Virginia and "Vaginal Probing"

I see no conflict in my statement that only promotes the protection of freedom. I understand that I have always stood for freedom and freedom that can not be arbitrarily undermined by the majority.

Whether an ultrasound is medically necessary prior to an abortion is obviously a medical question, not a political one. And, for the record, in the first trimester, it's not medically indicated. It's politically indicated in order to try to persuade the woman, who's probably already in great distress, to at least change her mind, or perhaps more cruelly, to shame her and exacerbate her misery. IOW, punish her.

Medical procedures should not be used as political weapons. And isn't it shameful that we even have to say that. Mandating, by law, a medical procedure that's not medically indicated is indeed shameful and barbaric. It's also wasteful and bad medicine.

If it is politically motivated are you not suggesting that the citizens of Virginia agree with it?

They obviously do agree with it. I think it sets a bad precedent. What else can we think of to do to people's bodies that's not medically necessary but makes a political statement? All kinds of things. I not only disapprove legally and constitutionally to such personal and privacy violations and exploitation of medicine, but also morally, for what it's worth.

I tried to make abortion a medical issue in my previous article...no sale.

That's too bad. Sorry I didn't see it.

The legality of abortion is a political question, or maybe more accurately, a constitutional question. The necessity of this medical procedure or that one as it pertains to medical conditions or other medical procedures absolutely is not. Medicine is the domain of trained medical professionals, not politicians, just as theology and religion are the domain of theologians, clergymen and philosophers, not politicians. As far as medicine is concerned, we certainly can have state licensing requirements and boards to administer licensing and field complaints and mete out discipline, but even state boards do not get involved in the actual practice of medicine. That is rightly left to the medical profession as long as the professional practices in a manner that does no harm. I think a good argument can be made that unnecessary procedures that are mandated by law for no good medical reason is harmful.

there are certainly legally prescribed limits as to when, where, and how...not all of which are necessarily based on medicine.

If that's the case, then I find that also to be bad medicine and uncalled-for. Two wrongs don't make a right. And never will.

but abortion, and procedures surrounding it are political questions.

Unfortunately, they've found their way into the political realm. But they don't belong there, imo.

You have your opinion. That's what makes it political and thus the purview of the legislature, not the judiciary.

I disagree. Rights are constitutional matters, not political or statutory ones. Someone could have an opinion that slavery should be legal again, and the Congress or some legislature somewhere may try to enact such a thing, and succeed. But until the Constitution is amended or rewritten, slavery will be--or should be--overturned. The reason: It's a rights matter; and rights are not negotiable or amendable by the states.

And the question of whether abortion is a right, is the question.

We agree. And at present, that question has been answered. If you are opposed to abortion, and if the SCOTUS ever reconsiders abortion's constitutionality and the answer changes, then it will have ruled in a way that pleases you and agrees with you. But it hasn't yet. And, it's possible, it won't. I hope not.

With that, can you agree that a vaginal probe is irrelevant to that question of constitutionality that you would like to have revisited and possibly re-answered? I can respect that opinion, Soc, even though I disagree. I have a hard time respecting the exploitation of an invasive medical procedure that's not warranted but is being used just to make a political point--which may include intimidating and/or shaming the patient. And no matter what you feel about abortion, surely anybody can see how this sort of thing is so uncalled-for and cruel. It's making the debate even more personal than it needs to be. We can disagree and argue our positions without stooping to such shameful measures as vaginal probes to try to "win."

We can disagree and argue our positions without stooping to such shameful measures as vaginal probes to try to "win."

Err...Some of us can.

", are you going to be as sanguine if the ruling is against you?

I'll be very sad and very disappointed in our SC, but I'll probably advocate for overturning things again, and, in the meantime, be grateful that the states would, hopefully, have the right to keep abortion legal within their respective state. I'm assuming you're OK with letting the states decide? Or do you want it outlawed entirely?

Completely ok with the states deciding...

You've said yourself, Soc, that we need to question and somehow determine as best we can whether the fetus is a "human life" that's on par with, or comparable to, that of the woman carrying it--that is, on par with or comparable to already-born, living, breathing human beings-- and that the fetus deserves consideration as far as its own rights are concerned. And you also say that you're OK with the states deciding whether to make abortion legal in the respective states.

But it's entirely possible that a state might decide to make abortions legal with no restrictions whatsoever at any point in the pregnancy as long as good, safe medicine is practiced with the mother's health in mind (not the fetus's) and with no consideration for any rights of the fetus.

Therefore, how can you be in favor of both? There's a very real conflict there.

The point I'm making is that if you don't mind if it's a states' rights issue, then it seems your advocacy for the "life" of the fetus is diminished somewhat, because it's likely that some states are not going to look upon the fetus in the way that you think they should, or at least consider.

I know you said you're more focused on process than philosophy at this point, but where do you draw the line? If you're more focused on process, why not just go ahead and concede that the moral status of the fetus is irrelevant.

I'm actually more interested in your clarifying my confusion rather than challenging you, so please clear that up for me if you can.

I'm actually more interested in your clarifying my confusion rather than challenging you, so please clear that up for me if you can.

I am interested as well, Truth Sleuth. Why should women or fetuses have different rights in different states?

Bingo. Rights are not negotiable or amendable by political majorities. They're constitutional matters so as to avoid the ole "tyranny of the majority" thingy.

It's a derived right--derived from the right to privacy, which the SC has upheld as a right, based on their interpretation of the Constitution--the only one that matters in terms of the law.

The Founders aren't here for us to ask, but they did devise a plan for a country that includes a Supreme Court to answer these questions and conflicts when they arise, and there have been all kinds of questions that I would imagine they would have never thought of in their lifetimes, just as there will probably be many in the future that we will have never thought of. Ergo, the need for a Supreme Court.

Most of us want to know that the decision was a difficult one

Perhaps the most arrogant post I've yet to see. I have a friend who had a late term abortion. She and her husband were excited about the baby only to get devastating news on the date of the ultrasound. There were severe deformities. If born, the baby would never walk, talk, feed normally (would require a feeding tube...for life) sit up, have the ability to use the restroom ...and a ventilator simply to breathe might have been necessary. Should they have talked to you personally about their options? Some people see abortion as the lesser of two evils in many cases.

As women, we are capable of making our own decisions with our own consciences. We do NOT owe an explanation to you or any radical. As a child advocate, for every picture of an aborted fetus you want to shove in my face, I can show you a beaten and tortured child who was born to people who did not want him/her and had no means financially or emotionally to care for a child.

The holier than thou are truly incredible

Even supporters of the ruling admit that the "right to privacy" was a flimsy foundation, and simply represented a "hook" on which the Supreme Court could rule as it wished, in this case in favor of abortions.

Right. I'm one of them. I would have preferred something more substantial, but if it's "right to privacy," I'll take it. :)

Why the need for more laws each and every legislative session?

Why indeed! As you may or may not know, I have a good bit of libertarian blood in my veins. I'm fiscally conservative, an advocate for as unintrusive of a government as possible to ensure rights and public safety and security, and the supremacy of the individual and his/her freedom, liberty and personal choices in life. The purpose of the legislative branch is to represent the people and do their bidding. It's not unrealistic that that frequently means no new laws.

I'd imagine your response will be because new issues arise, to which I would respond, why not just interpret the old ones?

New issues do arise to which there is not necessarily a precedent to apply, but in many cases, I think we can and should "just interpret the old ones."

What argument for the "life" of the fetus?

You're making it very clear, Soc, and I accept it, that you're not necessasrily advocating for (or against) the fetus, only that you acknowledge that there is such an advocacy of a good many people and therefore perhaps it needs to be considered in the debate.

So, I'm not saying you yourself are taking that stance; I'm saying that you apparently feel that it should be part of the debate and should be considered because so many people do feel that it's relevant. And I'm puzzled as to why you don't go ahead and take a stand and defend it. Are you trying to preserve some "wiggle" room and not be pinned down to something, or have you simply not made up your mind yet? Would you like to engage in a discussion that might help to hone and refine your opinions--and challenge mine as well--so that you might be closer to making up your mind, or maybe changing mine? That's a good, solid purpose of debate and discourse. It would move this discussion a little further.

And, in my opinion it would also be informative as to what the process should be. The process--constitutional rights versus states' rights--is dependent upon what case law says now, at this point in time: the present. It's not based on wishful thinking or what we think "ought" to be the process or what feels more logical. It doesn't work that way, and I think you know that.

I agree with you that our judiciary has "gotten it wrong" a lot of times, but by virtue of our citizenship and our membership in this society, we tacitly give our consent to abide by these existing decisions and precedents until we can get them changed, and changed according to existing rules of procedure and the criteria that are used to determine which ones we use.

More coming.

The process--constitutional rights versus states' rights--is dependent upon what case law says now, at this point in time: the present. It's not based on wishful thinking or what we think "ought" to be the process or what feels more logical. It doesn't work that way, and I think you know that.

I was having this very same thought earlier while I looked through the comments. Soc's arguments tend to boil down to a pretty simple principle: the federal government can only do things that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and states have carte blanche. Except that's simply not true. That's not how the law stands today. Disagreeing with decisions like the Supremacy Clause is one thing, but Soc tends to act like it doesn't even exist.

Meanwhile anyone having a reasonable discussion with these legal realities in mind is accused of simply not "getting it." It's a bit nuts, really.

2.24... I just wanted to comment that is an extremely significant point you made at the end, that is so obvious that many of us may not have realized it! We look, but we do not always see, eh?

If a woman that is aborting a pregnancy, no matter the gestational stage, would admit that a human egg is hatching, a life is beginning, and she has decided to end a life, would change the argument's perspective from being 'in denial,' to strictly moral justification. (Which is what I was doing with my medical 'value' approach, as moral justification--regardless of emergency--the mother is declared a priority, therefore, she has the burden of all moral decisions.)

So, yes, some will be forgiven, yet some will not as they will continue to be judged as being immoral by a PL. No reconciliation will abound in that case, it would seem.

That's not how the law stands today. Disagreeing with decisions like the Supremacy Clause is one thing, but Soc tends to act like it doesn't even exist.

And if that's the case, then this discussion won't advance any further than where it is, because it won't be based in reality--only on what someone thinks "ought" to be the case. So, as the author/moderator, Soc needs to determine how he wants to proceed: on the reality of the law as it exists today, or on how he thinks it "ought" to be (but isn't). I'll wait before I proceed any further. If it's the latter, though, it will all be moot and purely academic. I'd prefer to argue in terms that are relevant and realistic in terms of actual fruition, and not just academic. But I'll yield to the author and his wishes.

CL1, you and Soc do bring up an important point about acknowledging the value of the fetus--the moral value or it, the fact that it is indeed a living thing. It's a topic that one particular pro-choice advocate, Caitlin Borgmann, has articulated beautifully. In short, she agrees with both of you and concedes that you have a good point and that it would behoove those of us on the pro-choice side to acknowledge it or try to discuss it and understand each other, and then move on from there. It's a point of contention, she posits, that's aggravating both sides and holding them back. Glad you've both brought that up. More on that later. Gotta go for a while.

Hi TS,

I've read several publications on this topic over time, from medical, scientific, religious, government and down to personal justification in decision-making. The one argument that stands out the most for me, is a publication that I can no longer find, stating that the blastocyst is no different that any other mammal at the stage of development before implantation. Development, yes; genetic code, no. The embryo is simply not going to become a pig if implanted in a pig. It's a human 'being' at every stage.

I agree that making a distinction of 'value' and importance--priority, in my case, is one of significance in this argument. I seem to be having difficulty getting my point across about 'emergent care' not being relevant to my point, but rather, objective moralism is determined by the medical community; the mother is considered to have more 'value' throughout the gestational phases. I both agree that life begins at conception (as a zygote), and I agree with abortion. So, yes, there is some moralism involved with ending a life.

I do agree with many, if not all of Socrates's other 'fine' (critical) points that are relative to this issue in a 'larger' sense, which might be why he promotes the basic elements of 'life' and how it relates to a community's success, lasting commitments, and the possible outcome that future pregnancies would be prevented if abortions weren't so easily performed, with the mother (and father) not being able to avoid 'responsibility.'

that this might also provide perspective on the entire issue.

Yes, that's my point that moral objectivism has been predetermined in the society--therefore, the government is 'out of it.'

What I'm saying is that the moral objectivism takes precedence in any and all decisions, despite necessity or not---emergent care takes a back seat to the fact that society deems the life of the mother has overall more 'value.' ...therefore, she can make decisions at any stage of gestation that society deems acceptable (generally before the third trimester). This is just my rationale; you or anyone else do not have to agree. :)

But...as I also pointed out above, she (and the father) still have to live with her/their decision and accept that they are destroying a life. The 'larger' issue, that I think I have read you to intimate - the societal effects of abortion, commitment, family, future pregnancies and abortions, are all affected by allowing abortion to become a form of birth control...are very relevant to the stability of our community foundations, as well as natural selection for gender.

We must be accepting of both sides? You didn't just say that did you?

You guys are so obsessed with your holier than thou stance, that you can't even address the REALITY behind many abortions. Why don't you start adopting children by the dozens. Please keep in mind that many of them might need extensive care just to survive. Instead, you'd rather sit back and judge any woman who makes what is ALWAYS a difficult choice.

You are not holier than anybody. I hate to break it to you.

I don't think anyone here is "judging," are they? If you are referring to my comment way up there (and excuse me if you aren't) that I think PL will always see abortion as immoral because of viewing life as precious, and a 'right.'

I think life is valuable; don't we value and appreciate that our parents decided to give birth? Yet, I do accept a decision to end a life, as well, even though I find it difficult to accept saying those words.

I believe that one should be fully aware of the consequences of the procedure, the snuffing out of a future, if not present, life, and in so doing, have weighed the pros and cons of the procedure.

I agree that it should be that way, but morality can not be legislated.

Oh, and I believe that it is a State issue..based on the fact that births, deaths, marriages, insurance, medical licenses, unlawful deaths, etc. are all state issues. In other words, everything surrounding the issue, but the issue itself, is controlled by the state.

I do not believe that the right to an abortion should be a state issue. We are the United States of America. Why should citizens in one state have different rights than those in another state? Not all of the citizens in any one state are exactly alike, so who gets to decide which rights a state's citizens should have? Should the rights granted to citizens in a state change after every election?

As to your question regarding states? Because this is not a right?

Then let me ask the question another way. Why should abortion be legal in one state and not another? Or, why should abortion be illegal in some states and not others?

Actually, morality is legislated all the time, but that's not the point here. When "murder" is involved that's generally considered a subject that rises above simple "morality".

Morality and law are not the same thing.

Because OTHERS want control of every woman's uterus but don't want THEIR tax dollars going for any medical care or feeding of these children. The prolife camp harasses women, many of whom are facing realities like my friend with a severely deformed fetus. Disgusting. Might as well be the Westboro Church. Same sort of senseless harassment.

You understand that there is no right, but you like to think there is one, so you'll "take what you can get".

No. You misunderstand me, and you've misstated my position. I do happen to believe that there is a right to privacy, and the SCOTUS agrees with me. I realize other persons don't believe that and I realize it's possible that a differently constituted SC may disagree as well. I also believe that there is a right to an abortion without any permission necessary or required by anyone other than the woman herself and the agreement of a licensed doctor to perform it. Same caveats about others disagreeing and another SC disagreeing as well.

As far as the SCOTUS affirming a right to abortion is concerned, I would have preferred a case based on something other than privacy. I would have preferred a case based on the sanctity of the individual--an individual whose rights are guaranteed throughout her life--not diminished or questioned during pregnancy. The salient point in my view is the sanctity of the individual person, the only person involved (the woman) and her rights, not the point that pits pregnant woman versus fetus. Again, I acknowledge that others disagree and would like to consider the fetus's rights in deciding whether our Constitution can allow women's rights to autonomy and self-determination to be diminished or abolished for the nine months of pregnancy. And to anybody who would like to debate that aspect of it, I'd be happy to do so.

