider one fetus as being a human being entitled to certain rights while other states would consider that same fetus as nothing more than cells that could be terminated. Yet, both cannot be right. The fetus either is a human being entitled to life or it isnt. Allowing such variance is no different than if some states said one race or nationality was a human entitled to rights and another did not. In one state, you could kill a person of a certain race with impunity (as you could livestock) whereas in another you could not. As the laws are inconsistent and influx, is it really logical to allow what the government will and will not do (such as taking custody and putting the child up for adoption) to be a crucial part of the equation.

The Constitutional line (viability) simply defines the maximum of what the government can do. I think it is a very logical line to draw, and it was reached with a lot of careful consideration by a lot of smart people in several Supreme Court cases.

It is important to note that the constitutional limit does not really take into account the rights of the fetus, or the rights of the father, or the parents of a minor, or of doctors, or of anyone else that might have stake in this equation. The Constitution simply draws a line between the government and the rights of the mother. So states that try to address all of those other competing interests will naturally arrive at different laws. That part of the beauty of our federal system - some states will have more people that think like SoCalSkins. Other states will have more people that think like twa. The democratic process balances out all those interests when we can't really agree on what is "right."

Similarly, viability outside the womb is irrelevant when determing whether the fetus is human and has the constitutional and moral right to life. A fetus might be viable now that wasnt viable 20 years ago. A fetus that is legally able to be aborted now might not be 100 years from now because technology has advanced to make a 2 months old fetus viable. So would a 2 month old fetus born 100 years ago intrinsically be more "human" and entitled to human rights than a 2 month year old fetus now? Are african americans more entitled to life now than they were 150 years ago? No, the difference is the lawmakers and general population of the day simply did not respect that life. In the same manner, people 100 years from now could look back on abortion as we look back on slavery - as a time when the government and general population did not respect the life of a group of humans.

I actually agree that in 100 years, we will likely view abortion as an abomination. I think it is inevitable that with the progress of technology we will eventually develop either (1) 100% effective birth control that can be given to women at puberty so that pregnancy will only occur if and when a woman affirmatively chooses it; and/or (2) artificial womb technology that is better than natural pregnancy where it will actually be healthier for babies to develop in a hospital after conception rather than in a pregnant mother. Either of these developments would make unwanted pregnancies extremely rare, and would thus make abortions seem completely wrong. I actually have a lot of hope that technology will be the best way out of this moral problem.

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 04:18 PM ----------

I'm having trouble believing that in light of the fact you assert the right to life exists from conception.

Ostensibly seems lacking when a individuals death is certain and real

Are we ignoring or deferring our obligations to protect our children when we refuse to take every available measure to keep guns from getting into the hands of the mentally unstable? Are we ignoring or deferring our obligations to protect the dignity of our soldiers when we allow Westboro Baptist Church to protest at their funerals? Government cannot protect every life, and we are limited in what we can do by the Constitution. Abortion is only one the instances where that is the case.

[alexey]

You are right in a general abortion debate, but this particular thread was started to focus on the "human" element. thats what prompted my interest in this thread, as opposed to 100 other abortion threads where the womans rights/legal aspects are discussed.

Regarding a conflict of rights, i do agree that is an important issue. When weighing human rights, we have to consider the consequences on infringing on either parties rights. If we say the baby is infringing on the woman's rights and she should be able to terminate it, we are permanently and irrevocably terminating its human life. On the other hand, if we say the woman chosing an abortion is infringing on the baby's rights, then the consequences to her are far less. She is only inconvenienced for a few months. In that perspective, it is only logical to conclude the consequences of infringing on the womans rights are less severe, and she should be required to cary the baby to term. Again, this argument is contingent on viewing both the mother and unborn baby as human beings with the inherent right to live. If one does not accept that all humans have the inherent right to live, or one does not beleive an unborn baby is human, then the argument does not apply.

I see the framing of this thread, about whether or not an unborn child is human, as a way to answer a difficult question by "wording away" the difficult part.

Starting with an egg and a sperm and ending with a newborn baby is a PROCESS.

