tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post2140577347440396781..comments2024-03-28T09:18:27.312-05:00Comments on Althouse: "The diagnosis [of microcephaly] usually comes halfway through pregnancy, if at all...."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31890492282242675152016-02-03T11:05:47.579-06:002016-02-03T11:05:47.579-06:00Achilles said...I don't want to be responsible...<i>Achilles said...I don't want to be responsible for other peoples decisions and I don't want to make decisions for them.</i><br /><br />Apart from the specifics involved here (abortion legality at different times, abortion for reasons of fetal defects, etc) the question the Professor is addressing is what kinds of laws are morally acceptable (since the law is the collective imposing a rule on individuals). Saying "I don't want to be responsible for people's decisions" means you don't want to pay the costs for others' choices, but even given that you'd probably agree that SOME lawmaking is legitimate and SOME rules imposed by the collective are morally permissible. (To that extent, then, you are partially responsible for the choices of others in that you're involved in constraining their choices and thus changing their possible outcomes, but put that aside for now.) If you agree some laws are morally ok then the discussion turns to what kinds of laws. The Professor correctly asserts that in the American tradition we hold laws restricting individual religious belief and expression to be immoral and impermissible. She errs in seeming to assert that since that's true it's also true that any law that restricts people's choices (of any kind, presumably) must be likewise immoral. <br /><br />Framing the question as one about all choices (as in, "God gives us the choice to think and act, so any law that restricts our freedom to think and act in any way is an affront to God") broadens the valid argument (w/r/t religious freedom) to the point of absurdity. There is a step between 1. Religious freedom (thoughts & expression) should be protected and 2. Laws that restrict religious freedom are immoral and 4. A particular restriction on human action (in this case, abortion) is immoral--the missing <b>3.</b> is "This particular law is a restriction on religious freedom." <br />When 4. is "Any restriction on human action/choice is immoral" you have even more work to do!HoodlumDoodlumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17591221162603652473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6823750834102661282016-02-03T08:30:30.432-06:002016-02-03T08:30:30.432-06:00The fact that they would be forced to carry that b...<i>The fact that they would be forced to carry that baby to term by the collective makes the collective responsible for some of that cost. I don't want that and most of the people who want to ban that choice also want to eliminate public assistance to families with children born with these disabilities.</i><br /><br />That last statement is simply untrue. Most "pro-life" people aren't libertarians. They are perfectly fine with government paying the extra costs.<br /><br />Many pro-lifers are part of the "conservative coalition" or the "Republican coalition" and they say they want government spending less and taxing less. But they are willing to make exceptions. In fact, so many people are so willing to make so many exceptions that the rhetoric rarely turns into reality.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2597822995712111692016-02-02T18:45:34.484-06:002016-02-02T18:45:34.484-06:00If the collective makes this decision for a parent...If the collective makes this decision for a parent, then it makes the collective responsible for the results of that decision. This child is going to require a lot of expensive care most likely. The fact that they would be forced to carry that baby to term by the collective makes the collective responsible for some of that cost. I don't want that and most of the people who want to ban that choice also want to eliminate public assistance to families with children born with these disabilities. This is an easy decision for a rich married couple. Not so much for poor people. <br /><br />I don't want to be responsible for other peoples decisions and I don't want to make decisions for them. Get them to go to church so they make the right decisions, but leave the government monopoly on force out of it.Achilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04109507896997459818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74944482372482414802016-02-02T10:10:17.618-06:002016-02-02T10:10:17.618-06:00And, of course, restricting the topic to only reli...And, of course, restricting the topic to only religious freedom is begging the question--it's assuming the conclusion you're trying to argue. The argument is over what actions the government (or collective) may or may not permissibly restrict. You'd like to say that personal actions relating to religious freedom shouldn't be restricted by the collective (and Jefferson, Madison, and I agree), but that doesn't prove a conclusion about abortion or anything else in this case--you'd still need to make the argument that the particular action (abortion at a later-than-otherwise-legal time, I guess) is in itself an expression of religious belief (and only that). <br /><br />Again, that does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that any laws made by a legislature aren't valid if they restrict any choice a person might make since after all God gave people the ability to make any choices. Your paraphrase did not limit itself to questions of/laws concerning religious belief/freedom only, and if you'd like to say it's my fault for not understanding that's what yo meant I'll have to point out that it seems like a lot of us missed that particular meaning.HoodlumDoodlumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17591221162603652473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34580312700151396182016-02-02T10:04:18.582-06:002016-02-02T10:04:18.582-06:00Your assertion is so dislike Jefferson's point...Your assertion is so dislike Jefferson's point that I'm not sure if you're trolling, or what. <br />Do you think Jefferson believed or was arguing that laws that place any restrictions on human activity are necessarily invalid and immoral since God didn't restrict what people can do? That's nonsensical.