Why the need for more laws each and every legislative session?

Why indeed! ...It's not unrealistic that that frequently means no new laws.

Although I appreciate your explanation and political perspective, your response didn't really answer the question....at least to my satisfaction.

I can't read your mind, so I have no idea what the answer is that you're looking for. I'm a small-government person. I think there is not necessarily a need at all each and every legislative session for new laws. Depends on the state, the people, their wants and needs. I suppose politics and political motivations have a lot to do with why some politicians feel the need for more new laws.

New issues do arise to which there is not necessarily a precedent to apply, but in many cases, I think we can and should "just interpret the old ones."

For example?

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969, as it applies to those who would like to prosecute Terry Jones, who staged a Koran-burning demonstration in Florida last year. Three Americans were killed in Afghanistan by thugs who said they killed in retaliation for the Koran-burning. Jones is in my way responsible or liable in any way for the deaths of those three Americans based on this ruling. Those who would advocate being able to successfully prosecute Jones would have to amend the First Amendment, as such prosecution would be tantamount to "prior restraint."

Correction to typo: ...Jones is in no way responsible or liable...

Reminder, Soc, you haven't addressed the conflict/contradiction pointed out in 2.18. Your response that "abortion is not a right" is factually incorrect as far as the law is concerned. For your assertion to be logical that, in your own personal opinion, it's not a right, you still have to explain the conflict in your logic that fetal rights are important in some states but not in others. That doesn't say much for the moral importance of rights. What it says is that rights have no particular moral importance at all--they have only potential political capital. Not a very laudable thing to say about so-called "rights." That's the logical challenge you've yet to address.

I don't see the benefit of forcing one group, who feels that abortion is murder, to facilitate and/or condone such behavior in their communities.

We don't base law in this country on subjective feelings. That's the stuff of belief systems, such as religion, and that's better left to theologians and religious adherents in private life. We base law on objective facts, not on what we feel or speculate. We know a woman is a full-fledged person; we don't have the metaphysical and spiritual insight to know the "soul" or status of a fetus. Its status is nobody's logical business except that of the person carrying it.

If you see no benefit in forcing one group to facilitate and/or condone such behavior, as you just said, then you obviously DO see a benefit in forcing the other group to forfeit its "feelings." After all, they are in conflict with each other. That's unacceptable. And, again, feelings are irrelevant when it comes to the secular, civil matters that are pertinent to American government.

Also, having an abortion clinic in one's community in no way infringes upon the rights of those who choose not to avail themselves of its services. You're talking about the Constitution protecting folks' feelings and sensibilities, and it doesn't. That harkens to the Terry Jones example I cited earlier: The First Amendment, for example, does not protect the sensitive feelings of some Muslims who don't like the idea of their holy text being burned in a political demonstration. The rights that are protected by our laws do NOT include the right not to be offended. They require that a lot of people put up with the fact that a lot of people in their midst will do things they find to be quite distasteful and downright immoral. And they have no say-so in the matter until it infringes upon their own rights.

Later with the rest. Have a nice evening.

TS, Soc and Carol,

Forgive me if this has already been suggested, and also forgive my brevity, but once the government got to the point of accepting "viability" as their point of contention, and requiring certain state legislation to go along in conjunction with care mandates through gestational phases, didn't the 'magic' of the "undue burden standard" give a woman the opportunity to *potentially* go against the state if need be??

It sounds a bit vague, yet I see a loophole for the mother, with her doctor, to use this standard. If so, we have abortion as legal, we have the understanding of "viability," and we have the "undue burden standard" if the decision needs to go past viability. Where is the debate?

More recently, the standard has been used in cases involving state restrictions on a woman's access to abortion. The standard was applied by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health,462 US 416 (1983). O'Connor utilized the test as an alternative to the strict scrutiny test applied in Roe v. Wade,410 U.S. 113 (1973). The test was later used by a plurality opinion^[3] in Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U.S. 833 (1992), to uphold state regulations on abortion.^[4][5][6] In City of Akron, O'Connor stated: "If the particular regulation does not 'unduly burden' the fundamental right, then our evaluation of that regulation is limited to our determination that the regulation rationally relates to a legitimate state purpose."^[7] Justice John Paul Stevens in his partial concurrence, partial dissent to Casey further defined undue burden by saying, "[a] burden may be 'undue' either because [it] is too severe or because it lacks a legitimate, rational justification."^[8]

In the first bolding, I understand that to be saying the regulation has to benefit a state purpose...and abortion would not, so the mother's decisions would take precedence over the state, yes?

In the second bolding, "justification" could be made for any number of reasons with physician support. I see this standard as the loophole that returns a woman's rights to her regardless of stage of development. What do you think?

and the possible outcome that future pregnancies would be prevented if abortions weren't so easily performed,

All good and interesting points in your 2.32, CL1, except for the fact that it seems that you're suggesting that abortion can be used as a manipulative tool--using women's unwanted pregnancies and anguish to try to craft a "desirable" societal outcome. I don't see any other way to look at it.

I maintain that the woman involved, her body, her pregnancy and all the obvious intensely intimate, personal and private aspects of her body and its condition are not eligible to be exploited by politicians and others for some kind of predetermined sociological outcome. I think people sometimes forget that we're talking about a real person whose most intimate bodily privacy and dignity is being invaded by others.

This is somewhat related to the obvious, but never articulated, "abortion as punishment" that is inherent in a lot of people's arguments that seem to carry a lot of judgmentalism about what they perceive to be some women's irresponsibility, selfishness and promiscuity. After all, you said in your 2.32: "...with the mother (and father) not being able to avoid 'responsibility.'" Very telling, as it seems to indicate you are offended by what you perceive as "irresponsibility" leading to unwanted pregnancies. Irresponsibility leads to some, if not many, unwanted pregnancies, but not all.

I still maintain this is a personal individual-rights issue. And "immoral" people in general, or women in particular, don't have a different set of rights than others. I'm not saying that any of that is what you said or meant, CL1, believe me. But it is the only conclusion I can draw from your remark, "...future pregnancies would be prevented if abortions weren't so easily performed..." That's alarming to me and to anybody who values their privacy and their personal individual freedom regarding her body and her privacy.

moral objectivism has been predetermined in the society--therefore, the government is 'out of it.

I would say that the moral objectivist principle that the individual is supreme and that his/her rights cannot be abridged as long as she isn't infringing upon the rights of others was articulated a long time ago by the great thinkers of the Enlightenment. They maintained that such rights exist with or without government. They maintained that these rights are natural, they are not created or granted by government, and therefore shouldn't be tampered with by government (or political majorities, as in the "tyranny of the majority").

As long as a fetus has physiological and temporal existence within the body of a real, live, breathing, human person, whose rights have ALREADY been acknowledged and guaranteed by the Constitution, then that person carrying it is the one whose rights are sacrosanct. I disagree that there's even a question regarding them, but I'm wiling to agree that a great many people do think there's a question and I'm willing to discuss it, but I see no logical possibility in being able to make a case for diminishing this person's rights for nine months in favor of the rights of the fetus within her--its potential life and moral importance as a person in its own right notwithstanding. However, I'm listening with an open mind. I've yet to hear an argument that doesn't ultimately involve tyranny--forcing many good and decent, moral and monogamous, righteous women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their will. That's the height of barbarism and tyranny in my book. And btw, all the women who don't have those glowing adjectives attached to their morality still have the same rights as everybody else, whether it rankles our personal moral code or not.

And I still maintain that we on the pro-choice side can--and I do--see and respect the moral importance of the fetus. It isn't just like any other "clump of tissue and cells" or a piece of property belonging to the woman carrying it, even though it is those things. It is far more than that in the moral sense and especially what it portends in terms of human life. It is a living thing. I sincerely get that and absolutely agree. And if remembering that and being sensitive to the value of it and what it not only is but will be--if that helps to bridge the bitter divide on abortion, even just a little bit, it's important that we keep emphasizing it. So I thank you and Soc for bringing it up.

TS..

We're on the same page in that I don't think either one of us thinks the decision to abort is 'murder' in a societal context (definition), the reason for the personhood debate, and therefore, the government, imo, has crafted ways to interpret reasons why they should be involved.

My 2.32 was explaining my reasoning in why I see moral objectivism has been established in the eyes of the community, via Medicine, therefore, murder in my logic is non-conclusive.

The premise of my 2.55 is to reveal how the government's policies could have work-arounds to continue the mother remaining in control of her pregnancy. Their isn't anything sinister being suggested in either comment, other than suggesting that the government should not be legislating morality, and I don't see how they legitimately can just because they use 'interpretation' to say they can. 2.55 is revealing how their own laws and policies can be turned around.

Just because the fetus possibly 'could' live outside the uterus after 6-7 months doesn't make it a 'person' imo, simply because of the 'could.' The fetus, also, "could" perish. In other words, we can't judge personhood on the basis of "could." The only way a person is a person is if the human is functioning under its own sustenance (or would be capable of doing so despite being breast fed), then 'murder' is a viable consideration no matter the age.

After all, you said in your 2.32: "...with the mother (and father) not being able to avoid 'responsibility.'" Very telling, as it seems to indicate you are offended by what you perceive as "irresponsibility" leading to unwanted pregnancies. Irresponsibility leads to some, if not many, unwanted pregnancies, but not all.

Well, yes, I'm pointing to irresponsibility in a way, but pulling this statement out of context defeats my purpose in having said it. My point with that statement was addressing the larger issue of societal impact if we always used abortion as birth control, not from a morality stance, but from consequences that have survival of communities and even our species, in mind.

I still maintain this is a personal individual-rights issue.

Yes, I agree, and that is what I set out to 'prove' in those two original comments.

"...future pregnancies would be prevented if abortions weren't so easily performed..." That's alarming to me and to anybody who values their privacy and their personal individual freedom regarding her body and her privacy.

What I meant by that is that I don't think abortion should be used as a method of birth control, and if it wasn't allowed, then perhaps 'some' pregnancies wouldn't happen, simply because of the consequences and responsibilities involved. Teen-age pregnancy would likely ensue because 'responsibility' in an adult 'mature' definition, isn't something they yet know; but to an adult that knows they have only themselves to deal with consequences--would likely think twice before having unprotected sex. Why some adult women might be an exception to that is due to the awareness that there are some women that use pregnancy as a way to manipulate the system in order to gain social assistance...I've only read about that; I know nothing about it, otherwise. ..So, I think you might have taken the wrong context and meaning of my highlighted statement.

I would say that the moral objectivist principle that the individual is supreme and that his/her rights cannot be abridged as long as she isn't infringing upon the rights of others was articulated a long time ago by the great thinkers of the Enlightenment. They maintained that such rights exist with or without government. They maintained that these rights are natural, they are not created or granted by government, and therefore shouldn't be tampered with by government (or political majorities, as in the "tyranny of the majority").

Yes, this has been the basis of my thought. I used the medical priority in determining 'value' in an emergency to also be a statement of moral objectivism in the whole---they are simply making a clear statement that the life of the mother essentially has 'more' value than the fetus, so regardless of an emergent situation, that clearly emphasizes the need to allow the mother to have 'control' throughout.

As long as a fetus has physiological and temporal existence within the body of a real, live, breathing, human person, whose rights have ALREADY been acknowledged and guaranteed by the Constitution, then that person carrying it is the one whose rights are sacrosanct.

Yes, you are making the same point as I am.

Again, on the moralism aspect, I don't call abortion murder, despite being premeditated. I call it what it is...ending the potential of a person to exist in the world of other 'persons.' I don't call it ending a "life"...because that implies a person that has 'experience' in the real world in the process of 'living' their life. In other words, "life" is relative to how the life is being lived. Abortion is destroying the 'potential' for a life...not life itself. I don't see a "right" to having a life until one is actually 'living' one.

Simply, the fetus has no 'rights' and any attempt to give them some is strictly subjective moralism, instead of objective moralism, which is what a 'society' depends on. So, now this puts the debate where it should be, that what is more important are the goals of a society...not that of the individual. That's not to say that individual goals are not to be considered, it's just to say that the individual's goals must 'fit' within the society in which they live.

Thanks for the discussion. Gotta go.

CL1, very clearly and very well stated. Understood. Thanks very much. As long as we can keep the debate/argument focused on what is relevant under the concept of individual rights and autonomy and how that must not be abridged or diminished, and also not devalue the importance of the fetus in the process, that's a good thing and just might help bridge the gap a little.

Hello Truth Sleuth and CL1,

I had some other thoughts along these lines at #4.17 and I'd very much like to hear your opinion of them.

Why am I willing to give each community the right to determine their own position, and you are not?

Already asked and answered. Only you can answer the first phrase of your question, which you already have, and I've already answered the second.

There are those who disagree with you...

...and with you.

And if the remedy is to get things changed, fine. This is a free country, and we all have that right to advocate for and work for change. The fact remains though that whatever happens, it will be challenged in court (because the country is deeply divided on this and isn't going to let it go), and it may not be settled to your satisfaction, or to mine. So, I recognize the country is divided on this, and some people have one opinion and others have another.

What will the the final deciding factor (until it's challenged yet again) is how the courts interpret the Constitution (which does include the 14th Amendment) and existing case law.

And that's a pretty short discussion. So, as far as that goes, The End. If that's your whole point, then point taken. We agree on that broad reality.

The next logical "stage two" of the debate is making your case as if you were on one side of that divide in the final deciding stage of the game. But if we're to stay at "stage one," then I agree with you on the above and what the remedy is. End of stage one.

Socrates..

Regarding your question in 2.63, perhaps I misinterpreted my 'boldings' in that comment. Please suggest a different interpretation if you see 'procedure' more relevant than "who decides on acceptability" in:

In City of Akron, O'Connor stated: "If the particular regulation does not 'unduly burden' the fundamental right, then our evaluation of that regulation is limited to our determination that the regulation rationally relates to a legitimate state purpose.

The second half of that statement, their evaluation of that regulation--that the regulation needs to rationally relate to a legitimate state purpose. ...So, I don't see how a woman maintaining her pregnancy has anything to do with a "legitimate state purpose." ...I don't know which definition of "state" they are referring to: 1) "a supreme public power within a sovereign political entity; or 2) a political body constituting a nation." Yet, in either case the *purpose* of the 'state' is to legislate for group objectives, not dictate to the individual objectives, yes? So, they state a regulation must be "limited" to a state purpose.

Justice John Paul Stevens in his partial concurrence, partial dissent to Casey further defined undue burden by saying, "[a] burden may be 'undue' either because [it] is too severe or because it lacks a legitimate, rational justification."^[8]

^{In this one, I thought it was the last part moreso than the first, but both are relevant to decision making, "or because it lacks a legitimate, rational justification," ..as pointing to who decides acceptability. The second is suggestive that it might not be "rational" at a late stage, yet it is allowing for justification---without specified conditions.}

^{If you read a different interpretation, I'm interested in reading your thoughts.}

Yes, those purposes would be legitimate to a "state" definition if the clause is referencing the definition #1 above.

And, I agree with you, that the people's voice should come first before a Judge's interpretation. The problem, here, *might* lie with others' view of whether the sovereign sate of people, or if the unified group of states should have the power to define the "legitimate purpose." I like the idea of state's rights particularly when the issue is reflective of community values, overall.

Some citizens might read #2 as having more relevance, because that implies national interest, as I interpret the definition. ..Which is what seems to be happening. Seems unconstitutional.

Or, wouldn't it make more sense, even if the subject came up, to suggest that, knowing the debate we have now, that they left it up to each individual state as a way of moving forward?

