My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. I put a taste below. I realized that as the abortion debate has moved to the state houses where we, the people, will actually have to debate the issue and come to some decisions, the rhetoric of abortion politics is still frozen in the theater of inaction in which SCOTUS froze it in 1973. This is one guy’s attempt to explain his position on the issue. Hopefully those with other opinions will offer them with the same sincerity and not resort to the crutch of “you hate women” or some such nonsense and we can have a grown-up debate about public policy. Pollyannish? Probably, but a guy can hope.
Our nation’s Declaration of Independence set forth that we are all created equal and, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.” Our United States Constitution went on to protect people from being deprived of life without the due process of law in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Both documents are based on a fundamental understanding of Natural Rights.
Natural rights are universal and inalienable. They are not dependent on government, laws, customs, traditions, or societal norms. They are rights that are embedded in the very essence of humanity and are enjoyed by each individual irrespective of age, color, creed, nationality, gender, or station. The just duty of government is to protect those rights from being infringed upon by others and to regulate the outcome of when two rights collide.
The most precious Natural Right is the right to live. Life is the right from which all other Natural Rights flow. The only real question regarding abortion, then, is to determine when life begins, for once we have determined that a life has begun, it is incumbent on us to protect that life through the power of government.
Fortunately, here in the 22nd century, the mysteries of reproduction and gestation have been largely solved. Once an egg is fertilized, a unique DNA is created and cells begin to multiply until they form a human that we would recognize. Some would pinpoint the start of life at when the heartbeat starts, or when brain activity begins, or when the baby would be viable outside of the womb. Some would allow abortion even in the moments after birth under the argument that the baby is still woefully dependent on the mother. That is the same argument that could be made for infanticide well into the toddler years.
For me, the most ethical and logical point at which to mark the start of life is when that unique DNA is created. That is when there is a unique life. There is clearly nothing separate from the parents before that moment and there is someone unique after it. While one could argue that life begins at a more viable state, each of those benchmarks seem arbitrary. Our moral, ethical, and legal obligation to protect life should make us err, if we are to err, on the side of prudence. It is better to accidentally protect people’s pre-lives than it is to intentionally kill them.
With life beginning at fertilization, we must structure our laws to protect those lives. In the case of a mother not wanting a baby, we come into a conflict of the rights of two individuals. The baby has a right to life. The mother has a right to bodily autonomy. In such cases of conflict, we make laws to decide the best, least harmful, outcome. In no other area of law do we permit the killing of one individual to protect the bodily autonomy of another. Neither should we in this case. The consequences for the mother are significant, but the consequences for the baby are cataclysmic. In such cases, we must protect the life of the baby even though its very existence imposes obligations and consequences on the mother.
You’re right, but Vos will sell you out in a heartbeat.
Do you know what else has unique DNA in people’s body. Cancer. My dead grandfather still has a unique set of DNA, but he is no longer considered a “person”. The animals we eat all have unique sets of DNA. People on death row have unique sets of DNA, yet people support killing them for their crimes.
If one twin absorbs the other in the womb, do we now get to charge them with manslaughter? After all, they are now considered a person… with unique DNA.
And as I have stated in the past, your discussion point would mean that IVF is no longer legal. You are murdering many many “unique DNA” samples in your attempt to conceive. But you would deny tens of thousands of women the right to their motherhood, a year. The last stat I could find was 60K+ in 2012.
>Do you know what else has unique DNA in people’s body. Cancer. My dead grandfather still has a unique set of DNA, but he is no longer considered a “person”. The animals we eat all have unique sets of DNA. People on death row have unique sets of DNA, yet people support killing them for their crimes.
In your haste to be offended by something that Owen wrote, you missed the two words following “unique DNA” which, if you didn’t miss them, you would realize make all your points seem stupid. So, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt (how’s that for a new me!), in assuming you missed those two little words, and not that you’re a fucking moron.
Jason:
Cancer often results form cell mutations, which means the DNA in the mutated cell is different than the DNA in the rest of the body. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t know that, and not that you’re a fucking moron.
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/mutation
Here is another good site Jason:
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Mutation
Oh and a bit of advice. Next time research a subject before posting. Not everyone will be as magnanimous as me.
Jason, I am not offended by Owen’s opinion. It is just that, opinion. The only words that come after “unique DNA” are “is created”. Owen’s point is that when an egg and sperm combine, they form unique DNA that is THEN considered “a human life”. We also share about 99% of our DNA with chimps. We share a large portion with mice as well. We share about 50% of our DNA with a damn banana.
Regardless of what Owen is saying here, he is now trying to use science as his crutch to his religious beliefs.
Personally, I would LOVE for the entire state of WI to vote on the subject of abortion. Because as we just saw in KS (a VERY red state), there are some rights that people believe in regardless of your leanings. But, we know that type of vote will never make it to a general ballot. The R’s wouldn’t allow it to happen, because they don’t need to. The belief that life starts at conception is in the minority. A MAJORITY of people believe that abortion should be legal up to a point. Usually somewhere between 12 & 22 weeks (which is what I personally think should be legal).
The laws that would have to change if we changed the law to say life begins at conception are interesting as well. Can a pregnant woman get cancer treatments if it is going to put the life of her unborn child at risk? Is that her choice anymore? Child tax credits? Child support? Do you outlaw “Plan B” morning after pills?
If I was a woman, I would be using every carpool lane forever just “assuming” I may be pregnant. lol.
Still flunking eh Randy?
From your link..
>A mutation is a change in the DNA sequence of an organism.
So, it’s a change of something, not creating something. The kindly man would politely suggest thinking before communicating. I’ll just tell you to shut up… rather than waste my time with you.
>Can a pregnant woman get cancer treatments if it is going to put the life of her unborn child at risk?
Not a doctor, so I’m not going to dive into this other than say if the doctor has weighed the risks and had the discussion with the parents of the fetus, I would defer to that.
>Child tax credits?
Some states are starting already. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/03/georgia-fetus-tax-dependent-abortion/
>Child support?
