Many people with whom I disagree seem illogical. I don’t feel that way about people who are “pro-life.” Other beliefs they may profess unrelated to abortion may be problematic, depending on individuals. And all bets are off with politicians who pander to them.
I can sympathize with the anti-abortion folk who honestly believe a fetus is the equivalent of a child. The idea of abortion is horrific in those circumstances. But that is their religious belief and it is the antithesis of democracy that everyone must follow the religious beliefs of others and that the government punishes those who do not. There is no scientific or medical definition of when an organism becomes a human being, because that is a religious or philosophical question. So everyone should be able to follow their own consciences.
At no time in this country prior to the backlash against Roe, nor at any time since at least the mid 16th century, did our statutes or English common law (upon which our law is based) recognize fetuses as persons whose lives were the equivalent of a born person. Before "quickening" - the point (around 4 months) where a fetus's movements in the womb can be ascertained, a woman was free to to terminate her pregnancy. Even after that point, if anyone else caused her to miscarry or abort, it was considered a crime of violence against the WOMAN, not the fetus. So all this blather about our long tradition of protecting "innocent human life" is nonsense. When Alito quoted Matthew Hale, he failed to mention that Hale's opinion was CONTRARY to the law at the time. It's like arguing a case by quoting the dissent in a previous one. The US has no "tradition" of considering fetuses human beings with the same rights as born persons.
Irv, Thank you for a unique and balanced response on this issue that separates many of us into morality police forcing a belief in the sacredness of life onto others. If we truly believe that, than we must believe in the oneness of humanity and consider everyone as part of our human family, no matter how old they are. Sadly, there are too many of us who only see humanity in members of our tribe with blindness to those outside of it.
"Yes and" is the response we need to have on abortion. Both entities, embryonic human and mother, are vital, and both need support, no matter what their tribe. In the Baha'i Faith, we are generally against killing. However, if there is a compelling reason to consider abortion, that decision should be between the woman and her doctor and their Creator, rather than crusaders who really seem to want to punish women for having sexual relations, with no responsibility for the men involved.
We the people of the world need to support all parents and we need to educate all children well for the benefit of society. We need to make sure that all people live in a safe place, with healthy food, water and loving support. When we believe that this is God's plan as seen in the Golden Rule found in all religions, the steps to make it happen emerge.
You’re right, of course, that logically the pro-life position has to assert that life begins at conception. Any admission of compromise on that concedes the strongest pro-choice argument — that there’s no obvious place where life begins, so the person who is unquestionably alive and pregnant should make that decision.
I just don’t think life at conception is logically supportable for fairly obvious reasons. Pro-lifers are either being dishonest or are refusing to examine very obvious ramifications of that position. Questions I ask:
* You mention ectopic pregnancies. By what circumstance or condition is an ectopic pregnancy baby somehow not an actual baby? Wouldn’t the intentional termination of that pregnancy be murder?
* If life begins at conception, why wouldn’t a mother who had an abortion be guilty of premeditated murder?
* Following that, has even a 12-year-old girl who aborts a pregnancy after a rape committed the greater crime?
* Following that, would the rapist have a valid civil suit against his victim?
* Why don’t we advocate for a registry of DNA samples of men to determine custody where it’s disputed or unknown? How is this anywhere near the level of invasiveness and coercion being imposed on women?
* Is a natural abortion, a miscarriage, essentially the same tragedy as the death of a 7-year-old child?
* Should pregnant women receive child care tax credits? Should it be double if she’s carrying twins?
* Should families regard miscarriages as children who didn’t survive infancy?
* Should death certificates be issued for miscarriages?
* If a miscarriage happens before gender is expressed, what gender is the baby? If unknown, shouldn’t it be determined?
* Should miscarriages in otherwise viable pregnancies be subject to murder investigations?
I can go on, but you get the point. Myriad laws regulating the rights of people have never been applied to fetuses. Plus, if pro-lifers are all about supporting a child, why aren’t they also the strongest advocates of social support programs? If they really believe “it’s all about the babies,” they should be advocating the wholesale reorganizing of American spending priorities to the point where even Bernie would say, “Whoa there now, think of the cost!”
But “it’s all about the babies” is smoke and mirrors. The true goal of banning abortion is what it has always been — punishing women’s sexuality. It’s not some new enlightenment like it’s supporters claim — it’s the opposite. It’s the perpetuation of human civilization’s greatest, most widespread and most persistent crime — the oppression of women.