The "rights" of which we speak were agreed to by all, which is what made them "self-evident".

Yes, it would seem that given the reasons people migrated here in the first place, which has been scrutinized from differing perspectives, was to get as close as they could to self-governance, thus, "self-evident" within their groups.

The fact that they were a much smaller and less diverse group might have a bearing on value-conformity, and less of a need to address many of the social issues we have today, as well as less of a need to document them.

Despite our current size and diversity, I see no reason for our general purposes and functions to be all that much different---we just have to try harder to make the same things, and new things work.

That seems to add it up in a very logical and common-sense fashion.

Carol-99

Then let me ask the question another way. Why should abortion be legal in one state and not another? Or, why should abortion be illegal in some states and not others?

Because different communities have different views? I don't see the benefit of forcing one group, who feels that abortion is murder, to facilitate and/or condone such behavior in their communities.

Not all of the citizens of any one state share the same views. Surely, you aren't suggesting that all of the citizens in states like New York or California have the same views and opinions regarding abortion and gay marriage. I believe these basic rights should be decided at the national level.

...Except that you still want the courts to decide, whereas I'm suggesting in be the people.

It's not that I want the courts to decide. If the people in a state decided that abortion should be illegal, it will be challenged in court, and the courts will decide if it's constitutional or not. That's not a wish. It's a statement of fact. And the court--the highest court in the land--has already decided.

I am opposed to issues that pertain to a woman's personal, private and intimate choices regarding reproduction to be a subject for politics. It's off-limits for politics. That's why the people have no right to decide otherwise. To me that is as "self-evident" of a right as can be imagined.

I know a lot of people are morally opposed to abortion. That's fine. Don't have one. But don't impose your morality on those who disagree with you. And that, Soc, is what you're trying to rationalize. You're trying to rationalize and make a case for people imposing their morality on others via their direct votes or their legislators' votes, also known as the tyranny of the majority.

And, abortions being legally performed in your community in no way infringes upon your rights, and you know it. After all, they are done in private. You don't have to look, and you don't have to have one if you don't want to. You have no ownership of that fetus and no right to presume that your opinions about it override the fact that it resides in someone else's body, not yours, and does not affect your life. It affects hers, not yours; therefore you and other voters have no right to decide what she does about it.

My view is that it is a State issue.

I know, and I respect your opinion. But you still haven't squared that opinion with the argument that the very life of the fetus should be considered. Issues that pertain to the very rights that go to actual life and liberty are NOT the province of the states. Those are constitutional issues, NOT political, statutory ones.

do you think that the group who wrote the Constitution over two centuries ago had the right to an abortion as one of their founding principles on which all could agree?

I don't know any more than you do. You're suggesting that you know for a fact that they would have considered it a state issue. You may be right. I don't know. More realistically, I would imagine it's something they didn't even give a single thought to, considering the fact that they considered women less important than men. We also know they rationalized owning slaves. What matters is the here-and-now. Women do have equal rights under the law now, and the reality of life in 2012 is what's relevant, not 1776.

The "rights" of which we speak were agreed to by all, which is what made them "self-evident"..."these basic rights" are not considered to be basic by a large percentage of the population, thus the reason for breaking it down.

I disagree with the premise that what defines "self-evident" is consensus or general agreement. If that were the case, probably all of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights would be subject to state amendment or repeal. The defining point is not political consensus; the defining point is individual rights to autonomy and self-determination, and privacy is obviously inherent in that when it comes to decisions pertaining to one's own body that contains a fetus that belongs to that person carrying it--not to anyone else. That's why the right to an abortion should not be subject to politics and votes. If a woman has a right to control over her own body, then that right, obviously, morally, exists across state lines. Otherwise, the morality argument about the life of the fetus is moot.

Our nation was formed by the individual states, which is the reason I use them to define "community".

The point is, "these basic rights" are not considered to be basic by a large percentage of the population, thus the reason for breaking it down. Certainly states have the right to break it down even further.

As a practical matter, I don't see how each community can have different rights in these matters. If a woman lives in a community where abortion is legal, is she breaking if she goes to another community to have an abortion? Is the fetus a person in one community, but not in a bordering community? If a gay couple gets married in one community, should the marriage be invalid if the couple moves a few miles away?

Good point. Are states to have extradition treaties with each other? If a resident of a state where abortion is illegal goes to another state for an abortion, can she return to her home state with immunity from prosecution? Or does she have to stay away? If the "morality" argument is to hold up, the answer is, she can't return home unless she's held accountable. Otherwise, what does that say about her home state's presumed advocacy and protection for the life of the fetus? Not much.

Would a pregnant woman in a state in which abortion were illegal be allowed to travel to a state where abortion was legal?

Would a pregnant woman in a state in which abortion were illegal be allowed to travel to a state where abortion was legal?

I would think so. Coming back home with immunity from prosecution would be the issue.

And I suspect those who proclaim so loudly and emphatically about the "life" of the fetus really, probably, wouldn't have a problem with her coming back and not facing any prosecution. Therefore, the emptiness of the rhetoric.

IOW, I don't think this is about caring about the fetus; I think this is about punishing women for having sex that results in unwanted pregnancies, whether it be due to irresponsible birth control or conscientious birth control and its inherent failure rates. I think it has to do with a lot of people's offense at women in general dealing with unwanted pregnancies and not considering the very real fact that a lot of these unwanted pregnancies occur among married, monogamous women who are every bit as "virtuous" as these pro-life zealots claim to champion. This shouldn't be about morality and passing judgment. This should be about privacy and the liberty and freedom of the individual.

A major problem we have here is that you wish to have a National Government, as long as it agrees with you, while I am more inclined to allow for differences in opinion.

Personally, I believe in fairness and justice for all American citizens. I don’t think that citizens in one state should be denied or allowed the rights and privileges of citizens in another state.

a major problem we have here is that you wish to have a National Government, as long as it agrees with you,

A misstatement of my position yet again. Of course ideally and unrealistically it would be wonderful to have a society whose laws and regulations were all in agreement with one's own opinions. But that's not the case. And by virtue of my citizenship and membership in this society, I agree to abide by the laws that are in force.

As far as having a "national" government is concerned, I want the federal government to protect rights, public safety and national security. I'm quite happy with the states being mostly in charge of what goes on in their states as long as they don't trample on constitutional rights in the process. And in that event, or if there is a question as to whether state legislation does trample on rights, we have an apparatus in place to deal with it. And, yes, frequently those decisions are not to my liking.

while I am more inclined to allow for differences in opinion. It really is always interesting how rarely those who claim to be for tolerance and freedom are willing to put that philosophy into practice.

Such as yourself, for example. You're not tolerating the freedom of pregnant women if you think that states--or anybody--has the right to place restrictions on her reproductive freedom. Her pregnancy and its outcome, whatever it may be, is NOT a rights infringement upon you or anybody else. And you know it. Claiming to be a better judge of what a women should or should not do about an unwanted pregnancy and a fetus residing in her own body--not yours--is the height of presumptuousness and self-righteousness.

I genuinely believe that you're being sincere and well-intentioned in your advocating that we at least consider the fetus in the equation and acknowledge that it isn't just a lump of tissue or cells or just a piece of private property (bodily). It isn't. I agree with you. That impersonal harshness is offensive to a lot of people. I get that. The fetus does indeed have moral importance and stature.

About "self-evident truths": You seem to misunderstand the meaning. The definition is not lacking consensus or general agreement. The defining factor is requiring no proof. In the abortion debate, for your position to hold up to logic, the status of the fetus would have to be proved with facts--facts that can't be disputed (therefore, no longer requiring proof). And that is impossible to the degree of metaphysical certitude that is on par with the metaphysical certitude regarding the absolute undeniable personhood of the woman carrying it. For your position to hold up, we would be forced to rely upon a lot of subjective speculation about the status of the fetus, and we don't base laws based on subjective speculation--or shouldn't--but rather on facts that can be proved with irrefutable results and that are then no longer subject to opinion.

That is why the issue should not be left to the states or to any kind of political majority. The absolute supremacy of the individual as it relates to the sanctity and privacy and inviolability of his or her own body without his or her express consent is already a right that is recognized in this country, and should remain so.

Again...not the question...or the issue.

In the vacuum of circular logic, no, it's not. To those of us who wish to explore and challenge the logic of the issue in its totality, it is most certainly part of the question and the issue.

What morality argument?

As I've said before, I'm not going to play the disingenuous game. Your interjection of morality into this discussion--and it's reasonable to do so--has not gone unnoticed. I simply reject the kind of presumptuous morality that is required for voters to decide what is acceptable or not regarding an unwanted pregnancy. The best judge of what a woman does with her own body is the woman herself. Again, the pregnancy and the birth or the abortion does not in any way infringe upon the rights of anyone else--only their own personal moral codes. And you seem to want not to be offended by others' moral choices if you perceive them to be based on selfishness or disregard for the importance or the fetus. And that, btw, does not square in logic with your agreement the other day with Brandenburg v. Ohio, which said that one's right to free speech may not be curtailed, no matter how offensive it is to others, and that the speaker is not responsible for the emotional reactions and/or actions of others based on his speech. Very same principle here.

So, now, back to you: Your argument that an issue that is fraught with the moral import that you claim it is (and I can agree with you on that) doesn't square with your opinion that it should be left to the states. It's possible that a state could allow for abortions with no restrictions whatsoever. That would say to you, based on your statements here, that they don't consider the fetus important or of any consequence whatsoever.

So, either the fetus does have a certain moral importance, or it doesn't. It would seem, based on what you've said, that some states will, in essence, get it right in terms of what's moral and correct and others won't. You're tacitly saying that the fact that some states won't is OK with you. That's a contradiction that you've yet to address. If you're going to advocate for a certain moral integrity and worth of the fetus, then whatever it is shouldn't change across state lines. That negates the moral argument entirely.

We agree. You prefer a National Government, governed according to your standards rather than allowing individuals to truly be free.

If all individuals were truly free to do whatever they wanted to do whenever they wanted to do it, then, in my opinion, we would have anarchy instead of freedom.

Socrates1, I have previously mentioned that it is impractical to have different laws in different states regarding such issues as abortion rights and gay marriage. For example, if a gay couple is legally married in one state, then it does not really matter to them if they move to another state, and there are many federal benefits that other married couples take for granted. Is this your idea of freedom?

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/23/4286569/gay-marriage-question-evolves.html

There are now tens of thousands of same-sex couples in six states and the District of Columbia who are legally married where they live. But because the federal government only recognizes marriages between one man and one woman, gay and lesbian married couples are denied some 1,138 federal benefits that derive from marriage. They include such matters as Social Security survivor benefits, health insurance coverage, immigration status, veterans benefits, joint income tax filing and estate tax payments.

You prefer a National Government, governed according to your standards rather than allowing individuals to truly be free.

So, do you prefer a State Government, governed according to your standards rather than allowing individuals to truly be free? Laws restrict your freedom even if they were enacted at the state level. How do state laws allow for more freedom? It seems to me that having different laws for different states results in more laws and less freedom.

You asked my position, and yet when I provided it, you failed to acknowledge it. Is there a reason?

You didn't respond to the points on which I challenged you; you responded to points of your own choosing.

No, I prefer State Government, governed according to the standards of those truly free individuals.

Would you please explain what you think the standards of those truly free individuals should be?

How do you define a truly free individual?

No, I prefer State Government, governed according to the standards of those truly free individuals.

Depends...if you're talking about a completely free individual, I guess it would be one living somewhere by him/herself.

Are you saying that we should be governed by a bunch of loners? Is there a difference between being truly free and completely free?

Thank you socrates, for clarifying the fact that you like your tyranny up close and personal, at the state level, much as ron paul does.

Your position is beyond belief, that you could find ANY kind of support for this crap except thru the most rigid application of purist ideology over any sense of decency, humanity, practicality or human diginity. That you can even attempt to argue for this kind of intimate bodily invasion, by ANY means, just shows how deviod of humanity and how bankrupt your libertarian ideology is, and how utterly inhuman it really is.

I have no doubt, taken your position here, of which side of the argument you would have been on on the issue of slavery - an "institution" enshrined in the Constitution.

Your position is beyond belief, that you could find ANY kind of support for this crap except thru the most rigid application of purist ideology over any sense of decency, humanity, practicality or human diginity. That you can even attempt to argue for this kind of intimate bodily invasion, by ANY means, just shows how deviod of humanity and how bankrupt your libertarian ideology is, and how utterly inhuman it really is

Wow! You are really hung up on the bodily invasion line aren't you? Let me ask you a question..Think about the actual procedure a woman is trying to have performed..then think about the insurance co's and the amount of power they have in our legistature..now, how many bad abortions do you think have been performed? Abortions that have left women infertile because of scar tissue etc...now, I would bet that this "political hot button"has several factors to consider before just jumping to the conclusion that it's soley to punish a woman for making THAT decision. I'm not saying that it's not a factor, it very well could be in some way..but I believe that the medical field and insurance co's are pushing for this.

I can't go to the hospital and tell them I have a collapsed lung and need a Thoracotomy done. They will do chest x rays first...and probably a CT scan and an ultrasound too, and then do the procedure. As technology increases and we have the ability to "see" inside the human body, Doctors tend to want to take a look at what they need to do before just diving on in there. It saves them from lawsuits, it makes insurance co's more money, makes the doctors more money and is actually safer for the patient.

As far as the invasion of a woman's body.....please. What do you think the procedure is?? Nothing is forced on a woman. I would love to skip my annual PAP too, but if I want my BC pills...DAMN!! Got to go get it done. I guess you think that utterly inhumane?

As technology increases and we have the ability to "see" inside the human body, Doctors tend to want to take a look at what they need to do before just diving on in there. It saves them from lawsuits, it makes insurance co's more money, makes the doctors more money and is actually safer for the patient.

Technology has developed and improved constantly over the last century yet I know of no other legislation forcing anyone to under go medical procedures. Why is this any different unless it is politically motivated? Your particular argument along these lines just does not fly.

BTW, the challenge to this law in Texas was brought by doctors .

why is it we can't use it to determine an appropriate time when "life" begins?

I think most everybody would stipulate that the zygote/embryo/fetus is indeed a living thing from the get-go. But ultrasound is not, however, going to tell you what I think you're looking for to settle the abortion debate.

Whether a z/e/f, which is attached to a real person's uterine wall, is also its own human being/person is unknowable with metaphysical certitude. That's the stuff of theology, and theology has no place in a civil, secular society, because it suggests that there are some among us who have the power and wisdom to know such unknowables, and there aren't, or at least we mortal humans don't have the ability to identify them, if they exist.

Therefore, all we're left with is this: If there are two entities whose rights are in conflict, then common sense tells us the rights of the entity that we already know for a fact is a full-fledged person are the ones that prevail. Pretty simple really.

And all of that doesn't mean that the fetus doesn't have value. Of course it does. Most expectant mothers can't wait for the fetus to be born. And not all women who seek abortions are promiscuous or selfish. But even if they were, the Constitution protects all manner of things that most of us might consider to be immoral and wrong. That's why we have a choice.

Wow! You are really hung up on the bodily invasion line aren't you?

It appears that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell may also be hung up on bodily invasion.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/02/va-governor-opposes-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion/1?csp=34news

"Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state," he said in a statement. "No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure."

I find it hard to believe that in this day and age one cannot determine brain waves and things of a similar nature to determine if, and when, we have a semi-conscious "being" inside the womb.

True. I agree. But I don't agree that such a thing is the measure of whether the fetus's rights trump those of the woman carrying it. After all, the woman absolutely does have brain waves. We already know that about her. So what would knowing such a thing about the fetus accomplish? Nothing. It's still attached to a person, a real person with real brainwaves and consciousness, and that person is not obligated to use her body to keep another "person" alive.

