The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.
That’s what this leak is and the insanity around it it really about. If your read what Thomas and Gorsuch have written about “privacy,” especially their dissents in the Carpenter case, it is clear that the view the Tech Oligarchy’s entire business model as flying in the face of Property Rights.
I’m not sure....... maybe anyone who has an abortion is automatically identified as a “man” because, per leftist ideology (though not actual reality), to be a “man” is to not want children and to only want casual sex with no “consequences” (aka little humans). That would also mean if an abortion fails, or someone who rejects wanting to be an actual mom ends up having a baby anyway, the left can claim that “men can give birth.” 🤦♀️💩😩😂.
Don't you know Florida has a law against elder abuse? Many years ago I was able to give birth. But now that I am an elderly man, I can no longer become pregnant🤰 😥😩
We always did. We recognize that women have the inalienable right to control their own lives that includes the right to abortion without any state interference until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind. Until then, the fetus is but an object and so the woman has the absolute right to end her pregnancy.
Maturity usually comes with age, however it is not guaranteed. Some people can be mature adults at 14, others can live to be 94 and still be lacking in maturity. What frightens me is that I'm roughly 4 years older than the individual in question...and even 4 years ago, I was more mature, and I am not superhuman in any way.
No, they're not, they just want to control women's sexuality, force them to suffer the consequences of having sex. They do not support full support of single mothers and their kids. Conservatives are not good people.
Generalize much, so all conservatives adhere to your stereotype of them. Every single conservative is a bad person. And let me guess, every liberal is a great person. Nice argument. I’d say, your opinion on abortion is just that your opinion. Others may have differing opinions. I’d also venture a guess that your a decent person. I happen to be 100% against all abortion, and think myself a decent person. You see me as a bogeyman, I see you as person that believes killing an unborn baby as birth control should be ok, which to me is insane, but I respect your right to that poorly thought out opinion.
The Neo-Marxist uber-leftist of the Biden regime are the worst people on the planet at the present moment.
And certainly ant-constitutional in every instance.
They have effectively eliminated the southern border, allowing millions of illegal aliens to flood into the nation. They have destroyed the economy where no prices for essential goods and services have doubled from the time they took office. They are playing nuclear chicken with Russia, and nuclear war is now more likely than anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Anyone who still supports the Biden regime at this point is a moron or a psychopathic maniac.
Until they are born. Then, you are on your own.)))) Typical example of conservatives not wanting to take responsibility for the results of their actions. lol
Speaking of cute writing, did you forget to start four parentheticals?
But you are correct! Only Neo-liberals (read Statists) want more citizens (read slaves) dependent on State teat. Nothing controls the hoi polloi like utter dependence (I suppose fiat currency falling like manna might compete).
I stand corrected. Conservatives don't always act to conserve human life, but not even close to all conservatives were for those wars, even at the time. The neos fooled us, didn't they.
and I think Conservatives are the solution. Damn good thing we are not having this debate on Twitter (at least for the next few months) or you would never know that.
You are being obtuse. Of course conservatives believe in inherent rights. THAT's one of the things they want to conserve and save from State usurpation.
Here you go again with your political-zealotry. There is no difference between you and someone who demands that abortion can NEVER be performed under ANY circumstance.
In a way, you are right. Conservatives are the problem liberals need to overcome in their drive towards tyranny. I guess it depends on your goal. If the goal is freedom and liberty, conservatives are the solution. If your goal is tyranny and oppression, conservatives are the problem.
Liberals don't protect rights. There are now generations of inner city minorities who are proof of that. Liberals just want complete power. Today's "liberals" would consider JFK a raging right wing nut-job.
"I guess it depends on your goal. If the goal is freedom and liberty, conservatives are the solution"
Conservatives are illiberal by definition, they believe in inherited rights, not inherent rights. They oppose liberalism that argues that rights are inherent.
That's it. The price of freedom is responsibility. Abortion, especially multiple abortions, is nothing different from con men repeatedly declaring bankruptcy to avoid responsibility for their actions. The biggest problem about abortion though is that the man is not punished as it takes two to make a baby.
No, conservatives merely want women to suffer the consequences of having sex. The problem of an unwanted pregnancy is solved by aborting the nonsentient fetus.
I think there's a few things with which the vast majority agree: 1) there's no easy dividing line; 2) the older the fetus the more protection it deserves. Therefore, a democratic concensus can be found (once the Court gets out of the way) which appropriately balances competing duties.
The binary rhetoric of "rights" is at the root of this impasse.
I would go a step further and say "... but sometimes undesirable" and I would agree with that sentiment too. Kids are expensive pests.