See above. My opinion is sure, child support too, as there are additional expenses relating to the pregnancy.
>Do you outlaw “Plan B” morning after pills?
Morning – after is much different than every discussion I’ve seen about states laws on the book don’t ban an abortion the day after :) I know some people want to ban them… good question to ask the masses.
The only other thing I would say is to be cautious thinking that the Kansas vote was some sweeping display of every state… I think the conservative folks got caught sleeping. I wager that if the same question were voted on in Kansas next week, the results would be a bit different. That’s on the Conservatives in the state to think about, but don’t assume that the rest of the citizens who are against abortion didn’t take notice of what happened.
Owen, that ‘unique DNA’ is formed before it gets to the uterus. If the unique DNA attaches itself to the wall of the fallopian tube on the way down to the uterus, there are currently only two medical alternatives: Abortion or death of mother and baby. With no exceptions to the ‘unique DNA’ choice, you are still condemning one or two lives to death, but now you get to choose whether to charge the doctor or the mother with murder.
Now if you allow exceptions, you are no longer standing on the ‘unique DNA’ as a start of rights for the child, but I am going to assume you will allow exceptions in the first place. Reply on that if you disagree.
Once you are allowing exceptions you are leaving the decisions of which exceptions up to lawmakers. If you have a Republican majority today, it may mean that some States just decide to allow no exceptions to make it consistent and you get my example above, deciding to charge a doctor or a mother with no other options for murder. If you have a Democratic majority, you may get all kinds of exceptions eventually moving the entire line well past ‘unique DNA’. And when the majorities shift, will we end up changing the laws over and over (welcome to the number one election campaign issue of the future), so one woman could be charged for a 6 year old abortion depending upon the new legislation, or another woman could be released from prison for a law that has been changed or repealed. Could they be put back in prison after the next election?
A very conservative pro-lifer on this blog allowed that where the body required ‘extraordinary means’ such as a ventilator and intravenous feeding to survive, it is ethically okay to shut down the machines (end their life). I would define a condition where one and only one person is capable of keeping another alive can be defined as extraordinary means (miraculous even). When the baby can be extracted and live it is no longer extraordinary and as medicine advances that time will continue to shorten. So ‘when the baby can live outside the mother’ would be my line on when abortion could be considered for illegality. That is not my stance, but it is where I would draw the line.
My stance is still that abortion should not be criminalized in the first place without first revamping a lot of other laws and institutions. Laws would include things like mother and father sharing the consequences, Government paying for unwanted pregnancy AND adoption costs, et al. Obviously the first institution to be revamped is the adoption hot mess in America.
If we had ‘unique DNA’ as law, would conservatives/Catholics allow that contraceptives should be easy, cheap and part of normal medical care or not? Or are you really interested in legislating morality? A man uses a condom, a woman can have all kinds complications from the drugs and IUDs that greatly affect their bodies, but if they want to avoid prosecution for murder and have sex, they have to risk cancer with IUDs (my wife gets high blood pressure from the pill).
One major problem on the whole issue is that we are still a male centric society. I think we have to approach the idea of abortion from the position of the mother and we don’t. Just considering rape, guilty verdicts are hard to get, sentencing is comparatively non-existent and the woman is commonly portrayed as partially responsible or even heavily responsible for the act in court and in the news. For every IUD, drug or condom commercial we see on TV we have a dozen Viagra/Cialis/generic commercials. We celebrate hard-ons, but want to punish those whores who receive them. We men have zero complications from the shaky birth control methods available to us and can choose to have no consequences if our method fails. Women have to fight for birth control methods, risk their life and health to use them, and carry all the consequences of sex. Coming from that position, I think it is hard to get any sort of law that equally protects a woman and a man.
Jason:
the argument relies on unique DNA being created. A mutation is unique DNA being created. Oh and I will give your “shut up” the respect it deserves, which is none.
There are many good arguments for abortion being legal. One of the best is stated above **We men have zero complications from the shaky birth control methods available to us and can choose to have no consequences if our method fails**. In short, pregnancy is inherently unequal Men can and do walk away from pregnancies all the time with zero consequences. Without abortion, women do not have that same ability. this ties into the argument above about us being a male-centric society . Outlawing abortion is one way to continue that.
Another: Not allowing a rape victim to have an abortion is denying a victim a chance to become whole, or at least closer to whole, as they were before the crime . We don’t do that with other crimes. Furthermore forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy to term is in essence rewarding a criminal. That’s a pretty bad message to send: rape someone and you’re rewarded with a baby.
A less compelling argument, but one I would add, is that time and time again we see those who claim they are against abortion really aren’t. The Catholic Church, probably the biggest organization against abortion, had priests that paid for abortions for their nuns. Oulawing abortion is rewarding those organizations for being hypocrites
Pengiuen
>the argument relies on unique DNA being created. A mutation is unique DNA being created.
So you’re central thesis here is if someone changes a word in Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, they’ve created a unique new book? You should reevaluate your choice here bub.
Jason:
What does “Pengiuen” mean?
My bad Flunkie, I got you confused with the other idiot that posts nonsense. Apologies also with the “you’re” instead of “your”. So, any further thoughts on “created” vs “mutated”? Or are you good now?
It’s not my argument on unique DNA being created justifying no abortion. So I am just responding to that argument with another situation where unique DNA being created. So if unique DNA = no abortion, it would then follow no cancer removal either.
In short, it is incredibly easy to shoot holes in the unique DNA argument.
My opinion is that people against abortion are against it for religious reasons, yet time and time again we see they don’t follow the tenets of their religion.So why should we believe them when they say abortion is wrong?
Oh Jason, we are going down a rabbit hole here. How much needs to be changed of Shakespeare’s words before it becomes something new? 1%? 3%? As I stated earlier, we share 99% of our DNA with monkeys.