My opinion is that "human" is a unique DNA combination that can produce a unique human. More over, other information medium could qualify, as I am sure will happen at some point in the future. Notice how that definition easily covers all the unborn fetuses withing bringing in the "this is a human and therefore ...." stuff.

In other words, 1) nobody should have the right to kill another human, and 2) the mother should have the right to refuse having her uterus utilized by other humans.

Language tricks will not help you out of this dilemma.

[twa]

Are we ignoring or deferring our obligations to protect our children when we refuse to take every available measure to keep guns from getting into the hands of the mentally unstable? Are we ignoring or deferring our obligations to protect the dignity of our soldiers when we allow Westboro Baptist Church to protest at their funerals? Government cannot protect every life, and we are limited in what we can do by the Constitution. Abortion is only one the instances where that is the case.

With people doing the actual ending of life licensed and regulated by the govt that rings a little hollow....to me at least

they have little reserve in infringing on my rights in less clear issues of potential harm to another

add

I will note that is predicated on the fetus actually having rights as you asserted

[Predicto]

I see the framing of this thread, about whether or not an unborn child is human, as a way to answer a difficult question by "wording away" the difficult part.

Starting with an egg and a sperm and ending with a newborn baby is a PROCESS.

My opinion is that "human" is a unique DNA combination that can produce a unique human. More over, other information medium could qualify, as I am sure will happen at some point in the future. Notice how that definition easily covers all the unborn fetuses withing bringing in the "this is a human and therefore ...." stuff.

In other words, 1) nobody should have the right to kill another human, and 2) the mother should have the right to refuse having her uterus utilized by other humans.

Language tricks will not help you out of this dilemma.

Exactly. Language tricks only work with the people who already agree with you.

That goes for both sides.

[SoCalSkins]

It is a bit of a shame, but in a world where individuals sometimes make bad choices, the consequences of balancing liberty vs. order will inevitably result in some bad situations.

Drawing the line at viability has nothing to do with recognizing the rights of the fetus. The rights of the fetus are the same from conception through birth. Before viability, those rights are solely within the control of the mother. But after viability, the rights can be controlled by both the mother and the state. The rights of the fetus do not change at viability. The rights of the mother and the state do.

Viability right now is around 24 weeks. Most people who choose to have an abortion that late, typically discover a severe abnormality on the 20 week ultrasound anatomy scan. They get a second opinion from a perinatologist, have an amniocentesis done with microarray DNA analysis and have a realistic diagnosis around 23 weeks after the results come back. These typically are not a form of birth control. These are mothers who want a child, but make the decision that the risk to the child is too great after discussions with physicians and genetics counselors.

These are children who many among them will die during infancy, be born with an exposed spinal cord, severe heart problems and organs outside of their bodies. Not allowing the mother to terminate is cruel and inhuman in my opinion.

Limiting abortions in those instances to mothers who have to grapple with those heart wrenching issues on the advice of their physicians and genetics counselors is crazy in my opinion because they will be forced to make the decision sooner prior to confirming a diagnosis is not a false positive.

[twa]

Limiting abortions in those instances to mothers who have to grapple with those heart wrenching issues on the advice of their physicians and genetics counselors is crazy in my opinion because they will be forced to make the decision sooner prior to confirming a diagnosis is not a false positive.

I agree in such cases ,and even believe the option should be available after birth with proper controls

[skinsmarydu]

You're welcome to your beliefs. Just don't invade mine.

I've been reading through this thread again, couldn't believe it got bumped 5 months after being dropped, and I remembered why I didn't post before.

You said it, HC29...and it was proven during the 2012 campaign for POTUS. Usually, people who believe in smaller government only want that objective for themselves.

"Be born, just don't be poor, we won't support you or the mother we forced to have you. But when you turn 18, please be willing to die for your right to make others suffer.":silly:

[DjTj]

Viability right now is around 24 weeks. Most people who choose to have an abortion that late, typically discover a severe abnormality on the 20 week ultrasound anatomy scan. They get a second opinion from a perinatologist, have an amniocentesis done with microarray DNA analysis and have a realistic diagnosis around 23 weeks after the results come back. These typically are not a form of birth control. These are mothers who want a child, but make the decision that the risk to the child is too great after discussions with physicians and genetics counselors.