But, once you're burdened with kids (wherever we might draw that line, and whoever we might blame for that burden) "can the US force you to raise a child?" Yes, yes it can. Not only are you not allowed to kill your kids (or sell them into slavery), unless you find some willing dupe to adopt them, you're also required to pay for their necessities. It's almost a form of slavery - but one we all seem to agree is entirely appropriate.
I don't see why any of that should be different because the kid may still be on the other side of a vagina.
The Mississippi law that the court is ruling on strikes the right balance.
It gives the woman 15 weeks to decide if she wants to terminate her pregnancy or not. After 15 weeks, she can still terminate the pregnancy if it endangers her health or they find something wrong with the fetus (e.g. Down Syndrome). That's a fair compromise.
It's not unreasonable to ask women to make up their mind and decide if they want to have the baby or not by the 15th week of pregnancy. Any woman who is sexually active should have already given some thought to what she would do in the event of an unintended pregnancy.
It is silly to suggest a developed fetus is without mind. If it has a heartbeat it is thinking things like "I am sure happy here in my mommy's ocean" -- well not in so many words, but yes. I don't think it expects betrayal.
Your argument makes no sense. First of all, without the growth of the fetus, brain development wouldn't happen, secondly, a child born with a genetic disorder that impedes brain development would (according to your assertion) not be human.
How dare you say that. You are erasing me as a person!! I need to be SEEN!!
;-)
Of course it's projection. So is: "I think the "vast majority" all agree that abortion is undesirable but sometimes necessary." Which just happens to be the first thing of yours I saw.
We understand each other through projection. We empathize (and hate) through projection. So we do it a lot. All of us. (projection!).
No. Telling you what I think is not projection because I'm telling you I thought it.
You have naked assertions abuot what a fetus must be thinking. That is clearly projection. Unless you, Internet stranger, have the wackiest keyboard setup I can imagine.
This is why such laws should be up to each state. Let the people in each state vote for what they desire. Will some people be left in the wrong states? The answer is yes. However for taxes, cost of living, overregulation and a myriad of other things, people are already left living in the wrong states. Such is the price of freedom.
"This is why such laws should be up to each state. "
No. The fact is that we need a federal standard to protect rights. Only beings have rights, objects do not and without a clear demarcation using brain development, that determines whether the fetus has the capacity for mind, certain states will infringe on the rights of women or fail to protect sentient fetuses. That is the issue.
Would a live birth without "sufficient" brain development (think of people born with only a brain stem for example) be subject to killing?
We need to decide if human life has value. To many it doesn't and never has. This is the real question that we should be honest about. Right now we allow the freedom to be stupid and ride around on motorcycles for example. Many die this way, but we allow it. Should we? You might say that person made a choice, but can a 1 year old baby make a choice? Does it's life have value? How about a 1 week old baby?
Unfortunately, the rights enumerated here were never voted on by the republic. Surely, a pro-abortion rights amendment to the Constitution is doable, especially, as many on the left seem to argue, more people want it than don't want it...
There is no right in question to protect. Show me in writing where there is a right to abortion. Show me, if not, you have no argument. You may wish for a such a right to exist, but wishing does not make something so.
Jim Crow was allowed to form as a result of the failures of Johnson and the end to Reconstruction. The court upheld it decades later largely by putting blinders on in order to say that the services and treatment were separate but equal when they were separate, but anything but equal. That cannot be compared to abortion in any way.
Drew, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to engage you on the level of moral reasoning. Yes, before the emergence of ultra sound technology, perhaps it was understandable to see the fetus as "but an object." But not now, at least not to me, and I can't understand how anyone can in good conscience feel otherwise.
Could you expand on why fetal imagery does not impact your views on abortion?
What I find ironic is that some countries, primarily in Europe, have granted 'personhood' to Great Apes, yet continue to insist that a fetus is not a person.
Perhaps because unlike a fetus, these animals are post-birth alive. Might that explain it, whether or not you agree with those unnamed countries.
The correct parallel for your argument would surely be those countries ban abortion for female apes but permit it in humans - something that no country asserts.
The problem with people like Jeff, aside from their zealotry in their political-religious faith, is that they have no issue with eugenics. Hitler's "eliminate the undesirables, the unproductive mouths to feed" is fine by them. Race based, gender based, mental capacity based abortions are all fine because of the dehumanization and sense of moral superiority which is used to quash any sense of doubt. It's the ultimate irony, as they walk in the footsteps of the Nazis.
Today, abortions take many more female than male lives, and many more minority lives than their fraction of the population. Here is a news item from 2020 in which the UN states that 140 million women are missing, mostly due to sex-selective abortion.