DNA changes & mutates as we age. If I commit a crime at age 20, should I be able to be prosecuted at age 60 for it? My DNA is now different. Am I a different person in the eyes of the law? Of course that is mostly epigenetic changes not so much the actual sequence. But, are these things we are going to have to look at if we start talking about associating “personhood” & “life” with “unique DNA”? Lets “Science” the shit out of this! hahah.
> So I am just responding to that argument with another situation where unique DNA being created
No you’re not. You’re trying to fit a situation where existing DNA is mutated (changed) into Owen’s point. It doesn’t fit, but you just can’t give it up.
>yet time and time again we see they don’t follow the tenets of their religion.
We’re all human, and fallible. Do you think that if a judge or a LEO or Prosecutor breaks a law, they should be run out of their position? Not very tolerant, I think. I was raised Lutheran, since being an adult I’ve become atheist, yet I still agree with Owen’s point – life begins at that first moment of conception, not when a heart is beating , not when passing from darkness into light. Its logical, sciency, and religious all at the same time.
I also agree with T’s points, there need to be some major systemic changes. Especially that the father must share the responsibility and burden and not be able to walk away from it.
>>>No you’re not. You’re trying to fit a situation where existing DNA is mutated (changed) into Owen’s point. It doesn’t fit, but you just can’t give it up.
It fits perfectly. You just don’t want it to because it weakens the argument.
>>We’re all human, and fallible. Do you think that if a judge or a LEO or Prosecutor breaks a law, they should be run out of their position?
If they abuse children and hide it, like religious leaders have done time and time again, absolutely. it’s perfectly you just
>> I also agree with T’s points, there need to be some major systemic changes. Especially that the father must share the responsibility and burden and not be able to walk away from it.
So once those changes are in place and foolproof, and men stop raping women let’s go ahead and ban abortion. Until then it needs to be in place as an equalizer
Republicans who support 10 year olds impregnated by rapists ( fake news until it wasn’t ) to carry the child to term and $125 insulin so companies can do R and D on new drugs for diseases most Americans don’t have are going to have a tough time explaining their position to swing voters .
Did I say tough … I meant impossible .
Good Luck !
>I also agree with T’s points, there need to be some major systemic changes. Especially that the father must share the responsibility and burden and not be able to walk away from it.
The key to that point for me is BEFORE we even consider that abortion becomes illegal.
>So once those changes are in place and foolproof, and men stop raping women let’s go ahead and ban abortion. Until then it needs to be in place as an equalizer
As far as making it a legal concern, exactly!
FINALLY, BumperStickerMaley showed up. With another bumper sticker!
>It fits perfectly. You just don’t want it to because it weakens the argument.
You can say it does, but it doesn’t. I showed you why it doesn’t fit at all, you either can’t or won’t understand it. You linked to the definitions of Mutation that agree with me, and disagree with you. But keep on being a Flunker, we expect no less.
Thanks for the lively discussion. Some of you reenforced my point that Roe neutered actual sincere debate of this issue. It will take time to change that. Let’s try to back away from the “this will make you win/lose elections” BS. It’s irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant to devolve into “what about [insert this rare circumstance]” debates. I think we can make the distinction between unique DNA that does not grow into humans and unique human DNA in a cell structure that will, under normal conditions, become a fully-grown human. Let’s not be silly.
Also, when we have a unique human and that human’s life threatens the mother’s life, we must approach all of these issues with the compassion and seriousness that it commands. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the most logical, if tragic, decision is to kill the baby rather than let them both die. The same would be true if you had two grown humans who somehow found themselves in a situation where one had to die to save the other else they both die. Tragic and horrible decisions must be made.
We can also differentiate intentional behavior versus accidental. The pregnant woman who gets in a car accident and loses the baby is without fault. The man who brutalizes a pregnant woman and forces a miscarriage should be prosecuted for assault of the woman and homicide of the baby.
I recognize that my decision point is very early – the beginning – of the human developmental process. It may be too early, but I can’t logically argue my way into a point further along the growth process that is anything other than arbitrary. I prefer to err on the side of prudence. If we agree that protecting human life is a duty of government, then we must determine when life begins. I gave my opinion. For those who support abortion, what is yours? Why? I haven’t seen any of the liberal commenters (thank you for commenting) offer their opinions as to when abortion should be legal and when it should be prohibited – if ever. Do y’all support abortion up to the point of birth? Before? How much before? Why? After? Until the kid has a beard, a job, and a drinking problem?
Without Roe, we are going to have to come to a societal consensus as reflected in our laws. The issue will never be solved. I can’t envision changing my mind, but I can appreciate someone else’s sincerely held beliefs. I formed my opinion on abortion before I found religion. My opinion is based on my understanding of natural rights, but I appreciate and understand those who hold the same or different opinions because of religious conviction. I doubt the liberals will change their opinion, but I can appreciate and understand if their value and understanding of the role of government is different than mine. But the law-making process isn’t about changing people’s positions. It is about taking all of those positions into account (as reflected through the ballot box) and drafting societal rules that are something near a consensus. But we can’t begin to form a consensus if we don’t first have an understanding of each other’s opinions.
In my opinion you can argue a point further along that is logical.
A woman should have enough time to make a decision after she’s aware she’s pregnant , so that means bills such as fetal heartbeat don’t make sense because she might not know then.. So therefore the most logical point for me is fetal viability outside of the womb. The woman has had reasonable time to make a decision, and we have a reasonable belief that this is actually a life that will exist.
From Tuerquas: “the unique DNA attaches itself to the wall of the fallopian tube on the way down to the uterus, there are currently only two medical alternatives: Abortion or death of mother and baby. ”
You are talking about an etopic pregnancy, which is what stupid liberals come up with.
There is not 1 state out there would prosecute anybody for stopping an etopic pregnancy.
Owen, I do appreciate your logic as much as I disagree with it. I did state earlier in the comments on the amount of time that I would prefer. I don’t personally think that unique DNA or a heartbeat qualifies as a person. I would like to focus more on actual brain function and self awareness. That is very hard to determine for certain. And we would have to understand the difference between basic reflexes and actual brain function and thought. I would personally like to see it around 20 weeks, but couldn’t really argue if someone told me it was closer to 12 weeks.
