A Civil Abortion Discussion

[Mountain Man]

The argument that an unborn baby is not a person is equivalent to the argument that enslaved blacks are only three fifths of a person, and for the same reason. We eventually got past that.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was about not letting slave owners dominate the Federal government rather than being a statement about the value of black people. Pro-slavery politicians wanted slaves to count fully since it would have dramatically tipped the House of Representatives in favor of the slave states. Anti-slavery politicians only wanted to count free people for the same reason. The compromise was reached to appease the slave states and prevent a rebellion.

All that is to say it's not a particularly good analogy.

[Bill the Cat]

... It's like saying that an egg is a chicken, which it isn't. ...

We know that too. So, a human “period” is an unfertilized reproductive cycle and the eggs at the grocery store are unfertilized reproductive cycles.

[carpedm9587]

I don’t think that’s where the problem is. My feeling is that the debatable issues are around value and who is allowed to determine value. A lot of contradictory nonsense is spoken about the value of human lives.

I'm not sure I follow this. Can you explain?

[carpedm9587]

Actually, the reason that it's over is because science has revealed the truth. With regards to issues like Climate Change, it's "settled science". With regards to abortion, science is totally dismissed.

CP - you're ignored the body of people who are still flat-earthers. The science didn't convince them. That's the point I'm making. And the science is not convincing the climate deniers either. Likewise, the science is not convincing the pro-choicers. The remaining flat-earthers we ignore, because their disbelief is largely irrelevant to our day-to-day lives. The climate is deniers and pro-choice people are having a significant impact, so ignoring them is not an option. I am suggesting that "more science" is not the answer for people who have demonstrated a resistance to the science for the last 50+ years.

(I'm going to resist trying to go point for point with all of your "points", and focus only on a few main thoughts per post. I think the former is often counterproductive. If you see a specific point I opted to skip, please consider reintroducing it as its own topic)

Ya know, you just reminded me that when the whole "Climate Change" thing was emerging (starting with global cooling, overpopulation, etc) the chant was "Think Globally, Act Locally".

I was never a fan of that mantra, because action is/was needed both locally and globally. We aren't going to solve climate change by people deciding to make their houses energy efficient and get an electric car. That is the climate change equivalent of working in the crisis center. It needs to happen - it's important - but it won't solve the problem. We also need to do something about systems - like power plants, airlines, and (apparently) even burping cows!

There is a similar need surrounding abortion. It requires local AND global changes to make a significant dent.

Lemme go back and address that independently.

[carpedm9587]

But they don't have the same concerns. Pro-abortionists want abortions to be freely available without restriction. Pro-lifers want abortion outlawed. That is the ultimate goal of each side. You might be able to find temporary middle ground, but as soon as either side sees the needle start to shift one way or the other, that "middle ground" will vanish, and you're right back to where you started.

For example, new laws are enacted that make adoption faster and easier. Great! Everybody's happy! Next, some legislatures draft a law suggesting that abortion should only be allowed in cases where adoptive parents can not be found after a good-faith search. Oops! No more middle ground -- and you would probably even see some on the pro-abortion side start to condemn adoption services and decry them as a "backdoor ban" on abortion. Oh well, so much for that solution. What's next? Better sex education? Just as long as it doesn't include a frank and medically accurate description of the abortion process because that might discourage kids from embracing pro-abortion ideology.

The point is that the pro-abortion side will happily accept any compromise that doesn't actually prevent or restrict abortion, meaning that all you're offering here is a false sense of victory for the pro-life side.

You are focusing on the differences, MM, and not looking for the common ground. As long as you insist on doing that, solutions and ideas will evade you and "they" will always appear intransigent to you, as you look intransigent to them." When they speak about "your side," it's in similar terms: "they are not interested in compromise, and will only be happy when every woman in America is goose-stepping to their religious agenda, and subject to their male-mandated laws about controlling a woman's body!"

The point is to step away from attempting solutions that will simply re-trigger the war, and look for solutions that will have actual effect. After all - that is the goal, right? Reduce abortions to the minimum possible? That suggests solutions BOTH sides can get behind will be effective, and solutions EITHER side will object to will be a non-starter - at least until some degree of trust is restored.

[carpedm9587]

So, my good friend firstfloor (or whoever hijacked his account) makes a rare important point:

1) The current debate/war is rooted in a disagreement on when a human person begins.
2) There has been essentially zero progress to aligning the opposing views on when a human person begins for the last 50 years.
3) There is no basis for believing those views will be aligned in the next 50 years

If it's truly about "when a human person begins", then there should be some point in the development of the unborn baby at which the "pro choice" crowd would concede - "yeah, THAT's going too far".