But, in this time of everyone telling each other what to do with our bodies, I am hesitant to tell women what to do. I want to control my body (against the covid vaccine, for example) so I am not going to micromanage women beyond the kind of limits we have now. Furthermore, we live in a world in which life is not held sacred in so many other ways. I'm not going to draw a line that costs women when so much life is already not respected. It isn't fair to give them the check.
But it disrespects life to denigrate the fetus and make believe it is nothing. Abortion is a grave act. I would hope facing this would encourage women to find another way and for everyone to make the decision to have the baby as easy as possible for the woman, and really support her and her child if they are in tough circumstances. Don't give the woman the choice of murderer or welfare queen.
I thought your original comment about projection was useful if only to highlight that we don't know what goes on in another's mind. We don't directly know what others are thinking or how their minds work. We project from how we see our minds work.
Nobody has direct access to a fetal mind but external imaging shows similar activity to a baby's. Which makes sense. Why wouldn't mind development be a continuous process? Fetuses as young as six weeks respond to stimulus. They have an immense brain at 3 months. It is convenient to think of them as inert when you want to kill them. But parents that don't want to kill them play them music and talk to them and react to their movements as if they had minds.
Agreed, my statement holds for 12 weeks if not earlier. I guess I wanted to gauge how little shame the "pro-choice" crowd has when it comes to this issue. Turns out, virtually none.
The capacity for consciousness differentiates object from being. Therefore, the question is whether the brain is developed enough, if it is, then it is a being and deserves protection and if not, then it is an object incapable of experience. The universal consideration should be that and at the federal level.
You’re definition would mean you can kill someone during surgery. The capacity to pull the plug only applies if the person is determined to be incapable of recovering. The expectation is for babies brains to develop in pregnancy. I have no issue with aborting an already dead fetus. The issue is all the living growing ones.
Wouldn't that definition exclude from "being": people in comas, the severely mentally handicapped, patients under general anaesthetic, people who are knocked out or passed out drunk, etc.
No. The issue is brain condition. Is the brain intact or not, damaged or not. For example the law already recognizes this, survivors can pull the plug only in certain circumstances.
And yes, my definition applies to animals who are beings.
This is the problem with humankind and I suspect what will lead to its demise. We are a controlling species with very little humbleness. You think we know consciousness? Science has been unable to locate consciousness because it is non-local. We get glimmers of what consciousness is, but it remains elusive for a reason.
One of the greatest problems with virtually any kind of understanding is a lack of humility. Far too often, men and women, in their pursuit of knowledge, abandon wisdom and in the process, succumb to arrogance, willful ignorance and pride. It makes me think of a famous quote from physics: "I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question."
The fundamental characteristic of a fetus (and the zygote before it) is that it is in the process of development. To objectify it by conceptually freezing it in a moment of time is both a scientific and moral distortion. This fundamental truth is implicit in the very word "abortion" - preventing the origin (further development and birth) of a human. Even in physics, one cannot properly understand a dynamical system by considering only its static nature at a moment in time.
It is typical of the liberal viewpoint to ascribe moral rights even to inanimate objects, as when those in the Rights of Nature movement ascribe rights to the land, water, and air. They likewise ascribe moral rights to future generations, whose bodies are mere potentialities, someday to coalesce from unknowable collections of molecules present in the land, water, and atmosphere; and they attribute moral responsibility for the welfare of those future humans to those living today. But once the coalescence has been definitively set in motion by the act of conception, the assignment of moral value is put on hold. Does this not seem contradictory?
The argument that a fetus that is not yet viable has no rights, and that the mother therefore has absolute dominion over it, is a form of "might makes right". It simply ignores the question of what moral responsibility the mother and father have toward the developing human. It also stands in contradiction to the typical liberal belief that we have a moral responsibility to support those who depend on us - the poor, the homeless, refugees, the physically and mentally infirm.
I have always found the standard arguments in favor of unrestricted abortion to be similar to right-wing arguments denying any moral responsibility toward the weak and the needy, and the arguments that assert the dominion of the powerful over those who cannot defend themselves.
"But once the coalescence has been definitively set in motion by the act of conception, the assignment of moral value is put on hold. Does this not seem contradictory?"
Yes. It is the central contradiction of the so-called "pro-choice" movement.
I can understand your position. Personally I would never have an abortion, and never did. It was not based on religious principals, but I do feel I have a responsibility to a developing baby who is dependent on me for it's very life.
I cannot disagree more with your final sentiment concerning "right-wing" (conservative? libertarian? anarchic?) "dominion." (Do caring individuals have "dominion" over those they choose to care for? I could go on, but it would destroy my point.)