And as I stated, I would like for something like this to be decided directly by the people and not thru elected officials, basically a constitutional amendment. But I doubt that is something that will happen anytime soon.
Thanks.
Johnnyv, I disagree, of course, but I understand your view. It is not irrational. I could argue that some adults aren’t self-aware, but I get what you’re saying lol.
Flagg, I also disagree, but I also disagree with your logic. When it comes to rights, we don’t allow others to arbitrarily decide if we have that right or not. The nature of rights is that you have them. They are individual. Natural rights would even exist if you were the last remaining human on earth after the zombie apocalypse. So to say that the baby gets the right to live if and when the mother decides she is okay with it is not in line with our constitutional framework or western norms.
“Fetal viability outside of the womb” is also a bit suspect. That date has moved substantially earlier in the gestation process over the last few decades thanks to advancements in medical care. It is also dependent on access to medical facilities. Again, rights are innate to the human condition irrespective of circumstance. Going back to Johnny’s perspective, a baby with some brain function may or may not be able to survive outside of the womb, but the distinction is specific to the baby.
I should add that we do restrict people’s ability to exercise rights all the time. It is usually and appropriately done with due process or upon agreement of the governed through their elected representatives. But even when people are restricted from exercising a right, the right still exists.
Owen:
I can’t help but see *religion* all throughout your arguments (for example western norms == Christianity),
Therefore I struggle with calling it logic. I would call it more faith. And basing laws on faith is a bad idea, as we see time and time again that people’s actions do not match their faith.
As far as fetal viability outside the room I agree that is a distinction specific to the baby, one which a doctor can discuss with the mother.
In the end I am with Tequas that we do not approach the issue of abortion from the perspective of those unequally affected by pregnancy: the mother. Considering that perspective I can see no logical way to outlaw abortion.
I do appreciate the civil conversation. One of the reasons I stopped commenting a while ago is that things had devolved into name calling, with some more rabid than others.
And basing laws on faith is a bad idea, as we see time and time again that people’s actions do not match their faith.
How people behave is irrelevant to the assertion Owen made. One does not need “faith” to understand the violation of natural law in murder, but “faith” holds that murder is criminal. According to your logic, legislating against murder is useless because murderers.
As to the priority of mothers in the discussion, let’s not forget that the mothers ALSO made the decision to copulate–with some exceptions. You will note that pro-life groups are now agitating for laws which will force the daddies (proven, of course) to support the baby pre- and post-birth–or failing that, State support.
But let’s not pretend that the women are sinless here.
I don’t think you finished your first thought dad29 (seems like there should be more after murderers)
As far as the second, I agree it takes two to tango.
However one of those two (the man) can walk away at any point after that decision with 0 consequences. There is no way to force them to support. Thus, abortion levels that playing field.
>From Tuerquas: “the unique DNA attaches itself to the wall of the fallopian tube on the way down to the uterus, there are currently only two medical alternatives: Abortion or death of mother and baby. ”
You are talking about an etopic pregnancy, which is what stupid liberals come up with.
There is not 1 state out there would prosecute anybody for stopping an etopic pregnancy.
Mar (and Owen), I would encourage you to re-read my first comment. My example of an ectopic pregnancy was not a condemnation of pro-life people or laws I think they want, it was an example of just one exception to a unique DNA stance. I even took the time to make the statement that I was already assuming that you would support exceptions such as that, yet a mistaken understanding of that was the only portion of my comment either of you touched on. Only one person that disagreed addressed anything else I said, thank you Dad29.
>As to the priority of mothers in the discussion, let’s not forget that the mothers ALSO made the decision to copulate–with some exceptions. You will note that pro-life groups are now agitating for laws which will force the daddies (proven, of course) to support the baby pre- and post-birth–or failing that, State support.
I like how you describe rape as ‘some exceptions’. You mention that some pro-life orgs are now asking for laws holding the (correct) man responsible. In the end, isn’t that something that needs to be in force BEFORE you set all laws back to holding the female responsible for everything baby related?
>But let’s not pretend that the women are sinless here.
I concede you the entirety of the point. However, the argument is that YOU are holding the women completely responsible for the consequences.
Even in proven rape cases if the rapist is in jail (his only real consequence for potentially ruining an entire family’s life) and has no assets, the woman will get the bills for the pregnancy or the jail time for the abortion. The hospital does not send the bills to the man in jail or the man who just left town after getting the woman pregnant in a completely consensual relationship. Police won’t prosecute the man for the abortion even if they pushed for it or even forced the woman into it.
Even if, miraculously (I should say impossibly), we got a complete list of legal exceptions to get an abortion that everyone agreed with, the whole acres of legal gray areas will get it right only as often as the person in the right had more money (9 times out of time 10, the male). Prove what date she took the pill that kills or accidentally fell down, got in a car accident, or get DNA proof after the abortion. We will never get clear laws, there will always be West Memphis 3 trials in conservative areas. And if NY, IL and CA welcomes everyone across its borders for abortions it is all a complete waste of time anyway.
The best ways to decrease deaths in the womb is cheap, reliable and safe birth control covered by health care for all and a nationally run and oversighted, easy and cheap adoption program. If you are really concerned for the babies over your idea of morality, that is what you push for and financially support as long as it is a State by State decision.
Current stats from the State of Minnesota, survey conducted by the State itself:
Less than 1% of Minnesota abortions in 2021 and 2020 were committed because the mother was a victim of rape or incest, and no abortions were reported either year to save the life of the mother.
Here is the breakdown of Minnesota’s other statistics. The numbers don’t add up to 100% because some women gave more than one reason. Of the 65% polled who answered the question:
84% of abortions were committed because the woman “does not want children at this time”
20% of abortions were committed due to economic reasons
14.5% of abortions were committed due to the woman’s emotional health
8% of abortions were committed due to the woman’s physical health
2% of abortions were committed because the baby was disabled
0.6% of abortions were committed due to rape
0.4% of abortions were committed because “Continued pregnancy will cause impairment of major bodily function”
0.1% of abortions were committed due to incest
There is no indication of the type of “physical health” concern or how serious it was.