These are children who many among them will die during infancy, be born with an exposed spinal cord, severe heart problems and organs outside of their bodies. Not allowing the mother to terminate is cruel and inhuman in my opinion.

Limiting abortions in those instances to mothers who have to grapple with those heart wrenching issues on the advice of their physicians and genetics counselors is crazy in my opinion because they will be forced to make the decision sooner prior to confirming a diagnosis is not a false positive.

Cruel and inhuman to whom? The parents? The children?

I really can't agree with this logic. I can understand a mother's choice not to raise a child with serious problems like this, and I can understand parents' apprehension about paying for the medical care. But if there is another family willing to raise the child or the state can take custody of the child, I am willing to spend my tax dollars on the medical care on the chance that 1 in 1000 of these children makes it.

These are difficult situations, and I think it is something that each state can certainly vote on based on the opinions of its citizens. In these cases, I would vote for life, even if it is difficult and short.

[SoCalSkins]

I agree in such cases ,and even believe the option should be available after birth with proper controls

I think that is where the viability discussion gets skewed. I think most reasonable people would prefer allowing the pregnancy to terminate in these circumstances even after technical viability.

Only 1.3% of abortions in the US occur after 21 weeks. I think it is a fair assumption that most of those are related to a medical diagnosis of an abnormality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg

So if we limit abortions after 20 weeks, we are limiting the option in cases with severe medical issues affecting the child.

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 02:51 PM ----------

Cruel and inhuman to whom? The parents? The children?

I really can't agree with this logic. I can understand a mother's choice not to raise a child with serious problems like this, and I can understand parents' apprehension about paying for the medical care. But if there is another family willing to raise the child or the state can take custody of the child, I am willing to spend my tax dollars on the medical care on the chance that 1 in 1000 of these children makes it.

These are difficult situations, and I think it is something that each state can certainly vote on based on the opinions of its citizens. In these cases, I would vote for life, even if it is difficult and short.

There is no other family typically. The cost of an NICU is astronomical. These are mothers that want a child and want the best for their kids. You are limiting 1.3% of cases where abortion is probably the most reasonable alternative. Allowing a healthy child to be aborted at 18 weeks versus one with a severe disability that is not discovered until the 20th week is crazy in my opinion.

What about allowing the mother some closure and time to mourn. Leaving it open ended and forcing her to make a decision to give the kid to the government or raise a severely disabled child is cruel.

[twa]

I think that is where the viability discussion gets skewed..

I think allowing supervised termination after birth in borderline cases would reduce making uneducated guesses early myself.

I find it odd a child gains so much protection after birth with so little before it.....my daughter having a early preemie only reinforces that

[DjTj]

I think that is where the viability discussion gets skewed. I think most reasonable people would prefer allowing the pregnancy to terminate in these circumstances even after technical viability.

Viability is only the legal standard before which the government cannot ban abortions due to the Constitutional rights of the mother over her own body. There is no reason to believe that abortions before viability are "good" while abortions after viability are "bad." It is a legal standard, not a medical standard, and states are free to allow abortions past the point of viability.

Only 1.3% of abortions in the US occur after 21 weeks. I think it is a fair assumption that most of those are related to a medical diagnosis of an abnormality.

Are a significant fraction of the 1.3% abortions done to save the life of the mother rather than related to an abnormality in the fetus?

There is no other family typically. The cost of an NICU is astronomical. These are mothers that want a child and want the best for their kids. You are limiting 1.3% of cases where abortion is probably the most reasonable alternative. Allowing a healthy child to be aborted at 18 weeks versus one with a severe disability that is not discovered until the 20th week is crazy in my opinion.

I hope that the numbers are not so large that finding adoptive homes would really be infeasible, but I don't really know how strong our efforts currently are in that regard. I can see possible medical situations that might warrant action, but I would want more of a "no other reasonable alternative" standard rather than a "most reasonable alternative" standard. If the pregnancy can be continued without serious complications for the mother, and the infant has some chance of survival, I would support the expense (by taxpayers) of trying to keep the infant alive. You can raise my taxes to try to save vulnerable infants. I hope that our society would find compassion to care for them after they are born.