<br /><br />If you'd like to say that laws concerning religious belief/that restrict freedom of religion are immoral since God gave people the ability (and responsibility) to make choices regarding their religious beliefs & practices, sure, and I'm sure Jefferson agreed with that. But that is not at all the same as arguing that any since people can choose to act any law that restricts any action is necessarily an affront to God. That, ma'am, is stupid, and I very much doubt people who wrote and revered laws (and Law) would make any such argument.HoodlumDoodlumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17591221162603652473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60183195006443597602016-02-02T09:13:40.449-06:002016-02-02T09:13:40.449-06:00Roger Sweeny said...If God or Nature aborts them, ...<i>Roger Sweeny said...If God or Nature aborts them, why should we feel bad doing something similar.<br /><br />Kindly define the limits of "something similar," Roger. Seems like rather an important point, don't you think?</i><br /><br />Very, very important. I don't have a perfect answer. But generally two things: the person would have an unhappy life and/or the person would require lots of extras that the parents won't provide.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23385381115755185642016-02-02T09:08:18.470-06:002016-02-02T09:08:18.470-06:00CStanley,
You say that since God doesn't stop...CStanley,<br /><br />You say that since God doesn't stop all pregnancies that involve "fetal abnormalities" and "allows some people to live with chronic and sometimes painful debilitating illness for a prolonged period", no one else should either. No one should, as the saying goes, "play God." But, of course, we do so all the time. Two hundred years ago, most of the people my age would be dead.<br /><br />You seem to be saying that we <i>should</i> play God, but only in one direction.<br /><br />You seem to be saying all human life is good and should be extended as long as possible. I disagree. If genetic tests showed that a person would be born without a cerebrum, who would live for perhaps 80 years without consciousness, hooked up to various machines, unable to speak or interact, I think the honorable thing to do would be to kill that life (or as some prefer, that potential life).Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23727841000537453052016-02-02T08:21:31.987-06:002016-02-02T08:21:31.987-06:00Can you address HoodlumDoodlums point though, abou...Can you address HoodlumDoodlums point though, about why this issue is different than any other act that we accept the legislature deciding?<br /><br />Those writings (as I understand them) concern the importance of restraint with respect to establishment of religion by the legislature, not about legislating specific acts - especially an act that involves the taking of a human life. It seems to me that the pro-abortion rights side wants to make this an issue of freedom from the legislation of religious belief, as thought he only reason to oppose abortion is a religious one but that is clearly not so.CStanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13467496850893922521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85855919057176149722016-02-02T06:24:33.166-06:002016-02-02T06:24:33.166-06:00Also, Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing ...Also, Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom": "Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds, that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his Supreme will that free it shall remain, by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint..."Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26310358913699406992016-02-02T06:22:31.207-06:002016-02-02T06:22:31.207-06:00"That's one of the worst arguments I'..."That's one of the worst arguments I've seen a smart person make this year. I'm going to assume it's not serious and treat it as a thoughtless aside."<br /><br />No, you should see it as a paraphrase of James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance." Read it. Learn it. Know it. Recognize paraphrases of it. Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44224994855020514192016-02-02T00:16:07.347-06:002016-02-02T00:16:07.347-06:00What would be nice to see is something like once h...What would be nice to see is something like once happened with leper colonies - i.e. a have a group of outstanding individuals come forward to establish a community to help those with the condition to live as full a life as their condition permits. Have them announce to the parents that they will help them raise these children and, if the need arises, adopt them to relieve the parents. This would most likely happen via a religious mission or other private funding.