But, wow!! What a perfectly written rebuttal. My only point is I wouldn't change a word. Thank you, M. Mitchell.
You can repeat that till the cows come home, but it won't make it any more sensible. A (human) fetus is a developing human. It is obviously fundamentally different from a static object such as chair. The very purpose of abortion is to terminate the developmental process, not merely to eliminate a static object. Calling a fetus an "object" is just a way to avoid facing and discussing these obvious truths. If you want to persuade others of your viewpoint, you should at least try to approach the subject with scientific integrity.
Until the fetus develops the capacity for mind it is human but not a being and the woman has the absolute right to abort it if she wants to. It's an inalienable right not up to you, it's up to her.
Jeff Bliss: You don't appear to engage in reasoned discussion - you just ignore what others write and keep repeating the same dictum over and over, without addressing any of the arguments opposing your point of view. There's no point in trying to discuss an issue with someone who isn't interested in having a rational discussion.
Excellent assessment John. A child can't walk when it's born because the synaptic connections in the cortex of the brain have not been made, and I wonder if he thinks he can implement his logic if the legs off a child are removed at birth?
What exactly do you mean by a mind? Do you consider animals to have "minds?" I hardly would define a developing embryo that will evolve into a baby, a human being as an object no matter one's views about abortion.
Interesting how those of the lefty persuasion suddenly know what a woman is now.
No they don’t..... birthing people get abortions 🙄. And bodily autonomy ends where big pharma profits begin
Just as privacy ends when technocrat profits begin.
That’s what this leak is and the insanity around it it really about. If your read what Thomas and Gorsuch have written about “privacy,” especially their dissents in the Carpenter case, it is clear that the view the Tech Oligarchy’s entire business model as flying in the face of Property Rights.
Are they still a "birthing person" if they abort? "Aborting person?"
I’m not sure....... maybe anyone who has an abortion is automatically identified as a “man” because, per leftist ideology (though not actual reality), to be a “man” is to not want children and to only want casual sex with no “consequences” (aka little humans). That would also mean if an abortion fails, or someone who rejects wanting to be an actual mom ends up having a baby anyway, the left can claim that “men can give birth.” 🤦♀️💩😩😂.
How dare you, NCmom?
Don't you know Florida has a law against elder abuse? Many years ago I was able to give birth. But now that I am an elderly man, I can no longer become pregnant🤰 😥😩
+10 internets for this post! :)
Agreed, I couldn't help but laugh when reading it.
We always did. We recognize that women have the inalienable right to control their own lives that includes the right to abortion without any state interference until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind. Until then, the fetus is but an object and so the woman has the absolute right to end her pregnancy.
There are some who might point out a certain 32-year old, Democrat Congresswoman whose brain has not yet developed the capacity for mind...
Maturity usually comes with age, however it is not guaranteed. Some people can be mature adults at 14, others can live to be 94 and still be lacking in maturity. What frightens me is that I'm roughly 4 years older than the individual in question...and even 4 years ago, I was more mature, and I am not superhuman in any way.
Conservatives are the problem.
Yeah, those damn conservatives, always wanting to conserve human life.
No, they're not, they just want to control women's sexuality, force them to suffer the consequences of having sex. They do not support full support of single mothers and their kids. Conservatives are not good people.
Wait now, actions have consequences? Who would have known?
Well there goes that assumption of good faith arguments.
Generalize much, so all conservatives adhere to your stereotype of them. Every single conservative is a bad person. And let me guess, every liberal is a great person. Nice argument. I’d say, your opinion on abortion is just that your opinion. Others may have differing opinions. I’d also venture a guess that your a decent person. I happen to be 100% against all abortion, and think myself a decent person. You see me as a bogeyman, I see you as person that believes killing an unborn baby as birth control should be ok, which to me is insane, but I respect your right to that poorly thought out opinion.
The Neo-Marxist uber-leftist of the Biden regime are the worst people on the planet at the present moment.
And certainly ant-constitutional in every instance.
They have effectively eliminated the southern border, allowing millions of illegal aliens to flood into the nation. They have destroyed the economy where no prices for essential goods and services have doubled from the time they took office. They are playing nuclear chicken with Russia, and nuclear war is now more likely than anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Anyone who still supports the Biden regime at this point is a moron or a psychopathic maniac.
\\][//
Nope. They want women to face The adult responsibilities AFTER the women were irresponsible sexually.
Women and only women decide who shoots baby batter inside them raw dog style.
Ok, but face your adult responsibilities women.
How old are you, M. Biss?
None of this is true.