Sobering.
(the man) can walk away at any point after that decision with 0 consequences. There is no way to force them to support. Thus, abortion levels that playing field.
To you AND T: you completely ignored the portion of my comment on what pro-life organizations are now pursuing in the Wisconsin legislature.
To which I suppose you could say “But it’s not law at this exact point in time.”
You could.
No I didn’t ignore it, it’s just that it doesn’t force them to support the woman/baby. If they did our existing laws would. So since we can’t depend on men to stay with the pregnancy, we need to give women the same out.
I note that the Minnesota report was based on data provided by physicians, not by the women who actually got abortions. It is fairly likely that women would not give rape as the reason even if it was for a lot of reasons.
We also know rape is under-reported in general (an estimated 80% go unreported).
Even if we do take that number as gospel, that’s 60 women (the report totaled 10,136 abortions) who are pregnant because of rape. Do we really want to force them to carry their attacker’s baby, punishing them and rewarding the rapist? I think not.
Even when stipulating that a fetus is a person, abortion should still be legal based on the Castle Doctrine.
Here in Wisconsin, deadly force can be used against an intruder caught inside a person’s home, vehicle, or place of business (regardless if they are actually threatening your life or not) yet a woman with an intruder inside her body has no legal recourse except to wait until that person decides to leave on their own.
Penquin, I appreciate the angle, but a significant (I think majority, the last time I looked) number of castle doctrine defenses fail in court when threat is not a part of the defense.
Dad29, re-read my last comment. I’ll copy it.
Me>I like how you describe rape as ‘some exceptions’. You mention that some pro-life orgs are now asking for laws holding the (correct) man responsible. In the end, isn’t that something that needs to be in force BEFORE you set all laws back to holding the female responsible for everything baby related?
Completely ignored or completely addressed?
Heck, it can take more than 9 months to get through the court case and once the bill is out there under her name, it isn’t going to change. It is real easy to say we’ll get to it later, but if you are on the wrong side of that future goal post promise, too fucking bad? Our legal system is full of bad laws that would have been easy no-brainers to update/change, but never were.
I am happy to hear that less than 1% of abortions were from rape, yea. It is likely less than 1% of rapes end up in pregnancies too (also yea?), but what is your reasoning for not making it a legal exception to the abortion bans? What does the percentage matter? Is that a reason to allow it as an exception or exclude it and why? That is the question and I don’t think the Minnesota statistics comment answers it. The 84% is the group you want to prevent, right? Which of those others should not be included as exceptions for having a legal abortion? And the fact that there is no percentage of ‘boyfriend or parent pressured the woman into having the abortion’ is both ridiculous that it is not there and obvious why it is not there.
Those statistics taken as fact makes it sound like 84% of women are uncaring sex addicts to you, but only the kool-aid drinkers would actually take it as unquestioned fact. I doubt 50% of women told the truth on that survey, certainly not the whole truth.
Do we really want to force them to carry their attacker’s baby, punishing them and rewarding the rapist?
So you really want to kill the innocent in retribution for the sin of his/her father, eh?
Smooth.
I doubt 50% of women told the truth on that survey
….yet you expect me to believe anything put out by Guttmacher or Planned Parenthood?
No sale.
***So you really want to kill the innocent in retribution for the sin of his/her father, eh?***
Since you want to reward the Sinner and punish the victim, why not have a parade for the sinner and force the victim to attend and cheer as well eh?
>….yet you expect me to believe anything put out by Guttmacher or Planned Parenthood?
Huh? What have I asked you to believe from Guttmacher or Planned Parenthood?
Like I said, Pflugg, you’re not serious. But your stuff is great over-the-bar bumper-sticker talking points, eh?
T: almost ANY “study” on the matter that pushes abortion is put out by PP or its subsidiary Guttmacher.
Oh I’m serious alright. I believe that abortion is needed to equalize the field between men and women . If we could depend on men to act decently it wouldn’t be needed , but of course that’s not true . After all if priests and bishops believe in abortions,how could they be wrong ?
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26236433/nuns-sex-slaves-abused-catholic-church-abortion/
Oh and things like ‘Pflugg’ are just proof i am winning. After all:
“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.”
–Charles R Anderson
Have a good cry, Pflugg.
You’ve read the “Rules for Trolling” and observe most of them very well.
https://voxday.net/2022/08/11/the-rules-of-trolling/
Why would I cry? Life is awesome.
And I definitely do *observe* most of them. In fact I would say on this blog I observe all of them: You use them, Jason uses them, and mar really, really uses them.
“If we could depend on men to act decently it wouldn’t be needed”
What utter Bullcrap.
Unless it is a case of rape, it takes 2 people engage in making a baby.
Maybe if women wouldn’t spread their legs voluntarily, they won’t become pregnant.
One should not ‘tolerate’ evil.
Modern man has so long preached a doctrine of false tolerance; he has so long believed that right and wrong were only differences in a point of view, that now when evil works itself out in practice he is paralyzed to do anything against it. –Fulton Sheen
It’s nice to be Nice. But now and then, Nice is fatuous in every sense of the term.
Dad29
>T: almost ANY “study” on the matter that pushes abortion is put out by PP or its subsidiary Guttmacher.
Ah, I have been going on personal opinion and experience. In my life I have talked pretty extensively with 3 women who were considering abortion (and then had them) and for all 3 of them it was very stressful, emotional and painful. Not one of them would have casually said ‘child not wanted at this time’ and meant it, but I doubt any of them would have written the honest novel they could have on it either. If it was multiple choice sentences, picking the least painful would be a go to for an emotionally drained person, in my opinion. If that question were a fill in the blank with a small essay, I would bet my life savings that less than 50% would just write in ‘children not wanted at this time’, but no Guttmachers or PP pamphlets were involved in that opinion.