Whether or not you participated in such things, many people play music, whisper sweet nothings, etc., because they believe such things do have an effect.

I understand. It's irrelevant to the salient issue about fetal rights.

My original thought for an article, and I may still write it, concerned asking how many people would support, for example, a father taking the last remaining life jacket from a sinking ship, leaving his child to drown.

I would imagine that most people would find that unbelievable, unrealistic and reprehensible. But is the father legally culpable for anything? No. There is a "no duty to rescue" doctrine in this country.

Should he be held responsible? Should he be required to forfeit his own life for the life of his child?

In the eyes of the law, no and no, unless he defied the ship's captain's (or whoever was in charge) orders about who was entitled to the life jackets first. In the eyes of public opinion and parental empathy and instinct, yes and yes.

Yes. I commented on that in one of your other articles, and it's the very simple to understand reason why a woman should have a choice: If a doctor has to choose which life to save, it's going to be that of the mother.

If the fetus came first in the eyes of medicine and others, then I would say that PC would have less substance to their argument. Both lives are important, but the very fact that there is a 'position' taken on which life to save, takes precedence in the logic of abortion..imo.

The only way to resolve the issue is to admit that there are two sets of rights involved, and come up with a solution.

We already have. Some just don't like that solution--that the rights of the woman prevail because she is a "free-standing," autonomous person. The fetus is attached to this free-standing, autonomous person. Common sense should tell us whose rights prevail. It has to be one or the other; there is no compromise that's logically possible.

The "its my body" argument doesn't work if you believe the fetus is a separate entity, and it is those who do, who generally are the ones to whom those who use the phrase are speaking.

A fetus is not a separate entity. It is by literal definition attached to a person's body. Therefore, it is literally, unquestionably, not separate; it is a part of the woman's body.

As to the "father" example. Exactly...might not be legally wrong, but most would suggest there is a certain immoral quality to it......

Absolutely.

.Now, by the same token, if he could have saved the child as well, even at some risk to himself, most people would find the behavior even more reprehensible.

Right. But this analogy is not comparable to woman and fetus anyway. Father and child are indeed two separate persons, entities, human beings--one being weaker than the other, for sure, and requiring the care, help and rescue of the other in order to survive. That is not the situation with woman and fetus; they are not two separate entities as long as the fetus is using the woman's oxygen and blood supply for survival. The father and child situation involves behavior/action; the mother and fetus situation involves literal physiology which exists irrespective of behavior. It functions even when the woman is asleep or unconscious.

I'm suggesting a middle path and a different way to frame the discussion.

That would seem to be a very good goal, yet, I'm not finding one.

If medicine says they will save the mother first over the fetus---that makes a huge statement. That's the same thing as saying the mother is more important. That answers the debate in my mind.

No, "we" haven't, ironically, you suggest we have because you like the solution. Unfortunately, by anyone's measure, the subject is far from closed.

Fair enough. I'll rephrase: The SCOTUS in 1973 decided. I liked their ruling, but many didn't and still don't. Therefore, the many that don't would like it revisited and a different outcome.

Right. But this analogy is not comparable to woman and fetus anyway.

Actually, it is. Understanding that fact, is what seems to be missing from the pro-choice side. You wish to deny that fact, because you don't like the implications, and yet if you do, you can go back to the argument which you presented above. Yes, it is a life, but sometimes a choice must be made.

Yes, a choice must be made. And there is no other logical or moral decider than the person who owns the body and fetus: the pregnant woman herself. After all, that fetus is hers, not yours or mine or the government's. What you're suggesting is that there are others who are better qualified to make this kind of choice for her. Why isn't she one of those who are well qualified? And what defines and determines these "better qualifications"? And who is going to evaluate these qualifications? And what are their own qualifications for such a huge, moral responsibility, not to mention moral insight? Rather presumptuous and self-righteous, don't you think.

I'm suggesting that what those choices are is indeed important.

I agree that the choices are important.

I think the point I'm making is an attempt to frame the discussion from a logical point of view--rather than an emotional one.

Regardless of an emergent situation developing, medicine tells us which life has more value by telling us which life would be saved if they had to make a choice; conversely, 'their' choice substantiates ours'.

In other words, the decision should not be up to the government; it should always be up to the mother. I don't agree with any group suggesting they have a 'responsibility' to protect an unborn child---when the medical community is not going to do that as a first priority. It's a community/government hypocrisy of sorts. Either the mother has more 'value' or the fetus does; can't have it both ways in an emergency.

why should it be up to the Supreme Court to decide,

For this reason: A state may pass a law that restricts or bans abortion. It will be challenged in court, and it's possible it will make its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. Again. And it's possible a new ruling might supercede Roe by stating that it's a states' rights issue. That could happen. But it hasn't happened yet.

Others disagree based on other criteria.

Yes, they do. And if it is decided that there are others who are better qualified to make these kinds of personal decisions, then a precedent will have been set whereby other kinds of personal decisions are better left to better qualified persons. And, it's possible that you yourself might be on the receiving end of a situation where someone other than yourself makes a life-changing decision for you about your own life and your own body, and it's possible you won't like it or agree. Moreover, it might ruin your life or cause devastating grief and pain.

Be careful what you wish for. Precedent in the law can be a real bitch sometimes. It can come back to be used in a way against you that you never dreamed of. Such a precedent wouldn't necessarily be limited to pregnant women, or women in general.

OK. Later. Enjoyed the discussion.

Socrates, 3.21..

The question is, what about when there need be no choice made?

The rationale I see is that medicine is forced to make the general statement of which life is 'utimately' more valuable in their community--the mother; therefore, the general view should be allowed that the mother's life is what comes first in a general statement to her community. ..imo. Therefore, it doesn't matter if an emergent situation surfaces or not, her life and decisions come first. The 'value' quotient is already built-in.

I'm sorry if my last sentence threw my premise. It was just to point out 'why' there is need for a predetermined 'hierarchy of importance,' per se.

True, but my premise isn't about health...it's about the medical community made it clear which life has more value--that relates to choice, in my mind.

I had trouble with Bubblegum error elsewhere, too! Ack! The system thought it was soooo good, that it had to repeat it!!

Well, we will have to disagree, then.

Too bad, I thought it was a very rational conclusion; and likewise, it wouldn't make sense, as I was also pointing out, to force a birth on a woman, then have a complication later, and save the mother. If the birth is important enough to 'force,' then that is the life that should be saved, as it must have a higher 'value' to render being forced on someone.

the fetuses life is of no importance

Well, no I didn't mean to imply that the fetus is of "no" importance---rather, is of "less" importance; the medical community is prioritizing. So, whether the mother delivers or not, the point is that 'she' and her life and decisions, come first, over the life of the baby.

If the medical community, instead, had a policy that the life of the fetus came first, no matter what, then I wouldn't be finding any logic to abortion, legally. Does that make sense?

Again. And it's possible a new ruling might supercede Roe by stating that it's a states' rights issue. That could happen. But it hasn't happened yet.

And then what would be your position?

Answer: What I stated in my #2.16, and I repeat, "I'll be very sad and very disappointed in our SC, but I'll probably advocate for overturning things again, and, in the meantime, be grateful that the states would, hopefully, have the right to keep abortion legal within their respective states."

The question remains whether it is, in fact, a personal decision. That's the point you need to come to agreement on.

It is, imo, a personal decision--that of the woman herself. I am in agreement with myself and others who are of that opinion. So, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying or what you might be asking. That's one thing I'm quite settled on.

And, it's possible that you yourself might be on the receiving end of a situation where someone other than yourself makes a life-changing decision for you about your own life and your own body, and it's possible you won't like it or agree. Moreover, it might ruin your life or cause devastating grief and pain.

Really not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm guessing if two of us need a heart, and there's only one available, a choice will be made. If two hearts are available, I'm assuming we'll each get one.

Of course it's pertinent to what we're talking about and considering, because it goes to precedent. If it were determined that the woman herself is not the appropriate decider as to whether she has an abortion or not, but rather, politicians and/or voters decide that all abortion is illegal, or that it's allowable in certain cases (or whatever their political-majority opinion is), then that precedent can, and most probably would be, used in other situations where personal, private, intimate decisions are taken from the person involved and decided politically.

That's always a concern when considering any law. Lawmaking doesn't--or shouldn't--be considered only in the vacuum of one specific issue at hand, such as abortion, for example. The principles upon which the law is made are principles that can, and most likely will be, applied to other situations--situations that we, as a people, didn't intend, anticipate or want. Precedent is absolutely relevant to what we're discussing here and should always be considered. It's dangerous, irresponsible and not forward-thinking not to.

Medical tests are required all the time, depending on the particular procedure.

Of course. We've already covered this. Medical tests ideally are required based on medical necessity as determined by trained, licensed medical professionals--not politicians for reasons that are politically biased and have nothing whatsoever to do with good medicine. If science, research and good medicine indicate that ultrasounds are medically necessary for the practice of good, safe medicine in the first trimester, then fine. I don't trust politicians to make such determinations, as those who are making such determinations obviously have a political axe to grind about abortion, not medical safety. It's obvious there's bias afoot there--bias against abortion. Good, safe medicine has nothing to do with partisan political majorities. Science is apolitical.

Thanks, hope you didn't think I was being rude.

Not at all.

It's not medically necessary. That's the whole point. I've had three children, never had a vaginal ultrasound. I know people who have terminated pregnancies for various reasons - never had a vaginal ultrasound. To mandate that EVERY woman seeking an abortion undergo this extremely invasive procedure that is medically unnecessary in most cases, is outrageous. The ONLY reason to mandate this, is vengeance.

I can't tell you how many screaming conservative women I know who were appalled at this. These law makers back-peddled in a big way, but it's too late. This will NOT be forgotten. The fact that they tried and almost passed this, speaks volume for how much they really feel about 'smaller government'.

This will NOT be forgotten. The fact that they tried and almost passed this, speaks volume for how much they really feel about 'smaller government'.

I agree. I also think it also speaks volumes about what these politicians think about women and sex. Isn't it interesting that some politicians are OK with abortion in the cases of rape and incest, but not in other cases, as if to say: The value of your fetus is based entirely on whether you chose to have sex or not.

Anybody who thinks about that for just a minute or two ought to be very clear as to what's motivating these politicians: It's a desire to punish women who they think are being careless, irresponsible or promiscuous, or just sexual, not considering for a moment that unwanted pregnancies occur among careful, responsible, moral, righteous and monogamous women too.

There's a very particular stereotype, I'm afraid, in the minds of anti-abortion-rights folks that drives a lot of this. It seems to be an "image" of a woman that they want very much to punish and put in her place because she's "loose" and "immoral." I'm not convinced much of this has to do with their concern for the fetus or its "rights." I think it's pretty clear it's about their resentment of the woman carrying it and what they've surmised about her.

I can't tell you how many screaming conservative women I know who were appalled at this.

I wish that they would scream a little louder. Perhaps they are, but the press just wants to report on the extremist males who support the invasive and unnecessary procedure.

I'm not convinced much of this has to do with their concern for the fetus or its "rights." I think it's pretty clear it's about their resentment of the woman carrying it and what they've surmised about her.

Amen. Just the fact that they don't want their tax dollars going to help women or children proves this is NOT about compassion for the fetus. It's all about CONTROL...just like rape. Just like Islamic fundamentalism. That's the direction they're clearly headed. It's also been stated that this anti-choice stance would never stop at abortion, but would go straight to wanting to outlaw contraception. I didn't particularly believe that until recently. Stunning that in 2012, we're going to have to fight for our right to use birth control. This party is nothing short of terrifying at this point.

Carol, I live in a conservative christian area. They were appalled, but I am willing to bet they're too afraid of being labeled or RINO or...sane....to make a big statement.

If it can be decided by political majorities that a fetus prevails over the woman carrying it who wants to have an abortion, then the same precedent can be used to force people against their will to do other things to save someone else: mandatory tissue typing and other tests for organ donation so that when someone needs a kidney, or else they will die, you can be taken, whether you like it or not, to the nearest operating room and relieved of one of your kidneys. Same goes for making blood donation legally required every 56 days for all those who meet the eligibility requirements, whether you like it or not, and legal consequences if you don't comply. After all, there have been surgeries cancelled due to empty shelves in the blood bank, and people die frequently because they need a kidney and there are millions of us walking around with an extra, spare, healthy kidney. Very same principle: forcing people against their wills to use their bodies, its organs and functions to save others. There is no difference.

These are not meaningless, off-the-wall hypotheticals; these are based on precisely the same principle as forced, continued pregnancy of a woman who did not choose to get pregnant (due to responsible, conscientious use of birth control) but got pregnant anyway, and doesn't want to continue to be pregnant. It's forcing her against her will to use her body to keep the fetus alive and deliver it. And it's shameful and barbaric for a supposedly civilized, enlightened and free society.

If it can be decided by political majorities that a fetus prevails over the woman carrying it who wants to have an abortion, then the same precedent can be used to force people against their will to do other things to save someone else: mandatory tissue typing and other tests for organ donation so that when someone needs a kidney, or else they will die, you can be taken, whether you like it or not, to the nearest operating room and relieved of one of your kidneys

Great points. Agreed. It's a slippery slope.

Technology has developed and improved constantly over the last century yet I know of no other legislation forcing anyone to under go medical procedures

It sounds like you are opposed to Government / State being in the healthcare business. I am too. This is actually a prime example of what you get when healthcare gets "legislated". I completely disagree with any state or Gov having any say in our healthcare decisions. My issue was the whole, "violation and rape" argument. It's ridiculous. If you think sticking a vacuum hose up the vagina is fine (as long as you are getting what you want out of it) but somehow a transvaginal ultrasound before the procedure is compared to rape?? crazy.

I don't know one single person male or female who looks foward to a colonoscopy either, just saying. I look for these "preventative" procedures to be imposed on more and more people..in the name of health and safety of course, as Gov / State gets more involved with our healthcare.

Dreama there's something about consent and medical necessity that you can not seem to get. Forced consent, isn't true consent. MANDATING an unnecessary vaginal penetration is rape. You and your ilk drove myself and now my entire family from the republican party. You are handing the election to Obama.

Thank you for that.

Carol, I live in a conservative christian area. They were appalled, but I am willing to bet they're too afraid of being labeled or RINO or...sane....to make a big statement.

Do they prefer being labeled cowards?

Forced consent, isn't true consent. MANDATING an unnecessary vaginal penetration is rape.

Unnecessary vaginal penetration solely for political reasons is truly hideous.

To be entirely intellectually honest about this, I can't concede that a transvaginal ultrasound is tantamount to rape; after all, you're aren't held down against your will to have one. What it IS, though, is an unnecessary, intrusive and humiliating impediment to abortion access, and clearly unconstitutional in my view. It's similar to running a gauntlet to enter an abortion facility, only far, far worse.

To be entirely intellectually honest about this, I can't concede that a transvaginal ultrasound is tantamount to rape; after all, you're aren't held down against your will to have one.

I agree with that, Truth Sleuth. I think that we should be careful how we use words like "rape". Jon Stewart pointed this out in his segment about the ultrasound bill.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/22/1067204/-Jon-Stewart-s-awesome-segment-ripping-Virginia-GOP-for-ultrasound-bill?via=siderecent

For instance, Virginia Republican Delegate Bob Marshall believes that the health care reform bill put forth by Obama "is not regulation of voluntary commercial intercourse; it is more akin to forcible economic rape".

Right. We can't honestly accuse our adversaries of needless emotionalism if we exploit it ourselves.

I totally disagree. You ARE being forced to consent to penetration...or else. Your vajayjay, as it were, is being held hostage if you want to have a medical procedure. I can't see it as anything other than state sponsored rape. My guess is doctors and ultrasound techs were saying...like HELL.