From my perspective, the point has never been about "when a person begins" - that's just a tool in demonstrating that, to the "pro choice" side, it doesn't really matter. Planned Parenthood even fights limitations on abortion up to 21 weeks.

CP - you keep going back to "when the human person begins" - and then arguing it's not about "when a human person begins." The only difference between the left and right around this issue is that the right has an almost 100% alignment at "conception" and the left has no such alignment. There are various opinions from implantation to birth. The closer you get to "birth," the more the support from the left drops off.

But look at this thread and all of the other threads on this topic on this site. I challenge you to find one where the debate between left and right does not center on "when a human person begins." Think of it as a timeline, with pre-conception to the left and post-birth to the right. Pre-conception we generally all agree that thwarting nature is OK (contraception, vasectomies, tubal ligation*, etc.). Post-birth we are similarly almost universally aligned (Star notwithstanding). It is between conception where the disagreement lay, because of the differing definitions of "when it is a unique human person." That is the argument I am suggesting has not budged one iota - so logic suggests it is pointless to continue to try to address the issue from that basis.

*I originally typed "litigation" - but that's something else entirely

[Cow Poke]

CP - you're ignored the body of people who are still flat-earthers.

I hereby surrender unconditionally. You have won the war on "the war".

Unsubscribing.

[tabibito]

CP - you keep going back to "when the human person begins" - and then arguing it's not about "when a human person begins." The only difference between the left and right around this issue is that the right has an almost 100% alignment at "conception" and the left has no such alignment. There are various opinions from implantation to birth. The closer you get to "birth," the more the support from the left drops off.

But look at this thread and all of the other threads on this topic on this site. I challenge you to find one where the debate between left and right does not center on "when a human person begins." Think of it as a timeline, with pre-conception to the left and post-birth to the right. Pre-conception we generally all agree that thwarting nature is OK (contraception, vasectomies, tubal ligation*, etc.). Post-birth we are similarly almost universally aligned (Star notwithstanding). It is between conception where the disagreement lay, because of the differing definitions of "when it is a unique human person." That is the argument I am suggesting has not budged one iota - so logic suggests it is pointless to continue to try to address the issue from that basis.

*I originally typed "litigation" - but that's something else entirely

But as you pointed out - there are flat earthers and climate deniers. Even if a scientifically demonstrable point of beginning of life was known (in fact, I believe it is known) there would still be deniers - no matter where that beginning was.
Generally speaking (that is - using the broad brush) on this site, pro-lifers are about issues and compassion for the baby and often for the mother caught in an unenviable position. Recognition of that might go some way toward providing a common ground.

[Mountain Man]

You are focusing on the differences, MM, and not looking for the common ground.

Because there is no common ground that will satisfy the ultimate goal of each group.

Or perhaps I should say, there is no "common ground" that doesn't put the pro-lifers at a significant disadvantage. You're effectively asking us to lay down our weapons while facing off against a fully-armed opponent.

[tabibito]

Because there is no common ground that will satisfy the ultimate goal of each group.

Or perhaps I should say, there is no "common ground" that doesn't put the pro-lifers at a significant disadvantage. You're effectively asking us to lay down our weapons while facing off against a fully-armed intractable opponent.

critical word

[carpedm9587]

OK - I'm going to make this my last post. This was an interesting exercise, but I don't think this is the place to do any of this.

Despite the claims being made in the original thread, and to some degree here, this was never about "fighting with hands tied behind our backs" or "abandoning our principals" or anything else that has been said. This discussion was started from a fairly simple basis: if we wish to significantly curtail abortions, we have to ask ourselves "is what we are doing working?" If the answer is "yes," then carry on. I would suggest, since abortions still number in the hundreds of thousands per year and the arguments being made by both sides, in and out of courts, are the same old tired arguments that were being made 50 years ago - the answer to that question is "no" or at least "not anywhere near enough."

It then seems reasonable to me to explore, "how else could we approach this?"

From my perspective, this entire discussion is somewhat akin to someone in an actual war who, noticing that there are massive casualties piling up and little/no ground being made, asks, "what are we trying to achieve and perhaps we should consider doing this a different way?" The response they keep getting is "no - once more onto the breach!"

Clearly, a shift to a "different way" requires players from both sides. My experience is that most people on both sides are so solidly entrenched in their "once more onto the breach" philosophy and absolute distrust of the "opposing force," that there is precious little opportunity to explore alternatives.

I'd like to thank Guaca for a valiant effort to keep the conversation focused on the "meta" issue, keeping an open mind about possibilities, and contributing some ideas to the mix. Guaca, when I slip into early semi-retirement and have some time to devote - if I decide to take this on as a project, I will look for you here to see if you might be interested in participating.