Yeah, conservatives should just be aborted, post-partem.
Until they are born. Then, you are on your own.)))) Typical example of conservatives not wanting to take responsibility for the results of their actions. lol
Speaking of cute writing, did you forget to start four parentheticals?
But you are correct! Only Neo-liberals (read Statists) want more citizens (read slaves) dependent on State teat. Nothing controls the hoi polloi like utter dependence (I suppose fiat currency falling like manna might compete).
Yeah, starting a War in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to conserve human life.
You are describing the warmongering neo-cons and neo-liberals.
Remember that Democrats demanded another war vote just before Election Day 2002 so Dems could vote for it.
I stand corrected. Conservatives don't always act to conserve human life, but not even close to all conservatives were for those wars, even at the time. The neos fooled us, didn't they.
Hmm...A MrsS just hearted (thank you!) my post.
Honey, that you?
and I think Conservatives are the solution. Damn good thing we are not having this debate on Twitter (at least for the next few months) or you would never know that.
lol
Yeah, and it's an old debate that's always just getting started.
Conservatives don't believe in inherent rights, so they are THE problem here.
You are being obtuse. Of course conservatives believe in inherent rights. THAT's one of the things they want to conserve and save from State usurpation.
Here you go again with your political-zealotry. There is no difference between you and someone who demands that abortion can NEVER be performed under ANY circumstance.
In a way, you are right. Conservatives are the problem liberals need to overcome in their drive towards tyranny. I guess it depends on your goal. If the goal is freedom and liberty, conservatives are the solution. If your goal is tyranny and oppression, conservatives are the problem.
Acting to protect rights is not tyranny.
Liberals don't protect rights. There are now generations of inner city minorities who are proof of that. Liberals just want complete power. Today's "liberals" would consider JFK a raging right wing nut-job.
"I guess it depends on your goal. If the goal is freedom and liberty, conservatives are the solution"
Conservatives are illiberal by definition, they believe in inherited rights, not inherent rights. They oppose liberalism that argues that rights are inherent.
By definition? You mean "by my definition". Be honest Jeff (or is it really you Matt?).
Damn conservatives always wanting people to face their adult responsibilities AFTER acting irresponsibly sexually...
That's it. The price of freedom is responsibility. Abortion, especially multiple abortions, is nothing different from con men repeatedly declaring bankruptcy to avoid responsibility for their actions. The biggest problem about abortion though is that the man is not punished as it takes two to make a baby.
The only relevant issue here is that women are beings and have THE inalienable right to control their own lives, they are not slaves to men or the state. Their unenumerated rights are protected by the Ninth Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-historical-background.
I may have an alternate view. I think abortion is an equal protection violation.
A man CAN be forced to pay for support regardless of his desire to be involved with the child (as awful as that sounds).
A woman CAN NOT be forced to have a child that the father wants.
In either case the father has zero control. Meanwhile a woman can’t not be forced to do anything.
No, conservatives merely want women to suffer the consequences of having sex. The problem of an unwanted pregnancy is solved by aborting the nonsentient fetus.
Lol no, that’s not necessary when one isn’t irresponsible sexually.
Adult choices, adult consequences.
What you describe are child like avoidance of sexual irresponsibility.
Jeff Biss, can you actually look at an ultra sound at say, 20 twenty weeks, and still claim that a fetus is "but an object"?
I think there's a few things with which the vast majority agree: 1) there's no easy dividing line; 2) the older the fetus the more protection it deserves. Therefore, a democratic concensus can be found (once the Court gets out of the way) which appropriately balances competing duties.
The binary rhetoric of "rights" is at the root of this impasse.
I think the "vast majority" all agree that abortion is undesirable but sometimes necessary.
So what? The question is "Can the US force humans to give birth?" And I'd bet that a lot more people would say "hell, no" if they had wombs (and sex).
I would go a step further and say "... but sometimes undesirable" and I would agree with that sentiment too. Kids are expensive pests.
But, once you're burdened with kids (wherever we might draw that line, and whoever we might blame for that burden) "can the US force you to raise a child?" Yes, yes it can. Not only are you not allowed to kill your kids (or sell them into slavery), unless you find some willing dupe to adopt them, you're also required to pay for their necessities. It's almost a form of slavery - but one we all seem to agree is entirely appropriate.
I don't see why any of that should be different because the kid may still be on the other side of a vagina.
The ruination of my home state is now complete. In Colorado one may now argue that leaving one’s newborn in the snow to die is legal.
I happen to have a uterus, have used it three times to produce humans, and I’m all aboard for stopping elective abortion.
Which in no way detracts from my point.