Carol....I think the regressive women fear they can not express a thought (too loudly) that doesn't match the narrative. I was actually surprised that even they were voicing outrage over this.

You ARE being forced to consent to penetration...or else.

Maybe "forced penetration" would be a better term to use than "rape".

My guess is doctors and ultrasound techs were saying...like HELL.

I hadn't thought of that aspect.

Carol....I think the regressive women fear they can not express a thought (too loudly) that doesn't match the narrative. I was actually surprised that even they were voicing outrage over this.

. . . . which shows just how hideous the requirement would be to most women.

Maybe "forced penetration" would be a better term to use than "rape".

But...forced penetration IS rape. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the motive was, as Truth pointed out, not a medical motive but an effort to control, shame, and take revenge. Rape isn't about sex, it's about control. Legally, rape does not require penetration with a penis, but with any object. This bill was MANDATING forced penetration for the purposes of control. I can't consider forced consent....consent.

. . which shows just how hideous the requirement would be to most women.

Exactly.

I can't consider forced consent....consent.

I can't either. Honestly, I have been going back-and-forth in my mind over whether a forced transvaginal ultrasound should be considered rape. I don't think that it meets the legal definition of rape, which varies by states. Maybe we should just call them "forced medically unnecessary vaginal penetration procedures". That doesn't sound any better than rape, and it's certainly accurate. At any rate, the governor of Virginia has said that he no longer supports the requirement of a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion. This makes me wonder if he even knew what the procedure actually was before all of the protests began.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73171.html

After McDonnell issued his statement on Wednesday, the Virginia state House overwhelmingly approved, 65-32, a watered-down version of the bill that would only require an external ultrasound. It now heads to the state Senate.

If external ultrasounds are required before abortions, then we could call them "unnecessary useless medical procedures solely for political purposes".

This makes me wonder if he even knew what the procedure actually was before all of the protests began.

Nope.

“Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens,” McDonnell said. “It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age.”

“Thus,” he continued, “having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.”

This makes me wonder if he even knew what the procedure actually was before all of the protests began.

He has aspirations to be the VP on the GOP ticket. The uproar over this bill I think played a big part in his decision to back off. Stay under the radar so to speak where extreme social issue positions are concerned (I am sure they feel there will be plenty of time to push the agenda if they happen to get elected).

The old bait and switch has a new lease on life with these guys - see Walker of Wi. and Kasich of Ohio.

Uh...He CLAIMS he didn't know what this procedure entailed. Not even delving into the fact that it's profoundly INCOMPETENT to mandate a procedure with which you are not familiar...without even going into that aspect...he lied.

Rachel Maddow did an excellent piece on this claim last night. The fact that this was an internal, extremely invasive and medically unnecessary procedure, was brought to his attention by the Democratic senator who was responsible for alerting the public to this travesty. AFTER this senator notified his colleagues of what EXACTLY was entailed, they held yet ANOTHER vote..and the republican majority STILL passed it. It wasn't until the media that they love to hate got wind of it, that he backed down and feigned ignorance.

Thankfully we have a media to keep these creeps in check.

If external ultrasounds are required before abortions, then we could call them "unnecessary useless medical procedures solely for political purposes".

Yes. From the party who loves to lecture us about the need for less government intrusion. That's rich.

Uh...He CLAIMS he didn't know what this procedure entailed.

Yeah, he probably thought that they could get the bill passed before anyone knew what it really meant.

AFTER this senator notified his colleagues of what EXACTLY was entailed, they held yet ANOTHER vote..and the republican majority STILL passed it. It wasn't until the media that they love to hate got wind of it, that he backed down and feigned ignorance.

That's an interesting tidbit. I guess he was faced with the choice of being exposed as a liar or thought of as incompetent, and figured the latter was the better option.

Yes, we KNOW you think that a zygote is the same as a living being who can live and survive outside the womb. We simply think you're crazy. And again, we KNOW you don't want YOUR tax dollars to help these fetuses, many of whom may have severe deformities which will require extensive medical care.

Get over yourself. We're not impressed. You might have noticed.

That makes it a political question.

In this country, rights are constitutional issues, not political or statutory ones. And that's why the pro-life side will never achieve what it would like to achieve as long as it's members are barking up the wrong tree.

I quit reading at that point.

In the Bubble. Not surprising. The truth can be hard to swallow.

Constitutionally abortion is a state issue...

In your opinion it is. At present, the law of the land is that it's not. It's possible that could change so that it would be a state issue. I hope not, but it's possible.

It is political. Yes. Wrongly so and misplaced, but, yes, it has become and remains highly political. Unfortunately.

are not political questions the purview of the political institutions?

Questions that are properly within the purview of the political? Yes. This one isn't, imo. Not until Roe is overturned.

As it stands now, states are overstepping their bounds in trying to restrict or hamper access to abortion. They're ahead of themselves. Roe is still the law of the land.

Making a woman subservient to her fetus, against her will and with the force of law behind it, is a nine-month slavery.

Those on the pro-life side tend to think and argue only in terms of the fetus, as if it were the only entity involved. It's not. There's a real, human, full-fledged person under the law that's involved, and it's not the fetus. That real, human, full-fledged person under the law already has constitutional rights that are not supposed to be abridged. No person is ever to be subjugated and bound against his or her will to another "person," whether that "person" be a fetus or an already-born "person."

When, if you so believe, one life is being snuffed out, it is only natural to emphasize that side of the equation.

To those who insist that it's that--murder--then consider it justifiable homicide. Sounds harsh and crude, but semantics really don't change the core issue. One person is not obligated to use his or her body in order to save another person or keep that person alive. It's the reason we don't have mandatory blood donations in this country or mandatory tissue typing for kidney harvesting or mandatory life-risking to save people from burning buildings or deep bodies of water (except for those in emergency positions whose jobs require such things). IOW, there is no "duty to rescue" in a civil, secular society that protects individual rights. We might find such things to be immoral and distasteful as far as our personal moral codes go, but we don't codify those kinds of morals into law.

So, even if you want to consider the fetus a person and even if you want to call it murder or snuffing out of a life, it changes nothing about the rights of the woman carrying it, and her rights prevail.

Yelling back and forth that it is, or is not, a life is counter productive,

Absolutely.

Truth Sleuth

Good to see you again my friend. For the most part I think that you and I have some common thoughts in matters political, being both fiscally conservative and libertarian leaning in other matters.

However, on the subject of abortion we might differ a bit in our thinking and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind considering some of my thoughts on the matter? I'm sorry that I am very late to this discussion, and I hope I'm not retreading on ground that has already been covered, but I was hoping that I might jump in here and address some of the comments starting at your #3.7 and ending with your #4.14.

I think most everybody would stipulate that the zygote/embryo/fetus is indeed a living thing from the get-go.

I think we both agree with the scientific fact that the zygote represents the beginning of a new unique human life or physical being. It is the alpha of that life's existence, and without it and the developmental stages to follow, such life or further existence of that being is not possible. And, if I have read your comments correctly, I think we agree that beyond that scientific fact, the question of whether that being is a "person" falls into the realm of philosophy as opposed to hard science.

Using your logic then as to what is "knowable" with any level of certitude: we know that the Z/E/F is a separate human life or living being in varying stages of development, we don't know when with any level of certainty that life might be considered a "person" by other persons (but we do know that eventually it will be considered a "person" if nature is left to take its course), we know that it is both immoral and unlawful to take another human life, so why do we not err on the side of safety and not take a life that is not our own and might be a "person" regardless of its stage of development?

Delving further into the philosophical question, what is it that makes a person a person, or why is any being afforded "human rights"? What sets humans apart from other animals? I think many philosophers might say it is our ability to reason and make moral choices. Certainly without beings with these abilities there would be no beings capable of respecting "rights" of any kind. Rights would simply not exist.

So if being able to reason and make moral decisions is required for "person-hood", then what of an infant, a toddler, someone with a mental disorder or in a coma? If a person falls into a coma is his person-hood void or do we assume that he was once a person and is therefore always a person even if he cannot reason or make moral choices? In that case, is it really those abilities that make him a person or a valued life, or is it his essence or identity as a human being, simply being part of the human race?

In the case of an infant or toddler, they have never displayed the ability to reason or make moral choices, so are they to be considered non-persons? But we know by scientific observation that this non-person will become a person if left to develop further, unlike a bush or a cat. Clearly there is something unique about the human infant or toddler that differentiates him from other beings. Without any supernatural interference or outside force, person-hood appears to be inherent in the human infant, and manifests itself as he develops. Certainly current law and most public opinion worldwide would recognize that infants and toddlers have a right to life that must be respected, yet they display no greater evidence of "person-hood" than the unborn human life as a zygote, embryo, or fetus. But they do share the exact same potential and clearly observable destiny for person-hood. So given what we KNOW about when human life begins and how it develops, and how laws and morals and rights regarding person-hood have been extended to those who have not yet displayed the attributes of person-hood, is it not reasonable to extend the right to life to the scientifically known beginning of that life?

Therefore, all we're left with is this: If there are two entities whose rights are in conflict, then common sense tells us the rights of the entity that we already know for a fact is a full-fledged person are the ones that prevail. Pretty simple really.

Good point, but if one is to take such a position then should not the "rights in conflict" be the same "rights" for each of the two entities in this comparison? In this case we are talking about the right of the unborn living human to exist and develop naturally, versus other rights of the mother to comfort or convenience, but NOT her right to life or existence. Common sense and modern science actually tells us that BOTH entities can enjoy their human right to life in this situation. Furthermore, what of an infant or toddler? Have they gained your status of full-fledged person? Does a mother have the right then to end the life of her infant because she does not choose to consider it a full-fledged person?

In the case of an infant or toddler, it is morally and legally understood that there is a parental obligation to care for a child and provide its basic necessities for life or for continued existence. In the case of the unborn, nature has ordained that the mother's womb is the primary vehicle for such care and nurturing. It is unfortunate that for 40 weeks this obligation cannot be fully shared by the two people responsible, by their own choices or actions (intended or accidental), for the new life that has been created.

From your #3.43 -

Very same principle: forcing people against their wills to use their bodies, its organs and functions to save others. There is no difference.

While I sympathize very much with this argument, I must point out that there IS a difference. Being forced to give up a kidney is NOT comparable to pregnancy. First, in the case of the kidney transplant it would result from an extreme and rare situation caused by an injury or disease, and not caused in any way by the donor who is being forced to contribute it. Pregnancy on the other hand, in the majority of cases, results from the voluntary choices and actions of two people. The requirement of the fetus to live in the womb for 40 weeks is NOT a rare or extraordinary measure like the kidney transplant, but rather part of a natural process that everyone who has ever been born required. The fetus' use of the woman's uterus might be against her will, but that does not change the fact that it is a necessary natural process to support a separate and distinct life that she helped create, nor negate her parental obligation to care for that life.

To those who insist that it's that--murder--then consider it justifiable homicide. Sounds harsh and crude, but semantics really don't change the core issue.

Homicide is only justifiable by law in self-defense; defense from mortal peril. In this case, and in these modern times, a woman's life is not in mortal peril due to the natural process of pregnancy. If it sounds harsh or crude, perhaps that is because it is.

I'm sorry for my long-windedness (not sure if that's a word). Gotta go for now but I'll check back if you want to discuss further.

I'm sorry Socrates, is your post #4.18 directed to me, or someone else?

Hey, Freewill! Good to see you.

Using your logic then as to what is "knowable" with any level of certitude: we know that the Z/E/F is a separate human life or living being in varying stages of development,

Not exactly the way I would put it. I wouldn't use the word "separate." To me, the z/e/f is a living thing in varying stages of development. (Please don't construe any subtext of disrespect in my using the impersonal word "thing"; I just hesitate to use the word "life" or "being" because those words also have subtexts that suggest something I don't intend. I'm only using living "thing" for lack of a better term. And of course it's living. I trust your intellectual honesty in understanding what I mean. Again, in my view, it's not a separate living thing, which I'll explain below.

we don't know when with any level of certainty that life might be considered a "person" by other persons (but we do know that eventually it will be considered a "person" if nature is left to take its course)...

Yes. Agreed. In my view and in the view of many others, a fetus has no rights under the Constitution as a person--only after its born. In the womb, it's not a separate living thing. It's part of a living thing. It will eventually be separate--at birth. But until then, only the woman carrying it is a "free-standing" person.

Birth is a logical point at which to recognize legal personhood, as the mother's biological functions are no longer required at that point to keep the fetus alive. (And I said biological functions, not behavioral and judgment functions involved in the caregiving that's required for a little person who can't care for him/herself; two entirely different concepts.)

...we know that it is both immoral and unlawful to take another human life...

Right, if you mean taking the life of another human being, already born, whether one second old or 110 years old or older. Yes. Agreed.

...so why do we not err on the side of safety and not take a life that is not our own and might be a "person" regardless of its stage of development?

As I said before, I don't consider the z/e/f to be a "separate" living thing. A z/e/f is a continuation of living things inside the human body--male and female. There is no starting point of when "life begins"; it continues via the biological process of mating (again, excuse the impersonal word), union of sperm cell and ovum, and then all the various biological processes and changes that occur within a person's body over a period of nine months before birth. There is no "start" to a life inside the womb (otherwise, identical twins and other identical multiples would be only one person--the person that "started" at conception but before cell separation!). There is certainly the start of a zygote, but not of a human being in the sense of "person."

Let me quote the theologian/philosopher Paul Simmons about not "erring on the side of" the fetus:

...as a definition of personhood for constitutional protections in a pluralistic society, the zygote-as-person rationale is untenable in the extreme.

As John Rawls put it, definitions for public policy "must be supported by ordinary observation and modes of thought . . . which are generally recognized as correct." Abstract metaphysical speculation has its rightful place in theology; but it must finally be rejected as inappropriate to the logic necessary for democratic rule...

...That many people believe that a zygote is a person does not alter the fact that the attribution of personhood to a zygote is based on metaphysical speculation, not scientific fact...The facts "provide no empirical basis for the thesis that the person of the child which the zygote will become is already present in the zygote." In effect, to ban abortion is to base law on religious or sectarian opinion contrary to the guarantees against establishment of religion...

-- excerpted from "Religious Liberty and Abortion Policy: Casey as 'catch 22'" by Paul D. Simmons. Journal of Church and State. Volume: 42. Issue: 1. 2000.

IOW, we already know for a fact that a woman is a full-fledged person under the law; we can only speculate about the status of a z/e/f. Therefore to err on the side of the z/e/f and against the woman who wants an abortion is to deny the woman the rights that are ALREADY hers.

More later...

...the rights that are ALREADY hers...and about which there is NO SPECULATION as to her personhood, only metaphysical certainty.

We can put this issue before voters and/or legislatures, but the philosophical principles upon which this country is based--individual rights--and existing case law continue to support the right to an abortion, regardless of what the particular political whims of voters and politicians are at any given moment, and for all the reasons I've already expounded upon in every one of my posts on this article. So when Simmons refers to "democratic rule," the principles he noted are the ones that will determine if the decisions made by democratic rule are in keeping with the rights of the pregnant woman who is indeed, obviously, a full-fledged person under the law. No speculation about it.

I've said in no uncertain terms, Soc--maybe you missed it--that I think the pro-choice side (myself included) has been remiss in not considering the moral importance of the fetus and, by extension, the moral implications of abortion. I think terms like "clump of tissue and cells" and my use of "justifiable homicide" is, well frankly, hurtful to the other side. I've learned that. That's a good thing that happens in discourse: when you open your mind and realize you're wrong about something, or, at least, you can be a little more persuasive by changing the words you use.

If there's something in particular about that morality, please ask and we can discuss it. However, in the meantime, all of the arguments I've put forth so far continue to support my position as I've laid it out here. And I've done so in pretty minute philosophical and constitutional detail.