For the rest, I'll leave you to the discussion. Unlike you, when there is no headway to be made - I ask myself "is this the right way and the right place and the right time?" At least two out of three of those appear to be "no."

[tabibito]

Let's see now

A: "Stop killing Jews"
B: "Jews are not acceptable"
C: "Can't you find some point of compromise?"
A: "OK - what percentage of Jews do you consider it reasonable to kill?"

[NorrinRadd]

I quickly scanned the thread and have two observations. First, I am gratified that the tone is being kept civil. Second, I am a bit disappointed that the conversation still wants to slip towards debating the issue of abortion, rather than looking at the meta issue of what solutions that would be acceptable by both side have the greatest chance, if implemented, of significantly slowing abortions? My base argument is that a continued war of words, press, and law, on "when does a human person begin" is futile and needs to be set aside in favor of other, more practical solutions.

I also am up to my ears in work today, so I'll be responding to one post at a time when I take a break from course development. Wish I could do more. It's an important/interesting discussion.

Yeah. We also shoulda set aside the debate about whether blacks were persons.

Sorry, but while I have no problem with the various little practical suggestions being made, to me they all amount to the proverbial rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Tassman]

I think the pro-choice side has really exacerbated the problem by fighting for late term abortions. The longer the baby develops in the womb, the harder it is to argue it's not a person.

That's not the real problem. The real problem is "does one person have the constitutional right to end the life of another person".

“Person” is what’s at issue here, as you yourself indicate with your question.

The SCOTUS in RvW found no indication that the Constitution's uses of the word "person" were meant to include fetuses, or that a fetus should be considered a "person" with a legal and constitutional right to life.

But it noted that the beginning of the third trimester was usually when a fetus became viable. Therefore, the Court ruled that, from this point on and through the rest of a pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life. Thence, it could legally prohibit all abortions, except where the mother's life or health were at risk.

A sensible outcome in my view.

[Terraceth]

“Person” is what’s at issue here, as you yourself indicate with your question.

The SCOTUS in RvW found no indication that the Constitution's uses of the word "person" were meant to include fetuses, or that a fetus should be considered a "person" with a legal and constitutional right to life.

But it noted that the beginning of the third trimester was usually when a fetus became viable. Therefore, the Court ruled that, from this point on and through the rest of a pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life. Thence, it could legally prohibit all abortions, except where the mother's life or health were at risk.

A sensible outcome in my view.

If they concluded that a fetus would not be considered a person (by the Constitution, at least), then the "sensible outcome" would be to let each state decide how to handle the issue of abortion and enact whatever restrictions they felt were proper. As John Hart Ely, back when the decision was made, explained:

But in any event, the argument that fetuses lack constitutional rights is simply irrelevant. For it has never been held or even asserted that the state interest needed to justify forcing a person to refrain from an activity, whether or not that activity is constitutionally protected, must implicate either the life or the constitutional rights of another person. Dogs are not "persons in the whole sense" nor have they constitutional rights, but that does not mean the state cannot prohibit killing them: It does not even mean the state cannot prohibit killing them in the exercise of the First Amendment right of political protest.

The decision in Roe v. Wade, to justify banning abortion regulation to the extent it did, had to come up with a new right of privacy more or less out of nowhere and then assert this previously unknown right is so expansive that it required striking down essentially all abortion regulation that was in place at the time. Again, as John Hart Ely--who, I want to stress, was pro-choice--expertly wrote:

What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded a far more stringent protection, so stringent that a desire to preserve the fetus's existence is unable to overcome it-a protection more stringent, I think it fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-á-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe-the predictable early reaction to Roe notwithstanding ("more of the same Warren-type activism")-is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.

Not in the last thirty-five years at any rate. For, as the received learning has it, this sort of thing did happen before, repeatedly. From its 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York into the 1930's the Court, frequently though not always under the rubric of "liberty of contract," employed the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to invalidate a good deal of legislation. According to the dissenters at the time and virtually all the commentators since, the Court had simply manufactured a constitutional right out of whole cloth and used it to superimpose its own view of wise social policy on those of the legislatures.

It may be, however-at least it is not the sort of claim one can disprove -that the "right to an abortion," or noneconomic rights generally, accord more closely with "this generation's idealization of America", than the "rights" asserted in either Lochner or Dandridge. But that attitude, of course, is precisely the point of the Lochner philosophy, which would grant unusual protection to those "rights" that somehow seem most pressing, regardless of whether the Constitution suggests any special solicitude for them. The Constitution has little to say about contract, less about abortion, and those who would speculate about which the framers would have been more likely to protect may not be pleased with the answer. The Court continues to disavow the philosophy of Lochner. Yet as Justice Stewart's concurrence admits, it is impossible candidly to regard Roe as the product of anything else. That alone should be enough to damn it.