>One should not ‘tolerate’ evil.
Modern man has so long preached a doctrine of false tolerance; he has so long believed that right and wrong were only differences in a point of view, that now when evil works itself out in practice he is paralyzed to do anything against it. –Fulton Sheen
And thank you for improving on my point that for many (and likely a very large majority of) pro-lifers this is pushing religious beliefs not some sort of constitutional fetal rights issue.
Mar
>Unless it is a case of rape, it takes 2 people engage in making a baby.
And once again I will point out that your position currently only penalizes the woman, legally. If it takes two, why penalize one? There is an answer btw, it is that you are a man. If men were 100% penalized by the law (as they are the only ones who can MAKE it one sided, that would make more sense) would it be the men who much more often need to be talked into sexual relations? It would definitely mean another thing, that women were in charge of making 98% of the laws instead of men. As Dad has mentioned, there is movement towards fixing the laws concerning this, but shouldn’t the new laws be a part of the new ban laws in the first place?
right and wrong
Maybe your Monday reading skills are off by a bit.
No matter that Sheen is a Roman Catholic; the key is what I italicized above. “Right and Wrong” are NOT inherently “religious”–so your self-praise is not only premature, it’s fallacious.
But here’s a mental exercise for you, since you believe that “right and wrong” are religious: can atheists–who are not “religious” in any sense of the word–commit first-degree homicide? Grand theft? Serial adultery? Slander?
If you don’t want your wisdom to be labeled religious, don’t quote theologians. Your problem, not mine.
Right and wrong and good and evil are not inherently religious, I agreed before and agree now, and I never claimed they were.
>But here’s a mental exercise for you, since you believe that “right and wrong” are religious: can atheists–who are not “religious” in any sense of the word–commit first-degree homicide? Grand theft? Serial adultery? Slander?
Is this Dad29 or Penquin? Once again, I never claimed right and wrong were religious. It is literally fallacious for you to claim that I did. End of mental exercise.
Not one of them would have casually said ‘child not wanted at this time’ and meant it, …
So, what was it then?
Wisdom can come from religious as well as irreligious, T. You’re having a serious logic deficiency here. Your problem, pal.
In my life I have talked pretty extensively with 3 women who were considering abortion
No doubt you are sincere, but “3 women” isn’t even close to the MN survey.
MJM
>So, what was it then?
Sorry, I hadn’t come back here. In two cases the girl wanted children with the father, but they were young and she was just not ready quit High school (the other was in College) and be a mother. There was a lot of pain and crying there, and an accurate one statement comment would have been closer to ‘Cannot emotionally or monetarily handle a child at this time’. The third had her man respond with moving to Arizona. She was from a single parent home and had a low paying job that would not have supported her and a child even if she did not have to stop working for a significant time to have it. She would have had the child if the father did not leave. I know the first two had children later, but only one with the original father. I have spoken with other pregnant women who did choose to have the child too, those were my 3 failures.
>Wisdom can come from religious as well as irreligious, T. You’re having a serious logic deficiency here. Your problem, pal.
Sheen’s quote only makes sense concerning abortion if you first believe/accept that abortion is evil and not a point of view. That would be a religious pov in my opinion. Therefore, to make sense the quote needs to be accepted from a religious perspective. That is not my logical failing, it is not wrong to accept it as it applies to this issue as a religious pov.
It is still good wisdom and I could easily apply it to our failings in our broken adoption system, our lack of support for pregnant young women now forced to have children, and our lack of forced obligation on the men who impregnate those women and run. All of these things are evils that have little to do with religion. Do you accept this as equally good wisdom when it applies to the other issues?
Abortion is evil, period. That’s not a “religious” point of view; it’s the point of view of nearly every society on Earth, ancient or modern. There were exceptions (Rome comes to mind) but by and large, it is Nature which promotes continuation of the species; it is against Nature to kill children, pre-born or not.
Are you prepared to argue that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are ONLY religious concepts? That is, if there is no religion, there would be no “right” or “wrong”?
If you know why Rome allowed abortion, we can continue that conversation. I would argue that despite my personal opinions, it is very close to whether the majority of people in the US believe it is evil. Outside of Poland, Sweden, the UK (though even there it is legal on socioeconomic grounds) and now parts of the US it is legal everywhere known as a ‘western nation’. That is a lot of sanctioned evil in the world populations most like us. China required abortion for years to get its population under control. It was a harsh measure with a much needed result. I wish India and a few other countries would do the same.
Major religions were all formed when women averaged 6 children or more with the hope of getting 3 to adulthood. Procreation was critical to survival of the people and the religion. It was a religious sanction to encourage population growth and today with modern medicine and over 90% of children making it to adulthood, religion should really move their position to population control over growth for the same reasons. Imagine if every woman had 6 children for the rest of just this century (much less got pregnant every time they had sex because they were not allowed protection).
Calling an abortion evil also stems from believing that the baby is a baby at conception. That is a religious construct (not biblical, btw). There are scientists and believers in science that also accept that as the time to call it a baby, rather than a fetus or potential child or fertilized egg, but they are a small minority. Weirdly, according to you, the majority of Christians live in countries where it is legal (South America where birth rates are still comparatively abysmal is the exception), even at the seat of the Pope. It speaks volumes to the rest of the world, just not here on this blog.
So no, I do not believe right and wrong are religious concepts, I am prepared to discuss right and wrong outside of religion, but you are not because you can’t separate it. You have not separated the issue from your religion, and to be honest, that is a perfectly okay place to be. I do not have a defense against the opinion that I have separated it. It may be a flaw in my religious belief, but I don’t need a discussion with a Priest or you over it, I will accept my faith and fate with God.
At least one source states that Rome (and Greece) encouraged abortions for purposes of population control. See: https://earlychurchhistory.org/medicine/ancient-roman-abortions-christians/
That’s also the rationale of which you tacitly approve. But your China cite is wrong: China recently noticed that its population was going the wrong way fast and has reversed its stand, now encouraging 3-4 children/family. Either way, that’s Statism, not something of which you seem to approve. But maybe you are a Statist?