If you want to change my mind, you're going to have to be persuasive in your own argument. You've scrutinized mine to death--a good thing. And I'll continue to answer questions to the very best of my ability. But, at some point, to be credible, you're going to have to make your own case if you want to change any minds around here.

should not the "rights in conflict" be the same "rights" for each of the two entities in this comparison?

That's impossible. If others feel that it's their right to be (symbolically) in the woman's bedroom, bathroom, doctor's examining room and/or surgical suite (by way of the ballot box or their local legislature) advising her on her rights and that of her fetus, and she wants an abortion and you want the fetus to continue to live inside her, then how are her rights equal to those that you're claiming for her fetus?

In that conflict, one is going to prevail and the other is going to lose and be denied its rights.

In that conundrum, it seems logical whose rights should prevail.

There is no way that anybody is going to adequately explain to that woman how they know better for her fetus (and for her) than she does and how continuing her pregnancy, whether she likes it or not, is the way it has to be because she is not as morally "good" as those advising her or wishing to put her rights up to a political vote.

And that brings me back to where I think the argument begins and ends: Her rights are not negotiable or amendable or abridgable by political whims. That's why basic rights issues are not within the purview of the states. They're a constitutional issue. I'm waiting for Soc to make his case as to how and why that's not so, other than he doesn't agree with the 14th Amendment. Well, using his own argument: Others do agree with it, and it's the law or the land.

Soc, I never shy away from a good debate or a challenge to my beliefs or positions, but, forgive me if this is insulting--I don't mean to be--I simply choose not to argue to the absurd. It's a fallacy in logic in and of itself. For example, asking what it is that we base our assumption on that a pregnant woman is indeed a real person (4.24) is, I think by most reasonable and logical accounts, absurd. I think basic intellectual honesty requires us not to engage in such things. And I don't. Sorry.

Thanks for responding at #4.20 TS!

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to be able to discuss a subject like this in a calm, logical, and reasonable manner, and without my points being twisted into something they are not. I realize that you intend to write some more and address some of my other points, but I thought I might address what you have written so far if you don't mind. Sorry.... my time and access to NV is rather spotty.

I don't consider the z/e/f to be a "separate" living thing. A z/e/f is a continuation of living things inside the human body--male and female. There is no starting point of when "life begins"; it continues via the biological process of mating (again, excuse the impersonal word), union of sperm cell and ovum, and then all the various biological processes and changes that occur within a person's body over a period of nine months before birth. There is no "start" to a life inside the womb (otherwise, identical twins and other identical multiples would be only one person--the person that "started" at conception but before cell separation!). There is certainly the start of a zygote, but not a human being in the sense of "person."

Most biologists and embryologists will agree that the sperm and ovum are parts of the father and mother, carrying the specific DNA unique to those individuals. It is a generally accepted scientific fact that upon their joining a new unique being (or beings, in the case of twinning) is created in the zygote with its own specific DNA and destiny to become a new human life or lives if you wish. The zygote is in no way a continuation of the sperm or ovum, as left alone the sperm and ovum would NOT become a new and unique being or set of beings. I have posted information HERE indicating the scientific ontological consensus on when a new life or lives begin, separate and distinct from the parents. The "thing" or "being" that has come into existence has scientifically observable cell structures and an observable destiny or purpose, and is indeed "living" as you have already conceded. Beyond that, as you indicate above, the discussion moves into the realm of philosophy and is no longer based on biology. The new living tissue is human in all respects yet some hesitate to call it a "human being" in the sense that it is not a person. We have gone from the scientifically objective to the philosophically subjective with a biological human life or existence in the balance. Please see my discussion about that philosophical "person-hood" debate, and the comparison of apples to apples in the "rights" of the entities involved in my previous post.

As to your position on the Z/E/F not being a separate "thing" or "being" (the nomenclature you have selected does not bother me in the least and I hope mine does not bother you), I tend to disagree for the following reasons:

1. At the point of fertilization science has definitely shown that a separate human life form has been created with its own unique DNA and individual or unique destiny.

2. While I agree that the Z/E/F shares fluids and some supporting tissues with the mother, it is still a separate living being. In other words it is not part of the mother in that it is not necessary for the life support or permanent physical function of the mother like her other organs or tissues. Most scientists and embryologists will agree that biologically the Z/E/F is a separate living human organism.

3. The Z/E/F is not a permanent part of the mother regardless of how the pregnancy ends.

It is NOT the mother's body, or even part of the mother's body, but it is dependent on the mother's body for it natural development and continued existence. I think I covered my opinion on the philosophical ramifications of this in my last post.

That many people believe that a zygote is a person does not alter the fact that the attribution of personhood to a zygote is based on metaphysical speculation, not scientific fact.

Yes... and so is the attribution of "non-personhood". Attribution is completely dependent on the one doing the attributing, and the various reasons be they moral, ethical or legal. Hence my argument that we base the decision on the only scientifically observable point where a new human life, distinct from its parents occurs.

Birth is a logical point at which to recognize legal personhood, as the mother's biological functions are no longer required at that point to keep the baby alive. (And I said biological functions, not behavioral and judgment functions involved in the caregiving that's required for a person who can't care for him/herself; two entirely different concepts.)

Shall I take you to mean then that you do not agree with the decision in Roe v. Wade, and that rather than allowing abortion up to the point of "viability", it should be allowed right up to the point of birth? If this is the case, and the mother has carried the fetus for this long, what has happened to the basis of the moral/philosophical arguments you have made about the rights of the mother compared to the right to life of the fetus? If the child is fully capable of living outside the womb 5 or 10 minutes before it is born, on what moral ground does the mother or the doctor's right to choose to end that life stand? The concerns you had about the mother's rights to comfort and convenience and to reject the effects on her body are no longer in play as they have already passed. I simply see this stand as inconsistent, but perhaps you have another view that I am missing.

Again, thank you very much for this discussion, and I look forward to your thoughts on the other points brought up in my post at #4.17.

Wow! I took a break in my writing for dinner and look what I missed! I'm also the slowest "hunt and peck" typist in the world.

TS - I see that you already responded to some of my other points and I'm sorry I missed them. I'll take a look at them and get back to you tomorrow if that's ok.

TS at your #4.26

That's impossible. If others feel that it's their right to be (symbolically) in the woman's bedroom, bathroom, doctor's examining room and/or surgical suite (by way of the ballot box or their local legislature) advising her on her rights and that of her fetus, and she wants an abortion and you want the fetus to continue to live inside her, then how are her rights equal to those that you're claiming for her fetus?

Perhaps my point was not clear. I said nothing of the rights of those who wish to advise a woman with respect to her rights or even her philosophical stance on life or person-hood. You were talking about two entities who's rights might be in conflict, meaning the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the distinct living thing (which can be scientifically proven to be human) that she is carrying. My point was, that if one is to be honest about when that new human life scientifically comes into existence, then in your specific example we are comparing a known LIFE, and that life's right to exist, with the rights of the known mother to comfort and convenience, but NOT specifically her right to life or right to exist. In either case, these "rights" are philosophical constructs. Even so, does it not make logical sense that although a philosophical concept, that the human right to life itself would be primary among such rights? With respect to your specific statement, I contend that BOTH the mother and the human life she is carrying have equal rights to life, or to exist, and that is the ONLY right we should be comparing if there are two entities whose rights are in conflict in this matter.

There is no way that anybody is going to adequately explain to that woman how they know better for her fetus (and for her) than she does and how continuing her pregnancy, whether she likes it or not, is the way it has to be because she is not as morally "good" as those advising her or wishing to put her rights up to a political vote.

I wouldn't want to suggest that I know what is better for her, but what she might be intending for her fetus certainly can't be good for the life or continued existence of that fetus, agreed? Perhaps I wouldn't be able to adequately explain what is good for the fetus, and that what she carries within her is the same type of living developing human being that we all once were, but I hope you wouldn't mind if I tried. I don't think it is a matter of whether she is as "morally good" as me or anyone else, it is a matter of gently suggesting she look at the situation in a different light, and consider all the options including adoption.

I, unlike some who favor the pro-life stance, do not wish to force my morals or philosophies on others, but rather I wish to educate and inform as many as I can about the objective facts behind the science of embryology. It is clear to me the subject of abortion is very much mired in the subjective philosophies of "person-hood", "morality" and "rights" and so I have studied these concepts as well and feel that there are some inconsistencies that need to be made known. So here I am. I have no illusions about changing every mind on this issue, I will settle for just one at a time.

More objective analysis of my position in this matter HERE, if anyone is interested. Also, a very good epistemic argument is presented HERE, if the objective facts based on embryological science are still not compelling enough. Interesting and certainly worth a read regardless of one's position on this subject.

Freewill, when I talked about "advising" the woman as to what she should or should not do about her unwanted pregnancy, I was not speaking literally. I was speaking symbolically as I said in my 4.26. What I meant by that was putting their opinions about what she should do about her unwanted pregnancy up for a vote. I find that unconscionable that others have any say-so whatsoever about what she should or should not do about her unwanted pregnancy. And I hasten to add that that in no way should be construed to mean that the fetus has nor value or moral importance. Of course it does. Most pregnancies are anxiously awaited and the little persons that enter our lives are more treasured and cherished than anything else in the world. I would imagine for most women, whether to have an abortion or not is not the casual, cavalier decision that many seem to presume that it is.

I understand the points you were making. But the fact remains that you're advocating only for the rights of the fetus. The woman who doesn't want to carry her pregnancy to term is the one who's being ignored. If the fetus does have rights, then there is NO way, logically, that its presumed right to life can be squared with the rights of the woman carrying it who wants to terminate her pregnancy. None. Therefore, in that situation, the woman's rights must prevail because she IS a person under the law whose rights ARE guaranteed under the Constitution.

Even if the Supreme Court were to declare that a fetus is a person under the law, it wouldn't obviate the right to an abortion. The woman has a right not to have her body used to keep another person alive. If that's determined not to be the case, then we should expect to have it mandated with the full force of the law that everyone submit to medical tests to determine if they can donate blood and kidneys and bone marrow when needed, and if they refuse to use their bodies to keep others alive, then they will suffer the full force of the consequences of the law. I prefer not to live in such a barbaric society. Such intrusions on the "proper" use of one's body should be horrifying to anybody who values freedom and personal privacy and control over their bodies, especially when it comes to their most intimate bodily functions that literally change their lives forever, such as pregnancy.

And, thank you and everybody here for such a good, interesting, civil--and challenging!--discussion.

Thank you as well for the challenging discussion TS. I hope you do not go away from this discussion thinking that I am simply ignoring the rights of the woman in my effort to advocate for the life of the human being she carries. That was not my intent.

Like you acknowledging the value of the human fetus, I too have tried to acknowledge the value of the woman's rights in this matter, and present a logical and reasoned case for why I believe the living human fetus has an overriding right to life or to exist. I would be remiss if I did not point out that many, while acknowledging the "value" of the fetus, still tend to ignore or attempt to philosophically reason away its right to life or to exist. If the fetus has "value" then certainly it's continued existence is worthy of consideration especially since allowing it to exist will not remove the right to exist from it's mother, or frankly impact ANY of her rights with malicious intent or on a permanent basis.

I have very much considered the mother's rights in my arguments although perhaps not as clearly as I had hoped, and perhaps without acknowledging their value and importance. For that I apologize. A women most definitely has the right to choose what is done to her OWN body or how it is used. Nobody has the right to consciously and maliciously use her body against her will, or with intent to do her harm, or with purposeful intent to use her organs to keep themselves alive at her peril.

That being said, I feel, and I hope you will concede, that in most cases the mother's right to choose what happens to her body began with her choice to engage in the actions that resulted in the creation of a new life. Regardless of the precautions taken, the risk is always there and is knowable before those actions take place. As such she is at least co-responsible for a new life, and the natural process that takes place within her during the first 40 weeks of the development of that life. If she is not, then who is? My point here is that the life she now carries IS scientifically known to NOT be her own, and it was not put there of its own will it was put there as a result of HER will. It is not an aggressor or trespasser within her, it was very much invited and in all cases is not there with violent or malicious intent against her body, nor there to use her organs in such a manner that would leave her life in peril. As such, comparisons to, or logic implying that pregnancy is akin to, the aggressive and forced harvesting of blood or organs (i.e. by the State) against her will to keep another human being alive strikes me as simply not intellectually honest. Pregnancy is a completely natural process through which EVERY human being must go in order to be born and live out a full life. Without seeing this important natural process to its conclusion, none of us will ever develop to a point where we can contemplate the philosophical concepts of morality or "rights" in the first place.

Again TS, thank you very much for this discussion. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree for now, but you have certainly given me some things to think about, and I hope you feel the same way. It has been a pleasure, and I will see you around the vines.

the mother's right to choose what happens to her body began with her choice to engage in the actions that resulted in the creation of a new life...

But that doesn't include the desire to be pregnant. If a woman responsibly and conscientiously uses the most effective birth control method available, each and every time, without fail, she obviously did NOT intend to get pregnant. No birth control method is 100% effective; even tubal ligations and vasectomies have a minute failure rate, but a failure rate nevertheless. The only solution to what you're suggesting is for women never, ever, to have sex unless they're prepared to possibly get pregnant, or, submit to a hysterectomy for birth control purposes, and I don't think any responsible surgeon would agree to that kind of major surgery for that purpose.

My point here is that the life she now carries IS scientifically known to NOT be her own,

How so? Where is the scientific evidence to prove this?

and it was not put there of its own will it was put there as a result of HER will. It is not an aggressor or trespasser within her, it was very much invited...

It obviously wasn't invited if the woman used birth control. What happened was that the sperm cell and/or ovum was able to pass through the "locked gate," so to speak that birth control is designed to be. And locks can be compromised through no fault of the person doing the locking. And saying such a thing shouldn't be construed as my considering the fetus to be a "burglar." It's not. There's no "fault" here--on the part of the woman practicing responsible birth control or on the part of sperm cells or ova, which have no consciousness or ability to make a decision to "break in" to where they're currently unwanted. That's no reflection on women, cells, zygotes, embryos or fetuses. No one or thing is to "blame" and therefore there is no justification for punishment (requiring the woman to continue her pregnancy whether she likes it or not).

and in all cases is not there with violent or malicious intent against her body, nor there to use her organs in such a manner that would leave her life in peril.

It's not necessarily just a matter of physical or health-related peril. It's a matter of not having to submit to the moral opinions of others as to what one should do in the privacy of her home and doctor's office or whether the fetus is equal in personhood to her. We don't know that it's equal--not with scientific or moral/religious certainty; matters of morals and religions are subjective. All we can do is speculate about the status of the fetus. That's the stuff of religion, which is fine for one to practice, but we have no right to force others to agree with and practice our own beliefs. We don't have to speculate about the status of the woman carrying it. We already know for a fact that she already has guaranteed rights regarding her privacy and intimacy of her body and its functions.

comparisons to, or logic implying that pregnancy is akin to, the aggressive and forced harvesting of blood or organs (i.e. by the State) against her will to keep another human being alive strikes me as simply not intellectually honest.

I have to disagree. The salient principle is very simple: forcing someone to do with his or her body something they don't want to do, whether it be continue a pregnancy or submit to a kidney donation, and with that mandate having the full force of the law behind it. The principle--a "duty to rescue"--is the same. There may be a moral duty to rescue--I think we probably all could agree with that--but there is not, nor should there ever be in a free society, a legal duty to rescue. People's bodies are not the domain of governments or political majorities; people's bodies are as private, personal and intimate of a possesion as there is. For the government to declare that the fetus's rights override the rights of the person carrying it is a religious/moral belief, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from "establishing" that "religion" or any religion.

TS, thank you very much for this discussion. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree for now, but you have certainly given me some things to think about, and I hope you feel the same way. It has been a pleasure, and I will see you around the vines.