Wait! You favor non-elective abortion???
And in the very few necessary cases, most people wouldn’t even call it abortion.
Abortion is an elective surgery. Nothing more.
Needing surgery for a real medical reason isn’t an abortion.
Wordsmithing isn't ethics.
The Mississippi law that the court is ruling on strikes the right balance.
It gives the woman 15 weeks to decide if she wants to terminate her pregnancy or not. After 15 weeks, she can still terminate the pregnancy if it endangers her health or they find something wrong with the fetus (e.g. Down Syndrome). That's a fair compromise.
It's not unreasonable to ask women to make up their mind and decide if they want to have the baby or not by the 15th week of pregnancy. Any woman who is sexually active should have already given some thought to what she would do in the event of an unintended pregnancy.
If fairness and balance was on the menu today your probably right.
"I like rights!! I like rights", I must say. Rights are not the problem. Rights are a recognition of common humanity,
I like rights too. I just don't like the binary rhetoric that often accompanies their assertion. A "right" is a variable, not a solution.
It is silly to suggest a developed fetus is without mind. If it has a heartbeat it is thinking things like "I am sure happy here in my mommy's ocean" -- well not in so many words, but yes. I don't think it expects betrayal.
No, a heart beat means nothing, only brain development does.
Your argument makes no sense. First of all, without the growth of the fetus, brain development wouldn't happen, secondly, a child born with a genetic disorder that impedes brain development would (according to your assertion) not be human.
There is a point in development when the brain supports mind, before that, it does not. It's a simple fact.
What controls heartbeat?
The autonomic nervous system. It works independently of the "mind". Heart cells beat on their own and synchronize when they touch.
Brain is developed at 8 weeks. Now what?
Not enough to support consciousness, experience, etc.
Somehow that seems more like projection than mental telepathy (which also does not exist).
How dare you say that. You are erasing me as a person!! I need to be SEEN!!
;-)
Of course it's projection. So is: "I think the "vast majority" all agree that abortion is undesirable but sometimes necessary." Which just happens to be the first thing of yours I saw.
We understand each other through projection. We empathize (and hate) through projection. So we do it a lot. All of us. (projection!).
No. Telling you what I think is not projection because I'm telling you I thought it.
You have naked assertions abuot what a fetus must be thinking. That is clearly projection. Unless you, Internet stranger, have the wackiest keyboard setup I can imagine.
It's silly to claim that a blastula without a mind has a mind.
Not Jeff Bliss, but yes. That, again, is why people are arguing. If we all agreed, we wouldn't be here commenting on this.
We'd be commenting somewhere else because someone else on the Internet was wrong.
This is why such laws should be up to each state. Let the people in each state vote for what they desire. Will some people be left in the wrong states? The answer is yes. However for taxes, cost of living, overregulation and a myriad of other things, people are already left living in the wrong states. Such is the price of freedom.
"This is why such laws should be up to each state. "
No. The fact is that we need a federal standard to protect rights. Only beings have rights, objects do not and without a clear demarcation using brain development, that determines whether the fetus has the capacity for mind, certain states will infringe on the rights of women or fail to protect sentient fetuses. That is the issue.
Would a live birth without "sufficient" brain development (think of people born with only a brain stem for example) be subject to killing?
We need to decide if human life has value. To many it doesn't and never has. This is the real question that we should be honest about. Right now we allow the freedom to be stupid and ride around on motorcycles for example. Many die this way, but we allow it. Should we? You might say that person made a choice, but can a 1 year old baby make a choice? Does it's life have value? How about a 1 week old baby?
We make choices all the time. Some very foolish.
Unfortunately, the rights enumerated here were never voted on by the republic. Surely, a pro-abortion rights amendment to the Constitution is doable, especially, as many on the left seem to argue, more people want it than don't want it...
There is no right in question to protect. Show me in writing where there is a right to abortion. Show me, if not, you have no argument. You may wish for a such a right to exist, but wishing does not make something so.
Jim Crow really worked out well for us, too . . .
If we frame this (properly, I think) in terms of fundamental human rights, there should not be states that are exempt.
Jim Crow was allowed to form as a result of the failures of Johnson and the end to Reconstruction. The court upheld it decades later largely by putting blinders on in order to say that the services and treatment were separate but equal when they were separate, but anything but equal. That cannot be compared to abortion in any way.
Jim Crow was the "Settled Law" of the land for quite a while till it was overturned because the Justices finally relied on first principles.
Drew, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to engage you on the level of moral reasoning. Yes, before the emergence of ultra sound technology, perhaps it was understandable to see the fetus as "but an object." But not now, at least not to me, and I can't understand how anyone can in good conscience feel otherwise.