<br /><br />And yet here, as likely in much of secular society, the first thought isn't about doing something to help the children, it's about killing them before they get here or otherwise focusing on the burdens of those who have to care for them - the latter isn't of no concern, but the primary focus should be on the ones actually with the condition. This is the problem with giving up the principle that all life is sacred - increasingly, more exceptions are carved out. What do we do if there's a virus that causes a devastating effect at 32 weeks? At the age of 1 or 2 (see Helen Keller)? The problem with a line is that there is always going to be that case that pleads that the line is unfair for their circumstance.<br /><br />I'm not without empathy having lived in a family that dealt with a permanent birth issue, but at the same time, having had that family member, and knowing that by now most medical experts and other people would recommend an abortion if the case came up today, there isn't any way I can avoid calling this impulse toward the abortion solution evil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74489959582231395942016-02-01T21:06:15.649-06:002016-02-01T21:06:15.649-06:00Christ, you screw some woman once -- maybe you'...Christ, you screw some woman once -- maybe you're so drunk you don't even remember it -- and her failed abortion follows you around for the rest of your life, running up bills, guilt-tripping you ... Why shouldn't you just draw a bead on that aging fetus and correct your little mistake? Jupiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13008508862847561845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46186371305597269022016-02-01T21:01:58.140-06:002016-02-01T21:01:58.140-06:00Well, why should there be a cutoff? What's so ...Well, why should there be a cutoff? What's so special about being born? Why not just make it legal to kill your kids -- period? They can stay on your health insurance until they're 25. Maybe they get the right to live when they can pay for their own health insurance? The Death of Julia.Jupiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13008508862847561845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58696512874867634742016-02-01T18:29:20.936-06:002016-02-01T18:29:20.936-06:00Roger Sweeny said...If God or Nature aborts them, ...<i>Roger Sweeny said...If God or Nature aborts them, why should we feel bad doing something similar.</i><br /><br />Kindly define the limits of "something similar," Roger. Seems like rather an important point, don't you think?HoodlumDoodlumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17591221162603652473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26841458006076146492016-02-01T18:27:34.530-06:002016-02-01T18:27:34.530-06:00CStanley said... All kinds of terrible things (fro...<i>CStanley said... All kinds of terrible things (from man's perspective) happen in nature but that doesn't mean we should facilitate these things. And all people die eventually but that doesn't make murder (or even euthanasia) a moral act.</i><br /><br />Happily there's a name for this tactic (which is quite often fallacious): <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature" rel="nofollow">Wiki: Appeal to Nature</a>HoodlumDoodlumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17591221162603652473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78357606813767486102016-02-01T18:24:38.219-06:002016-02-01T18:24:38.219-06:00Ann Althouse said...And God is still letting human...<i>Ann Althouse said...And God is still letting human beings make their own choices. Are legislatures better than God?</i><br /><br />That's one of the worst arguments I've seen a smart person make this year. I'm going to assume it's not serious and treat it as a thoughtless aside. I mean, God lets people shoot each other in the face, that's a choice some people make, so why would the legislature think they're better than God and try out outlaw that choice? No, no; that's far too dumb to have been meant seriously.HoodlumDoodlumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17591221162603652473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56986329488490084362016-02-01T17:37:37.411-06:002016-02-01T17:37:37.411-06:00It is well-known that one half of more of all conc...<b>It is well-known that one half of more of all conceptions end early with "spontaneous miscarriage," often before the woman knows she is pregnant. If they could have been brought to term, most of them would have had severe handicaps. If God or Nature aborts them, why should we feel bad doing something similar? If we could bring them to term, would that be a good thing to do?</b><br /><br />Everybody dies.<br /><br />Why should we feel bad if we do something to others?<br /><br />Amiright?damikeschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133230009952160269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54531467879605526372016-02-01T17:17:47.388-06:002016-02-01T17:17:47.388-06:00this is a subtle hint that we should allow infanti...this is a subtle hint that we should allow infanticide. I base this opinion because I am aware of how the Times spun the Baby Jane Doe case back in the 1980's...they wanted her not treated e.g. dead, and many letters to the editor took the hint and suggested that infanticide be done (as it is right now in parts of Europe for these children).