Thank you so much, Freewill, and the feeling is mutual. It's always a pleasure. I know we agree to disagree, but if we can at least talk about these things, we can understand each other better and maybe some of our misconceptions about each other (the other side of the debate, that is) can be dispelled. That's a good thing.

I know we agree to disagree, but if we can at least talk about these things, we can understand each other better and maybe some of our misconceptions about each other (the other side of the debate, that is) can be dispelled. That's a good thing.

And with that I am in total agreement my friend.

My point here is that the life she now carries IS scientifically known to NOT be her own,

How so? Where is the scientific evidence to prove this?

Perhaps my sentence was not structured correctly and was missing the word "life" at the end. The life she is carrying is scientifically known to not be her own life. The science of embryology proves that it is most definitely alive and that it is a separate living human "being" from that of either parent. I believe I have presented significant evidence of this in the link in my post at #4.28 and then also in my first link in #4.32. Again, tending to keep my position based on objective science as opposed to subjective philosophies.

Going back to your #4.20

...That many people believe that a zygote is a person does not alter the fact that the attribution of personhood to a zygote is based on metaphysical speculation, not scientific fact...The facts "provide no empirical basis for the thesis that the person of the child which the zygote will become is already present in the zygote."

These statements by your source Mr. Paul D. Simmons appear to fail the test of logic for several reasons. First, he fails to take into consideration that the concept of "person-hood" is itself metaphysical speculation and not based on scientific fact. So to say that the fetus is not human or has no right to further existence because it is not a "person" is to be every bit as speculative as one who maintains that it is a "person" from the beginning of its existence. Please read more about your source Mr. Simmons and his definition of "person-hood" and you will see that HE is the one who bases his entire argument on metaphysical speculation and a quasi-theological perspective as to when a human being has theoretically achieved the status of "in the image of God". I believe I have already covered the slippery slope scenarios resulting from such arbitrary definition of "person-hood" in previous posts.

Second, to say that there is no empirical evidence that the child the zygote will become is present in the zygote is to completely ignore the billions of people walking the earth at this very instant. The moment of existence and the development of a human being's life is scientifically observable and has been documented in medical journals and thousands of embryological studies. Certainly that human's personality, ability to reason and moral outlook (the stuff that some regard as necessities of "person-hood") are pliable as he/she develops but that is simply part of human development and has nothing with actually being a living biological human. I believe it was Philosopher Robert George who said it best:

Moreover, one grows in the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a valuable human being. My thoughts and my feelings, indeed all of my functional abilities, cannot exist unless I first exist. I can exist without them, as, for example, when I am sleeping, but they cannot exist without me.

You stated:

We don't have to speculate about the status of the woman carrying it. We already know for a fact that she already has guaranteed rights regarding her privacy and intimacy of her body and its functions.

As I mentioned before, this is a very good point. But it is itself based on three very speculative premises:

1. The unproven assumption that the "status", or "value" of the fetus, or its deserving of the right to exist, should be based on the subjective philosophy of "person-hood", when many have made the scientifically objective and logical case that it should be based on the biological facts as they relate to the new human existence and nature of the new life as uniquely human. The "status" of the fetus is only "speculative" to those who wish to make it speculative and discount the embryological science.

2. The assumption that a woman's rights to her own privacy, body and its functions somehow entitle her to end a life of another human being that is NOT her own life simply because of its natural location and dependency on her.

3. That a human being's right to life or to exist is entirely dependent on some entirely subjective assignment "status". I believe I have already discussed the slippery slope fallacies inherent in this argument.

I have to run for now and get ready to coach the first practice of the spring Babe Ruth baseball league season. Although my sons are past this age group, I am excited about this years team and look forward to kicking off the season.

Talk to you later.

Hi, Freewill.

Just a quick comment on...

he fails to take into consideration that the concept of "person-hood" is itself metaphysical speculation and not based on scientific fact

Actually Simmons' context was not that at all. The context of personhood derives from "all persons born..." (14th Amendment), as in you and me. It is obvious, beyond even a shadow of a doubt, that you and I are indeed real persons, already born--"stand-alone" human beings. You and I exist in the here-and-now as autonomous entities. That's what he meant--and what the law interprets--as "personhood." In that context, there is no question a to the personhood of you or me or the pregnant woman in the woman-versus-fetus conflict.

...The fetus obviously does not qualify for that interpretation of "personhood."

...The fetus obviously does not qualify for that interpretation of "personhood."

Sure....but note your own words...."for that interpretation of person-hood". This is a speculative, subjective opinion NOT based on any scientific fact. A late term fetus, an infant, a toddler or young child, or a mentally handicapped person, or a person in a coma, also do not fit his definition of person-hood. So are we to understand that a mother can choose to terminate the life of an infant or a toddler if she feels that they are a burden to her or her rights?

In Paul D Simmon's Personhood, the Bible and the Abortion Debate, he defines a "person" or "human being" thusly:

A person,or human being, has capacities of reflective choice, relational response, social experience, moral perception, and self-awareness.

By this definition one can imagine that he might support the mother's right to end her child's life up to the age of kindergarten or beyond if she feels that her right's are being compromised by the burden of raising that child. Mr. Simmons argues against the scientific facts that a zygote is "human" and it is a "being" distinct from it mother with nothing but metaphysical speculation that can easily be shown to be a slippery slope or informal logical fallacy, certainly bordering on the absurd IMO.

To try and disprove what he calls the "genetic definition of person-hood" he goes on to invoke the purely hypothetical and theoretical case of human cloning, claiming that if one is to accept the idea that the zygote is a human "person" then one must regard every body cell that contains DNA as a separate human being. The argument is absurd on its face as human cloning (itself a speculative concept) would simply be an unnatural process of replication of human DNA that was already produced by a previous natural conception and was at the beginning of its existence present in a zygote. It does not negate the fact that the zygote is a being, it is living, and it is human... in fact it proves it.

In this paper he spends a great deal of effort arguing against several theological and scriptural positions on this subject, yet then he himself invokes such positions in defense of his purely philosophical theory. He says:

The biblical portrait of person centers on the notion of the image of God, which is not a physical likeness but a similarity of powers or abilities. These powers are spiritual, personal, relational, moral, and intellectual. Of all the creatures fashioned by God, only people are able to relate to the Creator by obedience or rebellion.

and

To be a person is to be a choice maker, reflecting God’s own ability to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong.

and

The biblical portrait of a person, therefore, is that of a complex, many-sided creature with godlike abilities and the moral responsibility to make choices. The fetus hardly possesses those characteristics.

....And neither do other human beings at later stages of development like a late term fetus, infants, toddlers, the mentally infirm, those who are in deep sleep or in a coma. If this is truly his position then he must be prepared to support the killing of these humans as well by virtue of their "non-personhood", or their not having yet attained his arbitrary level of development worthy of "person-hood" or his theoretical "Biblical portrayal of person".

If the logic supporting such an interpretation of "person-hood" is not sound then the interpretation itself is unsound in my opinion. And I feel it is better then to fall back on what is known about the scientific nature of a human being from the moment of its existence and throughout its development via scientific observation, or the study of embryology.

Hi, Freewill. I'll get to your points about personhood. But in the meantime, if you'd indulge me and read the following and consider it.

This is a hypothetical, but obviously believable and true-to-life, I think. I'm a good person, or try to be. I try to lead a moral life, based on my own personal moral code. I try to be honest. I'm law-abiding. I'm a good citizen. And I'm a good wife to my husband and am and have always been true, faithful and monogamous with him and him only.

Let's say I'm in my mid-40s and he in his mid-60s and getting ready to retire. Even though we've got one child in college and we're also caring for elderly parents in other states, which is a responsibility and takes a lot of our time, we do it gladly while at the same time looking forward to a life of retirement that we've been planning for and anxiously awaiting for a long time. I unexpectedly find myself pregnant even though I use an effective birth control method conscientiously and responsibly each and every time, without fail (they do have failure rates; they aren't 100% effective). At this stage in our lives, we simply don't want to have a child, nor do I want to go through a nine-month pregnancy in my mid-'40s. I also, incidentally, have a history of Down syndrome in my family among women who've conceived in their 40s. But even without a Down syndrome fetus, I still don't want to have another child, period.

With all of that in mind, do you really think that you, being the nice and respectful person that you obviously are, could look me in the face and tell me that you think you know better than I do as to what's morally the right thing to do, not to mention what's the right thing for us--my husband and I--to do in general with our lives and our plans? Not yours or anybody else's--ours. I don't think so. Same goes for politicians, judges, voters--whoever it is that you think should be the decider of these things. How can they, you, anybody presume to be in a position to be a better or more qualified moral judge than I am or a bettter or more qualified judge in general as to what's right in terms of my life and my husband's life and our private life together as husband and wife?

I think people on the pro-life side forget that there are real, live, good and decent, moral persons involved in these tough decisions who are every bit as qualified to be the judge of what's right or wrong or what's the best thing to do or not to do. The fact that some would take that personal and private choice away from my husband and me and in so doing tacitly proclaim that they are better qualified to make such decisions is, to me, unconscionable. Could you really in good conscience support the notion of, in essence, forcing me, forcing us, against our wishes and better judgment, to continue a pregnancy when we didn't want to continue? Can you see how much resentment that would cause, especially when I think I'm just as qualified of a moral judge, and an otherwise good judge of things pertaining to my most personal life and my life with my husband and our life and private choices together?

Why should I respect anybody who would presume to force their choices and decisions upon me, especially in a situation that's already stressful and emotional and certainly not a "no big deal" kind of thing? Why would any decent person foist such an unwanted intrusion into our personal lives?

Does any of that make sense? Isn't it the case that there is no mortal human on earth who knows better than others what's "right" when it comes to a woman's body and its most intimate conditions that literally change her life, or a couple's own very private lives and plans together?

Thanks for reading that. Look forward to your comments.

And another note regarding Soc's position that the legality/availability of abortion should be left to the states: Another unlikely but at least possible problem is that theoretically all 50 states could outlaw abortion, making abortion unavailable to American women who want them.

That's where the constitutional rights issue comes into play and where the argument regarding individualism and the privacy that's inherent in the very definition of individualism comes into play--iow, the right to control one's own body and its functions, specifically reproductive freedom as opposed to reproductive state-control.

If all 50 states outlaw abortion, then a woman has no rights or control over her own body in this country if she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be pregnant or intend to get pregnant. Her only option is no sex, ever, or hysterectomy. That's unacceptable when it comes to her right not only to have an abortion, but also when it comes to her right to have sex when she wants to and with the right to deal with the consequences of it in private, as well as the rights of those who are qualified to perform abortions and want to perform them but are denied that right.

That's the problem with states having the right to abridge basic freedoms: It's ostensibly possible that all 50 states could do away with the entire Bill of Rights. What value does the Bill of Rights have if it can be dispensed with so easily and based purely on the political whims of the times.

You still are unable to comprehend that everyone doesn't see things as you do.]

You're wrong. So, please stop mispresenting my position. You're projecting, and projecting is an emotional response not a rational argument.

Because I DO indeed comprehend the fact that others DON'T see things as I do, then, therefore, I want a society that accommodates their wishes and beliefs (and that ostensibly includes MY beliefs since I could be on the minority end of things). YOU, on the other hand, obviously, DO NOT want that, so please so pretending that you're advocating rights and equality. You've proved and demonstrated with your words and arguments here that you do not. Stop pretending otherwise and insulting the intelligence of those who know what the legal definitions and requirements are for such things.

Hello Truth Sleuth. This is in response to your very good post at #4.40

I agree that the hypothetical situation you have painted is possible, and that it would be an extremely difficult situation to face. Absolutely this is true, and in no way do I wish to even hint that the people involved in that situation are otherwise immoral or incapable of making good decisions if given all the available information and scientific facts.

I do not want this to sound dismissive or cavalier about your argument, but the entire scenario you have painted, while emotionally charged and very heartfelt, already makes the unproven assumption that the Z/E/F involved is not a human being and is therefore not entitled to any consideration in this matter morally, or possibly legally in the future. In other words, the scenario completely ignores both the objective science-based arguments, and the arguments that disprove the logic of the very subjective philosophical assumptions as they pertain to "person-hood". Begging the question then with this sort of emotionally charged argument does not make the root assumption valid, but is often designed rather to cast aspersion (argument ad hominem) on the morality/decency of those who might have reasoned logical opinions (what you call "judgements" or "imposed force") as to the "right thing to do" in this matter.

In much the same way that you expressed concern about the pro-lifer's view of the decency and morality of those caught in such situations, I feel that people on the pro-choice side sometimes forget that there are real live, good and decent, moral persons involved in tough societal decisions that are good for the innocent lives that aren't given a decision in this matter at all, and perhaps good for humanity as a whole.

Certainly if scientists can prove that the Z/E/F is a new being distinct from its parents, it is living, and it is human (all of which I believe embryologists have done), and society by and large agrees that it is unacceptable to take another human life independent of the arbitrary assignment of its value or worth, then there being laws created to disallow abortion (again) will be no more of a moral imposition or display of force than the laws against murder, drunk-driving, robbery, or child molestation. Furthermore, there are already other laws against prostitution and drug use, for example, that limit what a person can do with their body. So the thought of society setting moral standards is not something that is foreign, shocking, or as you say "unconscionable". It is not a matter of forcing one's morals on another, or being more qualified to make moral decisions, but rather society limiting one's right to negate the rights of another, the ultimate being the taking of another's life. Clearly a parent is not allowed by law to kill their newborn infant for the reasons you have outlined in your scenario. So if science proves that a Z/E/F is every bit as much a human being as that infant, then what is so shocking or destructive of parental rights about that law being extended to the point that human life came into existence? Certainly one does not have a "personal choice" to take another life because one can "reason" that it is "the right thing" or "right decision" for oneself or one's spouse.

A couple other points about the hypothetical scenario you have painted, and again this is not meant to be callous or condescending, but simply a collection of reasonable thoughts:

1. The couple in this example could have easily made some responsible choices that would have avoided the conception of a new human life. One or both could have had a simple medical procedure performed to ensure that conception was not possible. Since they were monogamous, they could have avoided sex during fertile periods. How is it that the Z/E/F must be held responsible, by penalty of death, for the irresponsibility of its parents?

2. The couple could accept responsibility for the new life they have created (even if accidentally), and give the child up for adoption thus limiting the long term impact on their lives and plans. There are hundreds of thousands of people looking to adopt and give a child a loving home and a chance at a life and plans of their own.

To answer your specific question, I could not look you in the eye and tell you that I think I know better than you do as to what is morally the right thing to do, or what is right for you or your husband and your lives and plans. But I could look you in the eye and make an effort to explain what is right for the new life you have created, as clearly life is superior to death, existence to non-existence. We don't need "morals" to make that determination. I could look you in the eye and ask you to consider your responsibility for the life of the human being that you have created and attempt to explain the science behind its existence and development so that perhaps you might give it some more thought and consider its value in something other than a subjective philosophical light. I would not foist or force my opinions on you, or in any way insist that you are immoral, but rather simply ask you to consider the basis for them, and maybe reassess your own opinion and personal ethical stance if what I am saying makes good logical sense. I'm not clear on why that should result in animosity or resentment, unless your mind is completely closed to other opinions and worthy logical arguments. I certainly do not resent your opinions or arguments.

I understand that at this point in time people have become accustomed to the "right" to abortion and that it could take quite some time, and perhaps even more convincing science, for minds to perhaps change in the manner that mine has changed. I was once pro-choice. I don't feel that what caused my mind to change, and the minds of many women and couples who share my views, had anything to do with force or even morals necessarily. It came from careful study of the objective science first, and the subjective philosophies second. Not to draw an analogy per se, but like the eventual abolition of slavery, which was also based on the arbitrary assignment of value to a human life (the terrible idea that some can be considered less than human based on physical appearance, attribute, or even stage of development), perhaps society will again make a "right decision" (as I see it) despite the currently popular mindset.