Answer this: if that fertilized egg is not a “human” what is it? A fish? You–and others–would have it that until the “fish” is X days/weeks/months it is not a “human.” That’s science, eh? Your guess/my guess, that’s how we define human?
Rational much?
I think one can easily separate religion from 95%++ of ‘right/wrong questions. There is no ‘religious’ aspect to traffic regulation, e.g. Nature–raw–is not “religious” yet almost all its precepts line up very well with those of religion.
But it’s clear that you are an Independent Thinker, not bound by priests or other such old-fashioned stuff. Too bad; at some point in time, not long from now, you’ll be forced to understand.
Notice, concerning China I used past tense: “China required abortion for years to get its population under control.” I know they reversed it, it is why I used past tense.
As for the rest, if every woman in the world were told to bear 6 children to follow religious or non-religious beliefs, I would be against it. If they were told that they had better have perfect birth control even though it does not exist or bear the child for having sex in or out of marriage, with or without a father, I would be or I should say am against it. We all believe there is a time when Statism is needed. Over populating the world is one of them in my opinion. The Romans had that problem as will most societies that prosper to the point where needs are mainly met as a matter of birth right until supplies are strained past the ability to supply them. More natural law.
You believe in it as well.. You believe Statism is needed to force women to bear the children from any non-life threatening pregnancy, even if they must bear all costs and responsibility for it. Anything we relegate to federal Government control is an issue where we have accepted Statism.
Okay, let’s do the fish question. If you are eating caviar, do you say you are you eating sturgeon? Does it taste like sturgeon or caviar? Do eggs taste like chicken? They are in different states. You recently said that human vegetables can be released from life if they need a machine to breathe or eat for them. You described it as requiring extraordinary means to keep them alive. An early fetus is no different. You can’t keep it alive, I can’t, it is not even possible. All we can do is force someone else to. In a free country targeted coercion is not a valid law enforcement technique.
Another example of muddied right and wrong concerning abortion. A large number of beliefs that do not stem from Judaism believe heavily in reincarnation. Many of those who believe in it think that every life has a purpose, even a short-lived one in a pregnancy, perhaps as a lesson that that soul needed to move on (or move back) in her next life.
My conscience is clear. In my entire life, I have never tried to convince any woman to have an abortion, I have steadfastly argued, begged and pleaded with them not to when presented with the opportunity. If I am culpable before God, how less than you since Roe vs Wade had been in existence? The whole population of the US has condoned it my entire life and at least most of yours. My only point FOR abortion is that it should NOT be a State decision in any way. You are definitely the Statist on this issue. Hopefully you did not mean that as a bad thing?
>My conscience is clear.
To fix:
My conscience is clear on this issue.
>Do eggs taste like chicken?
Went to the GOP Cafe for lunch the other day and saw they had Fried Chicken as the daily special. Ordered it up, but was surprised when the waitress brought out a plate of scrambled eggs. When I pointed out that wasn’t what I ordered, she screamed “Its the same thing!!!” I replied that they are two very different things & can I please have the chicken and she just muttered something about how if an egg ain’t a chicken then that must mean it’s a fish before storming off back to the kitchen.
You believe Statism is needed to force women to bear the children from any non-life threatening pregnancy…
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between positive and negative law. Statism employs POSITIVE law, where actual freedom (the liberty to do what. is. right. ) employs NEGATIVE law. You can find an example of negative law; it’s called ‘the 10 Commandments.’ OTOH, Statism forces one to DO something.
In the case in Wisconsin, it is a negative law, forbidding doctors (or pretend-doctors) to abort babies. Has nothing to do with the mothers–in fact, you should have noted that a mother is NOT criminally liable for obtaining an abortion.
You also have a problem with the concept of ‘development’–something that a baby does in utero. That is very different from ‘human vegetable’ (your extremely disgusting phrase) who is no longer ‘developing’ at all. What you do instead is attempt to compare two NOT-alikes, along with your endorsement of Statism. But I’ll forgive your ignorance on the Statism topic. And let’s hope that God forgives you for the other problem you have.
PS: keep up the very good work on persuasion of girls ‘in trouble.’!!
Sorry, the Oxford definition of Statism was simply:
>a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.
It did not say anything about positive versus negative law. I do accept your change in the definition, but that would merely have modified my response. I meant no disrespect, but I still believe that your law forces women to have the baby. It does force women to do something, imo, so by either definition I still see your position as Statism.
I am not at all convinced that the women will not be penalized by current law, you are cherry picking by saying only the Doctor is liable. If the woman does not say how the abortion happened or names an Illinois location then there can be no prosecution? WI cannot prosecute an Illinois doctor from performing an abortion in Illinois, right? So the only way to go after the doctor will be if they hold the former mother until she says how/who helped her within the State. I do not see officials with your views politely asking the mother once how the abortion came about and accepting a negative or non-prosecutable answer politely and leaving. So criminally liable, maybe not, but immunity from permanent incarceration and other penalties…I am not convinced. Unless that anti-Michels commercial has some fact, that pregnant women would not be able to leave the State? (In which case the mother would be prosecuted for breaking THAT law).
The concept of development is an interesting add on, but it does not negate my comparison, it is merely an excellent point that I had not considered on the issue. The fact is still constant that currently only the mother is endowed with gifting this ‘development’ and it should still be considered an extraordinary means.
It is a good point that I will always consider in the future, but it did not make my comparison an apples and oranges argument. In fact, development is the orange in my apples to apples comparison. Development has nothing to do with ‘requiring another’s assistance to survive’, it is merely another extraordinary thing the mother gives the fetus.
Frankly, I have no idea what you’re fantasizing about with Illinois doctors and pregnant Wisconsin women. Under Wisconsin law, only a doctor can be prosecuted for abortion. That’s simple, right?