<br /><br />addendum: when last seen, Baby Jane Doe was alive and well and living in Long Island, albeit she does have to use a wheelchair to get aroundNancy Reyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14910134058143426327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59026135073426509092016-02-01T16:49:14.145-06:002016-02-01T16:49:14.145-06:00Roger, I've always thought that was among the ... Roger, I've always thought that was among the weakest arguments. All kinds of terrible things (from man's perspective) happen in nature but that doesn't mean we should facilitate these things. And all people die eventually but that doesn't make murder (or even euthanasia) a moral act.<br /><br />I guess you are starting from the presumption that we should view early miscarriages as purposeful- as though the hand of God intervened to prevent a tragedy. That's an assumption that isn't necessarily true (if God's purpose was to end all pregnancies that involved fetal anomalies, He would do so but He doesn't, just as He allows some people to live with chronic and sometimes painful debilitating illness for a prolonged period.)<br /><br />In other words, you are advocating that we should presume God's intentions and then help Him out when he doesn't do what you think He meant to do. That is hubris.CStanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13467496850893922521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68231708874449170782016-02-01T16:31:43.959-06:002016-02-01T16:31:43.959-06:00It is well-known that one half of more of all conc...It is well-known that one half of more of all conceptions end early with "spontaneous miscarriage," often before the woman knows she is pregnant. If they could have been brought to term, most of them would have had severe handicaps. If God or Nature aborts them, why should we feel bad doing something similar? If we could bring them to term, would that be a good thing to do?Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-61982025542231239532016-02-01T15:49:07.629-06:002016-02-01T15:49:07.629-06:00I agree with those who say that a viable fetus is ...I agree with those who say that a viable fetus is just another way of saying baby. Restrictions should be put on late term abortions. But exceptions should be made. This is the wrong hill to die on. I'm a sympathetic audience, but the arguments here sound doctrinaire, abstract, and remote from the radical consequences that carrying such a child to gestation implies. Do you really want to condemn a woman who chooses to abort a microcephalic baby? Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40552801339118580402016-02-01T15:32:47.719-06:002016-02-01T15:32:47.719-06:00I have two friends that have children with problem...I have two friends that have children with problems diagnosed in the womb. One was found at 20 weeks... the doctor was strongly suggesting abortion. He is a completely normal 3 yr old, though he had an enormous amount of surgeries in his first year. The other friend's child wasn't discovered until a routine 36 week ultrasound to make sure the baby was not breech. Though two, this baby just learned to sit up. This is why it's silly to think the law is going to help you decide what is right.Bircheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045640752795693223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84365466720317154292016-02-01T15:27:43.279-06:002016-02-01T15:27:43.279-06:00I don't believe in souls.
I don't think w...I don't believe in souls.<br /><br />I don't think we should allow the abortion of healthy fetuses. Intentionally damaging a fetus should be a crime, even if the mother does it. But I'm willing to compromise: this is women's issue. Women should vote on it, not men. Men should then be allowed to vote on whether the state may be require a man support a child a woman opts to keep on her own - women selling abortions to rich men for $250-500k need to quit that.<br /><br />Morning-after-pill abortions are fine IMO. You don't even know you're pregnant. You may as well be opposed to hormonal birth control as Catholics (but not Mormons) are. Every non-implanting egg or early natural miscarriage amounts to the same.<br /><br />I do think we should recommend (and allow) the abortion of born-severely-crippled (genetic or otherwise) fetuses. But I appreciate the religious POV where this is definitionally evil, and also respect parents who choose to have+love crippled children (especially the ones which can reasonably have a happy life). I would urge religious parents-to-be to consider the severity of the condition detected - will you bring someone alive who will only suffer intense pain? If so, you should ponder+pray specifically on that very question.jghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05254850370113601762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69142261290243720602016-02-01T14:49:29.464-06:002016-02-01T14:49:29.464-06:00PJ57 said...
But their "condition" was n...<i>PJ57 said...<br />But their "condition" was not diagnosed until the last few years.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/video/brain-dead-teen-only-capable-of-rolling-eyes-and-t-27225" rel="nofollow">Brain-Dead Teen, Only Capable Of Rolling Eyes And Texting, To Be Euthanized</a>Fernandinandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11253225431705407699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15804129845151208872016-02-01T14:45:58.019-06:002016-02-01T14:45:58.019-06:00PJ57 said...
But their "condition" was ...PJ57 said...<br /><br /><i>But their "condition" was not diagnosed until the last few years.</i><br /><br />Sorry, but you missed your chance. This could have been diagnosed early with a DNA test. In this case a simple paternity test would have sufficed.Ignorance is Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338942311894099159noreply@blogger.com