What about allowing the mother some closure and time to mourn. Leaving it open ended and forcing her to make a decision to give the kid to the government or raise a severely disabled child is cruel.

I imagine that having the abortion would also be a difficult emotional decision. There is no easy choice here no matter what our legal framework is.

[SoCalSkins]

Are a significant fraction of the 1.3% abortions done to save the life of the mother rather than related to an abnormality in the fetus?.

I don't think that is actually a medical issue. That is another term used to get around late term abortion bans for the most part. You typically induce labor if there is a problem with the mother and the fetus is viable. Killing the fetus prior to inducing labor offers no benefit other than assuring that the fetus is dead.

I imagine that having the abortion would also be a difficult emotional decision. There is no easy choice here no matter what our legal framework is.

But a least she has that choice. No one is advocating forced abortions. You are advocating forced adoption or murder charges after technical viability.

[DjTj]

I don't think that is actually a medical issue. That is another term used to get around late term abortion bans for the most part. You typically induce labor if there is a problem with the mother and the fetus is viable. Killing the fetus prior to inducing labor offers no benefit other than assuring that the fetus is dead.

I think that it is rare but possible. I do not know what fraction of the 1.3% may be accounted for there. Here is a story discussing the issue: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

But a least she has that choice. No one is advocating forced abortions. You are advocating forced adoption or murder charges after technical viability.

I am not advocating for forced adoption. I am advocating for a choice between having the baby or giving it up for adoption. I am advocating for health care for the infant, and I would be fine with giving parents the right to choose the level of extraordinary care they may want to try to save their baby or for it to live comfortably. I am defining murder as the premeditated killing of an individual when the state has the ability to separate that individual from its mother. I am very comfortable with that definition.

Pro-choice to me means a woman's control over her own body, and her choice is sovereign while the fetus is completely dependent on her to survive. Once the fetus is viable and can survive on its own, the mother's choice must be considered along with the choices of the father, the doctors, and society at large.

[HSW]

I’ve come to see that every single argument in favor of unlimited abortion simply skips over the decisive question: is an unborn child a human being or not? You can’t say killing a human being is a private matter. You can’t say a woman has “a right to choose” whether to kill a human being. You can’t say it’s okay to kill a human being because he was the product of rape or incest. You can’t argue that protecting the life of a human being unfairly extends government power — the government already has, and must have, that power. And you surely can’t say we must kill masses of innocent humans for the greater good of society. That’s more than hitlerian. It’s satanic.

You can see pro-choicers stumble over this problem of logic when feminists, say, complain that people are aborting far more girls than boys or when gays worry that the discovery of a “gay gene” may lead to a “gay holocaust” by abortion. It ain’t a holocaust if you’re not killing people. And if unborn children aren’t human, why shouldn’t parents kill them off until they get the one they want?

I still believe it’s possible for a person of good will to make the argument that a fetus is not fully human for some small period of its development. Thomas Aquinas did — and the man was a saint. But more and more, that point of view is coming to seem to me pre-scientific. In any case, if that’s the argument pro-choicers want to have, let’s have that argument, and no other — because no other matters. And if we as a free people decide that unborn children are children indeed, there is no moral alternative: we must not only end abortion but put our full efforts into supporting humane and broadly available methods of welcoming the unwanted.

http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/07/11/on-liberty-and-abortion/?singlepage=true

sorry,need a distraction from politics

Do you think that US soldiers should be charged with murder for killing an enemy combatant? I ask this because I am trying to determine if you think that selective murder is justified or if you are against all murder in general.

[twa]

Pro-choice to me means a woman's control over her own body, and her choice is sovereign while the fetus is completely dependent on her to survive. Once the fetus is viable and can survive on its own, the mother's choice must be considered along with the choices of the father, the doctors, and society at large.

I have no problem with a woman controlling her body and choices.....the fetus is not her body though.

Anything she wishes to do that does not deliberately target the child is allowable to me

If the fetus presents a threat reasonable self defense is allowable

[Tweedr01]

Do you think that US soldiers should be charged with murder for killing an enemy combatant? I ask this because I am trying to determine if you think that selective murder is justified or if you are against all murder in general.

lol, yeah, full grown adults who are trying to kill you = innocent, unborn baby. You're 44?