If a woman journeys to Ill., NY, CA., OR., or any other place to have an abortion, that’s that. There can be no prosecution, either of her, or of the “doctor”/butcher.
Your fantasy-world thing ………good heavens, friend,…………..you’re sounding like Biden.
And no, the mother does not “give the fetus” development, either before birth or after. You really do want to avoid the point, don’t you?
I assume this is the ‘fantasy world’ I am living in?
>If a woman journeys to Ill., NY, CA., OR., or any other place to have an abortion, that’s that. There can be no prosecution, either of her, or of the “doctor”/butcher.
Allowing that there will be zero repercussions for a woman who has an abortion no matter the circumstances (and despite current precedence that they have been prosecuted for a variety offenses), what is the purpose of imposing a law that just makes a woman drive a few hours to have an abortion? All it says to me is that a wealthy woman can easily get an abortion, and a Milwaukee woman or northern WI woman without a vehicle may have trouble getting an abortion. All this law does is make sure only the poorest prospective mothers may be forced to have babies they cannot afford with no current support in the law to bear the costs and responsibilities of that child…great.
Okay, from the Catholic catechism:
>The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church asserts that “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will”. It goes on to say that “God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.” The section concludes with the role that grace plays, “By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world.” (um, not before we’re born)
Free will and ability to reason are important parts of most Christian beliefs, including Catholicism. Before the baby is born and can cry to exert its will for food or comfort or anything else, only the mother has free will (reason comes even later). You go against God and your own beliefs to exert your will on the potential mother, pure and simple. That isn’t fantasy, that is really just you and Catholics rationalizing your wants and fears because of what you believe God wants (even though any Christian I have ever heard of has also told us that we cannot possibly understand God’s will). Life at conception does not come from the Bible.
Some common verses to ‘prove’ the Bible supports life at conception:
> (Jeremiah 1:5) Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Setting aside that the verse is talking about one specific person, It does not in any way prove that life begins at conception, it proves that God knows what our fates and decisions will be even BEFORE conception. That would include every aborted baby’s fate and every egg that is not fertilized due to contraception or any other reason. Do you think that God had a plan for that aborted baby and he was surprised by an abortion? Not very omniscient of Him if your interpretation is right.
>Psalm 139:13 For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
So God has full power over development, and again you think God will be surprised when the mom ends the pregnancy. It wasn’t part of his foreknowledge.
If that baby had just not been aborted the entire future of the world would deviate from God’s plan. That any abortion isn’t an act of free will that is between God and the woman.
Your idea of Him has a lot less confidence in His knowledge and abilities than mine. I believe He is omniscient. I believe He knows exactly which pregnancies will come to fruition even before conception and which ones won’t for all reasons and I believe the Bible agrees with me. Every verse used to try and convince humans that fertilized eggs are people are untenable, the Bible has no words even implying that fertilized eggs are free willed right bearing people (except the ones God know will survive birth and early childhood…which is all of them). These interpretations are Men’s fantasies really just being used to blame women for pregnancy so they don’t HAVE to take any responsibility for it unless they want to or cannot afford a good enough lawyer to get out of it.
>Job 33:4 “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
Oops, Job used the term ‘breath’. Babies in the womb do not breathe in the womb even after their lungs are formed.
The best one:
>Psalm 127:3-5a “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!”
This one praises children as a ‘blessing of God’ and I think it can be argued for bearing children, but it does not differentiate from the unborn or unwanted and it does not tell the man to force his woman to have every child. It is a decent verse to argue that abortion is evil, but that is it. It has also been used by multiple serial rapists.
Feel free to provide other Bible verses that are used to teach that babies have a separate life (much less will) at conception. The Bible does teach that Men (not specifically women in any older translations) have free will. Do you believe that women have free will or not? Your stated beliefs so far say no. You want to use the Bible to control women, but you are willing to use Statism to force women to have those babies if the Bible doesn’t work, pure and simple.
What all that means is that religion does not have a position on abortion or if it does it is that free will conferred by God dictates that women may have an abortion.
So it is a secular issue because there is no conflict of wills in the decision between the ‘two parties’ to abort. Our constitution also guarantees free will, not future free will so again the woman wins.
Your position simply wants to guarantee future free will and that is not an untenable position so stop trying to dress it up in other guises. You DO want to put a future free will in conflict with a current free willed fully vested citizen and you are using good and evil as the base. Work on that argument for a while, because it is the only position you have that holds water. If you use religion (with the Bible as its base) you will have to come up with better verses than your top Theologians if you want to prove that life begins at conception. If you use the constitution, I believe your argument there is weaker than mine because free will is not a future state considered in the constitution at this time, but if you have other proofs that the baby already has free will in the womb, bring on that argument.
And if you want to continue slurs, at least clarify what portion of my comment you are talking about. I sound like Biden? Where?
Hey!! Proof-Texting has always been the tool of those without logical faculties. Chew on this: without life, all that ‘reason’ and ‘will’ stuff you talk about is useless. The Catechism’s position on procured abortion at ANY stage is un-equivocal; it’s no surprise that you won’t quote it. You are working on blowing squid-ink into the discussion in a desperate attempt to justify your position.
Good luck with that, and with your predestination (heresy) position.
Deuteronomy’s ‘choose life’ is not just about proceeding into Israel; it’s a metaphor.
You have ‘freedom,’ but as John Paul II reminded all of us: ‘Freedom is the liberty to do what is RIGHT.’ It was not given to us as a path to do wrong.
I really think that your proof-text/wall-of-words posts are tiresome. Your insistence that wrong is really right is Biden-esque. If you don’t like that, straighten out and fly right.
Okay reasoned discussion is over, free will was only given by God to do what is right, everything is really unicorns and butterflies and every fetus will turn out to be good Christians. Bad or worse adoption practices will dry up, every man will take responsibility and there will be no more rape once abortion is abolished. You are so right! Why didn’t I see it before?
Living in a fantasy world where you are right and everyone will eventually listen won’t ever get you anywhere in the real world, but you can live there in the land of your dreams.