I look forward to your responses to the other points made in my previous posts. Take care my friend.

No, you don't. Otherwise you would understand their wish to live in a community which does not condone abortion.

I do understand it, Soc. Believe me. The First Amendment expressly prohibits what you're advocating. Mere disapproval or disagreement of a belief system does not justify government or voters codifying the majority's belief system into law. It's as simple as that. Your position is based on doing that very thing.

And no matter how much you want local governments to be able to do it, they can't as long as the 1st and 14th Amendments are in force as currently written and interpreted. The irony of ironies is that what you would have to prove in your argument to change or repeal the 1st Amendment is anathema to other arguments you've made regarding the 1st Amendment and its sacrosanct, clear and literal meaning. It's a contradiction of yours.

And that contradiction is a pretty good example of how you can't look at the law and/or rights in the narrow and closed vacuum of one issue, and only one side of one issue, as in majority viewpoint versus minority viewpoint, or one extracted application of it, as in abortion clinic A in the state of B where the majority of residents disapprove (or approve) of abortion. States and local communities have no more legal right to vote on the morality of abortion and then codify their vote into law than they do on the morality of adultery, organ donation, charitable giving, religious beliefs, or anything else that involves only one's own sense of morality as it relates only to one's own self, own body, own personal decisions about how to live one's life, what to think, what to believe--as long as all of that doesn't involve or impose upon any other person against his will. An abortion clinic being in somebody's community does not rise to that criteria. The Constitution does not protect your feelings or emotions.

You believe that individual rights trump all others, except when those rights are not in support of your values.

Absolutely not true. And I'll give you an example I've cited before: Adultery is immoral in my view. I don't approve, and I don't have a very nice opinion about those who engage in it. Do I want it outlawed or even put up for a vote? No. I think such a notion of my imposing my morality on others would be embarrassingly presumptuous of me and plain vulgar. If I believe in the supremacy of the individual and the individual's natural right to autonomy and self-determination, then logically that does not include the right to impose my approval or disapproval onto others. That would be pretty hypocritical, and my own personal moral code is opposed to hypocrisy as well.

I know you disagree with that philosophy. But the problem with that is that, currently, the Constitution and the law disagree with you as well, not to mention the Founding Fathers. And, no, I didn't say the Founders were pro-choice, so don't go there. I do know for a fact, however, that they did indeed believe in the supremacy of the individual and the individual's natural right to autonomy and self-determination. And within the "penumbra of privacy," that Justice Black talked about, which emanates from that natural right, lies the right to an abortion (or adultery or whatever the act or behavior is that doesn't forcibly involve another person's life, body or property). Those things are off-limits to political majorities. Matters that don't involve personal, private morality are indeed subject to political majorities. Again, there's a difference in political/statutory matters and constitutional/rights matters. You have a right to disagree with that difference, but it doesn't make the difference go away, no matter how much you might like for it to.

I would assume, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you support, for example, the right of American Indians to live on the land still under their jurisdiction in a way commensurate with their culture, and would be against simply eliminating them and integrating the remaining Indians into the American Culture.

Yes. Of course. They have the right to pursue whatever lifestyle and culture they want, wherever they want. It doesn't require my approval or permission or that of any other voter. If you're suggesting that states are comparable to reservations, I don't agree. The United States was an aggressor toward Native Americans (and the victor), and their right to govern themselves, and also be American citizens, was the agreed-upon "settlement." That war is over. They're American citizens and can pursue whatever kind of life they want, wherever they want. Neither Native Americans nor non-Native Americans have the right to forcibly impose their lifestyles on each other.

yes, I probably have gone on too long in proving that you didn't read my response to your question about my personal views....after you asked me for those views a number of times.

I thought I did read it Soc. This is a long discussion with a lot of long posts, so in case I mssed what you're specifically referring to, just point me to the post number(s) and I'll make sure I did read it. I don't mean to sound like I'm ignoring you and I apologize if the way I've said some things have come across as snarky or gave you that impression.

I will say this: What I've gathered from you thus far is that as far as your personal opinion on the moral issue is concerned, you're pro-choice. As far as procedure is concerned, you would rather it be left to the states (or other local jurisdictions, maybe, like municipalities, I suppose) to determine if abortion should be legal and what, if any, restrictions should be in place (as opposed to it being a constitutional rights matter).

And the contradiction and conundrum with that is that your moral preference is in conflict with your procedural preference for this reason: Ostensibly all 50 states could vote to outlaw abortion, thereby rendering abortion illegal for everyone in the US, thereby denying not only women the right to have one but also the right of qualified providers who want to provide them to be able to establish clinics to do that very thing. Pro-choice logically must be a constitutional rights matter for that reason--it involves personal rights, NOT communal politics.

Hey, Freewill. Be back later.

Freewill, I was going to answer your last post, point by point, but it was basically just my repeating myself, so I wanted to spare you my repetition. Therefore, I would refer you to my last post to Socrates on another related abortion discussion, and it's here at #13.43:

http://socrates1.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/27/10520116-why-abortion-is-not-a-right-guaranteed-by-the-constitution?threadId=3356563&commentId=63125551#c63125551

As I said in closing on that post, that's about as clear and intellectually honest as I can manage to be. And I really appreciate the challenges and the discussion from both of you and others here.

TS

I understand, and I too felt I was getting somewhat repetitive. Although I would liked to have heard your specific responses to my arguments against Mr. Simmon's logic in my posts 4.36 and 4.39, where I had refuted precisely his own words as they pertained to his position/philosophy.

I do understand your position though my friend and I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion and the challenges you have presented. This can be a very emotional and touchy subject and I have seen it tear friendships and even families apart. I really see no need for that. There is no reason why such a subject can't be discussed in a rational, logical, and friendly manner as we have done.

I would also like to thank you and all the others who have contributed here and I hope to see you all around the Vines.

I would liked to have heard your specific responses to my arguments against Mr. Simmon's logic in my posts 4.36 and 4.39, where I had refuted precisely his own words as they pertained to his position/philosophy.

I'll get to it, Freewill. When one has an "opponent" on a topic as open-minded, courteous and intelligent as this, I'm not going to squander the opportunity. Later. :)

Socrates - Thank you providing the forum and some excellent thoughts as well my friend. When TS directed me to your other article, it was the first time I'd seen it. Sorry I missed it earlier.

There are a few viners there who rub me the wrong way, and so I think I'll avoid the inevitable dust-up were I to comment there. I think you know who I am talking about. The ones who immediately start in on you with the standard generalizations like "you religious-right wing-nut forcing your religious beliefs into my bedroom" or the "you're a hater and en-slaver of women" crap without even once actually addressing the crux of your arguments on this topic. In my opinion there is no such thing as a civil or intelligent conversation with such people, so why bother? That is why someone like Truth Sleuth is such an incredible breath of fresh air. She is good people, and sadly among a minority it would seem on Newsvine when it comes to civil, meaningful discourse.

The life she is carrying is scientifically known to not be her own life.

But that's not a scientific question. That's a philosophical, existential question, which is the stuff of theology and philosophy, not of the objective "self-evidence" that must be the basis of a secular, civil society based on democratic rule.

It's undeniable that if the fetus survives and is born, then of course it will be its own life and no one else's. But, based on the definition of science that I know, it's not a scientific question. It's a living thing, attached to a person's uterine wall and relies upon that person's own blood supply and oxygen (not its own, as it has none of its own that's functional without that of the mother) in order to continue being a living thing. But it's not its own life in terms of the fact that it is dependent upon the life of the person carrying it, and as such, it doesn't have rights that supercede hers or are greater than hers.

IOW, there is no such thing as "equal rights" between woman and fetus when the woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. If the fetus prevails, then the woman's rights have been violated. If the woman prevails, then the "rights" of the fetus have been violated.

Right? There's no getting around that.

So in that impossible situation, one or the other has to prevail. There's no in-between or equal rights for both. That's logically impossible.

It seems obvious to me who's life is on a greater moral plane than that of the other--the woman's. And that's not to say that the fetus doesn't have moral importance; it does. But it's moral "worth" to the woman is not as great as that of her husband or her other living children or her self. That may not sound very nice or kind to a lot of people, but I suspect even the most die-hard pro-lifers would concede that.

And because I've explained how and why the alleged "independent" status of the life of a fetus is obviously a matter of opinion, we can't codify one side or the other into law because of our secular society whose Constitution forbids the government endorsing a religious belief.

The pro-choice side allows for freedom of both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The pro-life side allows for freedom of only pro-lifers. And a free and open society that allows government to answer such subjective moral questions is no longer a free and open society when it allows for only adherents of one side of a moral question to practice its beliefs.

The science of embryology proves that it is most definitely alive and that it is a separate living human "being" from that of either parent.

It's most definitely alive, but whether it is absolutely, categorically, scientifically, a "separate living human 'being' from that of either parent" is simply unproved--and, more importantly, unproveable in the first place. Therefore, again, that's why such matters are not the business of government in a free, secular, civil society.

Based on what we do know, I think we could agree that it's separate from the father (paternity really has nothing to do with this particular rights issue anyway), but it's obviously not separate from the mother. It would cease to exist if it were not for its temporal existence and placement in her uterus using her blood and her oxygen and her nutrients for it to continue to be a living thing!

So, I don't buy the argument that it's a separate living thing. It's a living thing--a continuation of living cells, starting with her ovum, fertilized by a male sperm, and then going through the natural biological process of reproduction that ultimately leads to a separate human being person, at birth.

More later. Mornin'!

4.55: Thanks, Soc. Love these constitutional issues and the wide-open freedom that they represent (or enhance, or threaten, as the case may be).

On the other hand, I do continue to suggest that, according to what I took to be your original position, which you seem to have returned to, that to be consistent no rights until the moment of live birth.

If you mean constitutional rights that are equal to the rights of the mother, then, yes, that's correct. On a moral plane, I do believe the fetus has certain "rights," for lack of a better term; maybe moral "worth" or "importance" is a better term. But there are no provable, moral absolutes in a secular, civil society (which was the basis of my rebuttal to Freewill)--as such is the stuff of religion, theology or philosophy--and therefore we can't base civil law upon them.

For example, in our society, we all probably agree that theft is immoral. But that's not the reason theft is illegal in this country; the literal, objective, constitutional reason it's illegal is that it infringes upon--actually denies--the right of another to his property. The moral aspect of it is irrelevant. The only morality upon which the Founders founded the country and wrote the Constitution was that of the following: Rights of one cannot be infringed or denied by another or by the state. Anything else is fair game. IOW, freedom and liberty and the supremacy of the individual.

Freewill, I wasn't entirely satisfied with my last response to you--not that I recant anything--but rather that I didn't address Keith Moore and his scientific studies very well, if at all.

Based on what I've read of him and his studies, his studies don't constitute proof that the legal question of whether a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights that are equal to or that surpass that of the woman carrying it has been absolutely, categorically answered and that has been answered in a way that allows for no possible disagreement or dispute.

He literally cannot answer that kind of legal question with a scientific answer. I do agree with many of his statements regarding the actual life of the z/e/f, but that, again, has nothing to do with the actual civil, legal, constitutional question of whether the z/e/f qualifies as a member of the community of "personhood" to which constitutional rights are guaranteed.

To me, it's like trying to scientifically prove that theft is a rights infringement. I agree that theft is a rights infringement under the Constitution and that it's immoral as far as my own personal moral code is concerned, but there is no such thing as scientific proof of such non-scientific matters. Civil rights can't be replicated and experimented upon in a laboratory. Civil rights are based on "self-evident truths," for which, by definition, no proof is required or necessary.

So, I agree and acknowledge that Moore has conducted studies into the life of the embryo, and I agree and accept his findings--that is, as I understand them. But that has nothing to do with the civil, legal, constitutional question that pro-lifers are trying to get answered. There is no question that the z/e/f is a living thing, whose DNA as an individual--different from the mother--is encoded at the earliest stages of the reproductive proces. But that is not the question facing the legality and/or constitutionality of abortion.

Don't know that I could possibly say anything that I haven't said already. Thanks very much. Enjoyed the discussion.

Perhaps "self-evident" would be a subject which could be presented, and then discussed.

That would be a good one. Great idea.

I think they were too stupid to realize they were trying to make blatant RAPE mandatory. Nothing like smaller government. At this point, conservatives are a danger to women.

Interestingly, these same people can be voted out in the next cycle, and others can revisit the issue.

And what of the citizens violated in the meantime? What if masses of peoples votes are nullified because of republican voter rights rollbacks?

Don't even try the "constitutional" approach. No liberal really cares about what it says.

Real mature. Being that liberals crafted the constitution of course we care about it, and know it is more than just the 10th and the last half of the 2nd amendments

It is smaller government,

LOL. Maybe have your right wing legislators write that o the business end of their rape sticks maybe that will help them sleep better at night, wont change the fact that it is gargantuan government.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is smaller government,

!

The question is whether peoples rights are being violated and if so, who's? The baby's or the mother's.

I can stipulate that there is a conflict between those rights--fetus and mother--in your view.

According to the precepts of individual rights to autonomy and self-determination, the mother's rights prevail. And I can explain why.

If you are of the opinion that the fetus's rights prevail, then the burden to justify that is yours. I have yet to hear a pro-lifer justify it in a way that squares with the philosophy of individual rights and liberty upon which our Constitution was written, but I'm always listening.

OK. Fair enough.

Socrates1
The question is whether peoples rights are being violated and if so, who's? The baby's or the mother's.

As Liberal's are always telling me, rights are not infinite and/or without restriction.

You forgot the zygote and the fetus . They don't have rights as persons born or in advanced stages of pregnancy, when abortions are performed out of medical expediancy for concern of the citizens life or victim of rape. 94% of abortions are before 16 weeks, before sentience and pain can be register by an entity

I told you, don't even go the Constitutional route. I'd imagine you to be one that supports "interpreting" the Constitution rather than applying it, only to use it when you feel it agrees with your position.

I know.I don't care. I went there once I went there twice and I'll go there thrice, how the hell is it constitutional for big government to mandate vaginal intrusion and unnecessary , useless medical procedure without permission of the person you going to do it to. Cons are always telling me about this slippery slope, well, when you tell a women what she has to put in her body without her permission, you are making it possible for the state to do the same for all citizens, us being equal and all.

I would also like them done as early as possible, as rare as possible, with the most informed position as is possible. I'm pro choice not pro abortion.

And yet you have no problem with big government deciding the issue in the first place, mainly because you see it as agreeing with you. That, as suggested above, is a double edged sword.

I don't agree with everything the supreme court decides, just like with cons, its only "big government" and "legislating" from the bench when you don't agree with the outcome, but its hard to see how the government dictating the bodily functions of a women would be preferable than letting American Females and their healthcare providers deciding the best course of action that will largely fall on the American women in question. I'm a man. I cant get pregnant, but I could impregnate and skeedaddle if so inclined or provide the bare minimum of support , its falls on the women.

Women are the majority in this country, 50.8% to 49.2...that 1.6% more...about 5 million more than men...their are 93 of 535 women in congress...17% of congress compared with 83% of men though we are actually the minority in this country. I think womens health issues should best be decided by women, but I don't know how you do that with the government we currently have.

#6.1 Forcing a probe into a citizen creates emotion. Hell, x-ray patdowns at airports caused the teaparty to puke. They said something about a less invasive government. Can you imagine if we probed them?

To vomit at this proposal is a rational act. All the rest is politics.

Democracy in action.

More like political pandering. He would fit well with Romney the revolving (I would say evolving but I just can't buy that).