Could you expand on why fetal imagery does not impact your views on abortion?
What I find ironic is that some countries, primarily in Europe, have granted 'personhood' to Great Apes, yet continue to insist that a fetus is not a person.
Stephen Sanford, your observation epitomizes the morally and intellectually confused state of the modern Leftist mind.
If I grab a sea turtle egg or two just laid in a nest I’ll go to prison for killing an endangered species.
If I want a hole drilled in my baby’s head and her brains vacuumed out during labor, that’s perfectly okay because she isn’t a “person.”
Libs use “person”the same way they use “gender.” It means whatever they want it to mean at the moment with no thought allowed.
Perhaps because unlike a fetus, these animals are post-birth alive. Might that explain it, whether or not you agree with those unnamed countries.
The correct parallel for your argument would surely be those countries ban abortion for female apes but permit it in humans - something that no country asserts.
How many months into pregnancy do you support the right to an abortion?
The problem with people like Jeff, aside from their zealotry in their political-religious faith, is that they have no issue with eugenics. Hitler's "eliminate the undesirables, the unproductive mouths to feed" is fine by them. Race based, gender based, mental capacity based abortions are all fine because of the dehumanization and sense of moral superiority which is used to quash any sense of doubt. It's the ultimate irony, as they walk in the footsteps of the Nazis.
Today, abortions take many more female than male lives, and many more minority lives than their fraction of the population. Here is a news item from 2020 in which the UN states that 140 million women are missing, mostly due to sex-selective abortion.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/140-million-females-missing-due-son-preference-71547237
Yep. Just look at China where the percentage of males vs females is especially skewed. This is what happens when people succumb to madness.
How can you look at an ultrasound at six weeks and claim that it is human?
The brain starts developing at 6-8 weeks. At 3 months it makes up half the baby's weight. The baby starts moving at six to eight weeks.
So you support abortion up until 6-8 weeks?
I think abortion is a loss at any time.
But, in this time of everyone telling each other what to do with our bodies, I am hesitant to tell women what to do. I want to control my body (against the covid vaccine, for example) so I am not going to micromanage women beyond the kind of limits we have now. Furthermore, we live in a world in which life is not held sacred in so many other ways. I'm not going to draw a line that costs women when so much life is already not respected. It isn't fair to give them the check.
But it disrespects life to denigrate the fetus and make believe it is nothing. Abortion is a grave act. I would hope facing this would encourage women to find another way and for everyone to make the decision to have the baby as easy as possible for the woman, and really support her and her child if they are in tough circumstances. Don't give the woman the choice of murderer or welfare queen.
and the brain is not sufficiently developed to support mind until much later.
I thought your original comment about projection was useful if only to highlight that we don't know what goes on in another's mind. We don't directly know what others are thinking or how their minds work. We project from how we see our minds work.
Nobody has direct access to a fetal mind but external imaging shows similar activity to a baby's. Which makes sense. Why wouldn't mind development be a continuous process? Fetuses as young as six weeks respond to stimulus. They have an immense brain at 3 months. It is convenient to think of them as inert when you want to kill them. But parents that don't want to kill them play them music and talk to them and react to their movements as if they had minds.
20 weeks? See 12.
Agreed, my statement holds for 12 weeks if not earlier. I guess I wanted to gauge how little shame the "pro-choice" crowd has when it comes to this issue. Turns out, virtually none.
According to neuroscientists, the brain and nervous system are not sufficiently developed until much later, probably near or soon after 20 weeks.
The capacity for consciousness differentiates object from being. Therefore, the question is whether the brain is developed enough, if it is, then it is a being and deserves protection and if not, then it is an object incapable of experience. The universal consideration should be that and at the federal level.
"The capacity for consciousness differentiates object from being"
If true, there are going to be a whole lot of people who are going to get un-plugged from life support systems.
The law has been there for a long time. Brain dead people are recognized as such.
What of people who have severe Downs Syndrome or Dementia? Are they no longer 'people'?
"Unconscious" does not mean "brain-dead"
You’re definition would mean you can kill someone during surgery. The capacity to pull the plug only applies if the person is determined to be incapable of recovering. The expectation is for babies brains to develop in pregnancy. I have no issue with aborting an already dead fetus. The issue is all the living growing ones.
A developing brain is not drain dead
I am one of many who believes humans have a soul, from the moment of conception.
Wouldn't that definition exclude from "being": people in comas, the severely mentally handicapped, patients under general anaesthetic, people who are knocked out or passed out drunk, etc.
And doesn't your definition include many animals?