I can sympathize with the anti-abortion folk who honestly believe a fetus is the equivalent of a child. The idea of abortion is horrific in those circumstances. But that is their religious belief and it is the antithesis of democracy that everyone must follow the religious beliefs of others and that the government punishes those who do not. There is no scientific or medical definition of when an organism becomes a human being, because that is a religious or philosophical question. So everyone should be able to follow their own consciences.
At no time in this country prior to the backlash against Roe, nor at any time since at least the mid 16th century, did our statutes or English common law (upon which our law is based) recognize fetuses as persons whose lives were the equivalent of a born person. Before "quickening" - the point (around 4 months) where a fetus's movements in the womb can be ascertained, a woman was free to to terminate her pregnancy. Even after that point, if anyone else caused her to miscarry or abort, it was considered a crime of violence against the WOMAN, not the fetus. So all this blather about our long tradition of protecting "innocent human life" is nonsense. When Alito quoted Matthew Hale, he failed to mention that Hale's opinion was CONTRARY to the law at the time. It's like arguing a case by quoting the dissent in a previous one. The US has no "tradition" of considering fetuses human beings with the same rights as born persons.
Irv, Thank you for a unique and balanced response on this issue that separates many of us into morality police forcing a belief in the sacredness of life onto others. If we truly believe that, than we must believe in the oneness of humanity and consider everyone as part of our human family, no matter how old they are. Sadly, there are too many of us who only see humanity in members of our tribe with blindness to those outside of it.
"Yes and" is the response we need to have on abortion. Both entities, embryonic human and mother, are vital, and both need support, no matter what their tribe. In the Baha'i Faith, we are generally against killing. However, if there is a compelling reason to consider abortion, that decision should be between the woman and her doctor and their Creator, rather than crusaders who really seem to want to punish women for having sexual relations, with no responsibility for the men involved.
We the people of the world need to support all parents and we need to educate all children well for the benefit of society. We need to make sure that all people live in a safe place, with healthy food, water and loving support. When we believe that this is God's plan as seen in the Golden Rule found in all religions, the steps to make it happen emerge.
Excellent article Irv. While I tend to be pro choice, I don’t believe we should demonize those who are pro life.
You’re right, of course, that logically the pro-life position has to assert that life begins at conception. Any admission of compromise on that concedes the strongest pro-choice argument — that there’s no obvious place where life begins, so the person who is unquestionably alive and pregnant should make that decision.
I just don’t think life at conception is logically supportable for fairly obvious reasons. Pro-lifers are either being dishonest or are refusing to examine very obvious ramifications of that position. Questions I ask:
* You mention ectopic pregnancies. By what circumstance or condition is an ectopic pregnancy baby somehow not an actual baby? Wouldn’t the intentional termination of that pregnancy be murder?
* If life begins at conception, why wouldn’t a mother who had an abortion be guilty of premeditated murder?
* Following that, has even a 12-year-old girl who aborts a pregnancy after a rape committed the greater crime?
* Following that, would the rapist have a valid civil suit against his victim?
* Why don’t we advocate for a registry of DNA samples of men to determine custody where it’s disputed or unknown? How is this anywhere near the level of invasiveness and coercion being imposed on women?
* Is a natural abortion, a miscarriage, essentially the same tragedy as the death of a 7-year-old child?
* Should pregnant women receive child care tax credits? Should it be double if she’s carrying twins?
* Should families regard miscarriages as children who didn’t survive infancy?
* Should death certificates be issued for miscarriages?
* If a miscarriage happens before gender is expressed, what gender is the baby? If unknown, shouldn’t it be determined?
* Should miscarriages in otherwise viable pregnancies be subject to murder investigations?
I can go on, but you get the point. Myriad laws regulating the rights of people have never been applied to fetuses. Plus, if pro-lifers are all about supporting a child, why aren’t they also the strongest advocates of social support programs? If they really believe “it’s all about the babies,” they should be advocating the wholesale reorganizing of American spending priorities to the point where even Bernie would say, “Whoa there now, think of the cost!”
But “it’s all about the babies” is smoke and mirrors. The true goal of banning abortion is what it has always been — punishing women’s sexuality. It’s not some new enlightenment like it’s supporters claim — it’s the opposite. It’s the perpetuation of human civilization’s greatest, most widespread and most persistent crime — the oppression of women.