No. The issue is brain condition. Is the brain intact or not, damaged or not. For example the law already recognizes this, survivors can pull the plug only in certain circumstances.
And yes, my definition applies to animals who are beings.
Yes - the circumstance is unable to recover. Certain death (or near so). None of us would be here if that were the typical outcome if pregnancy
This is the problem with humankind and I suspect what will lead to its demise. We are a controlling species with very little humbleness. You think we know consciousness? Science has been unable to locate consciousness because it is non-local. We get glimmers of what consciousness is, but it remains elusive for a reason.
One of the greatest problems with virtually any kind of understanding is a lack of humility. Far too often, men and women, in their pursuit of knowledge, abandon wisdom and in the process, succumb to arrogance, willful ignorance and pride. It makes me think of a famous quote from physics: "I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question."
We do know that we are conscious and so can safely say that all nonhuman animals with brains are too. Our brains are us.
How dare you bring science into this??? 😉
Capacity for consciousness. Define it. You are arguing for euthanasia of many elderly people. Be careful.
LOL! Think about it more.
If a navel goes ungazed, does it make a thought?
We can't all agree on your claim. If we could, it would be a solved problem.
LOL! I already know that many don't, but that won't stop me from making it.
The fundamental characteristic of a fetus (and the zygote before it) is that it is in the process of development. To objectify it by conceptually freezing it in a moment of time is both a scientific and moral distortion. This fundamental truth is implicit in the very word "abortion" - preventing the origin (further development and birth) of a human. Even in physics, one cannot properly understand a dynamical system by considering only its static nature at a moment in time.
It is typical of the liberal viewpoint to ascribe moral rights even to inanimate objects, as when those in the Rights of Nature movement ascribe rights to the land, water, and air. They likewise ascribe moral rights to future generations, whose bodies are mere potentialities, someday to coalesce from unknowable collections of molecules present in the land, water, and atmosphere; and they attribute moral responsibility for the welfare of those future humans to those living today. But once the coalescence has been definitively set in motion by the act of conception, the assignment of moral value is put on hold. Does this not seem contradictory?
The argument that a fetus that is not yet viable has no rights, and that the mother therefore has absolute dominion over it, is a form of "might makes right". It simply ignores the question of what moral responsibility the mother and father have toward the developing human. It also stands in contradiction to the typical liberal belief that we have a moral responsibility to support those who depend on us - the poor, the homeless, refugees, the physically and mentally infirm.
I have always found the standard arguments in favor of unrestricted abortion to be similar to right-wing arguments denying any moral responsibility toward the weak and the needy, and the arguments that assert the dominion of the powerful over those who cannot defend themselves.
"But once the coalescence has been definitively set in motion by the act of conception, the assignment of moral value is put on hold. Does this not seem contradictory?"
Yes. It is the central contradiction of the so-called "pro-choice" movement.
I can understand your position. Personally I would never have an abortion, and never did. It was not based on religious principals, but I do feel I have a responsibility to a developing baby who is dependent on me for it's very life.
I cannot disagree more with your final sentiment concerning "right-wing" (conservative? libertarian? anarchic?) "dominion." (Do caring individuals have "dominion" over those they choose to care for? I could go on, but it would destroy my point.)
But, wow!! What a perfectly written rebuttal. My only point is I wouldn't change a word. Thank you, M. Mitchell.
Until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind, it is an object.
You can repeat that till the cows come home, but it won't make it any more sensible. A (human) fetus is a developing human. It is obviously fundamentally different from a static object such as chair. The very purpose of abortion is to terminate the developmental process, not merely to eliminate a static object. Calling a fetus an "object" is just a way to avoid facing and discussing these obvious truths. If you want to persuade others of your viewpoint, you should at least try to approach the subject with scientific integrity.
Until the fetus develops the capacity for mind it is human but not a being and the woman has the absolute right to abort it if she wants to. It's an inalienable right not up to you, it's up to her.
Jeff Bliss: You don't appear to engage in reasoned discussion - you just ignore what others write and keep repeating the same dictum over and over, without addressing any of the arguments opposing your point of view. There's no point in trying to discuss an issue with someone who isn't interested in having a rational discussion.
Excellent assessment John. A child can't walk when it's born because the synaptic connections in the cortex of the brain have not been made, and I wonder if he thinks he can implement his logic if the legs off a child are removed at birth?
LOL! You obviously refuse to understand. Mind defines being, no mind, no being, only an object with no capacity for experience, feeling etc.
What exactly do you mean by a mind? Do you consider animals to have "minds?" I hardly would define a developing embryo that will evolve into a baby, a human being as an object no matter one's views about abortion.