"In part because that rhythm is a sign of the health of the developing embryo, scientists have worked to push backward the moment in pregnancy they can detect it. In 1984 they were pretty psyched to pick up fetal cardiac activity at between 41 and 43 days of gestation—six weeks. The researchers described it as a 'tiny blinking, flashing, and/or rocking echo with a regular rhythm... What’s really happening at that point is that our ultrasound technology has gotten good enough to be able to detect electrical activity in a rudimentary group of cells,' [said Sarah Horvath, an ob-gyn with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]. But if you’re thinking about this as something that looks roughly like a person with something that looks roughly like a chest, inside which something that looks roughly like a valentine is going pitter-pat (or lubdub-lubdub), you’re picturing the wrong thing. As the ob-gyn Jen Gunter wrote three years ago, this is, more technically, 'fetal pole cardiac activity.' It’s a cluster of pulsing cells. 'In the mouse embryo, for example, there is a definite cardiac rhythm in the tiny, little, immature heart at 8.5 days of development, but it is certainly not enough to support viability,' says Janet Rossant, senior scientist and chief of research emeritus at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. 'It is just helping to encourage the development of an organized vasculature and circulatory system—a prerequisite for future viability but not sufficient alone.' That’s the other wobbly term of art here: 'viability.' In common parlance, people sometimes use that word to describe a baby far enough along in gestation to survive outside a woman’s womb. In humans, that takes about 24 weeks, give or take (every pregnancy is different, and so are the skill sets of every hospital and every neonatal intensive care unit). But that’s not what clinicians mean. 'It means a pregnancy that, at that point in time, looks like it’s normal to continue,' [says Jennifer Kerns, an ob-gyn at UC San Francisco]."
From "'Heartbeat' Bills Get the Science of Fetal Heartbeats All Wrong" (Wired).
Quite aside from the meaning of "heartbeat," there's the meaning of "viability"? "Heartbeat" hasn't been a significant term in the constitutional analysis of abortion restrictions, but "viability" is one of the most important concepts, and it hasn't been what Kerns says clinicians means — that a pregnancy looks like it’s normal to continue.
What the article calls "common parlance" — using the word to refer to the ability to survive outside a woman’s womb — is also the definition in the legal cases. It's the point at which the woman's right to choose not to be pregnant ends, and the state may choose to override her freedom. It's hard to understand why that sort of viability became the legal line, because denying the abortion means that the unborn remains inside the womb. But that was a line that was identified by the Court long ago, and maybe some day the Court will look at that idea of capacity to survive outside the womb and say that it's not where the line should be.
"Heartbeat" is another concept, and it could be embraced as the right place to draw the line, and I wonder if the argument for doing that is enhanced by the fact that clinicians are using the word "viability" to refer to that point. It seems that the clinicians are using the word that way because it makes for good doctor-patient relations. For a woman who is hoping for a child, it's reassuring and encouraging. The same thing is true of the word "heartbeat."
But it's quite another thing to take this science — detecting early cellular rhythm and forming a belief that normal development is happening — and to use it to make a statute that restricts the freedom of women who do not want to be pregnant.
३६० टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 360 पैकी 201 – 360Inga: "Reading these comments by these Deplorables makes me think calling them “deplorable” is way too kind."
Subhuman is the word I think you are looking for. Your kind have used it on the Africans, the Native Americans, the Jews and 120,000,000 unborn in the United States alone.
Why be coy about it now?
"I can foresee a future..." where Allie Oop make a cogent argument. But I have a very strong imagination.
The sperm is alive argument is so stupid it boggles the mind. I suppose some day scientists can take sperm and create a viable human. But, by that time they can use skin cells.
Careful when you exfoliate, Allie, the deplorables are keeping count.
FWIW, the way the nazis justified & made legal (to them) their genocide was to remove the protection of the state from the victims (they were made non-citizens), declare them to be enemy combatants, and make local populations complicit in the murders.
All this made it nearly impossible for anyone in the non-victim population to speak up for the victims, until after the nazis were defeated.
“Careful when you exfoliate, Allie, the deplorables are keeping count.”
Skin cells that would be “exfoliated” are dead, you moron. Have you seen skin cells swimming upstream inside the cervix?
I'd suggest Googling "Gosnell Baby A" to show what a "clump of cells" resembles.
I can’t read all the comments to this point and...
“Men do have the legal option to choose to end their pregnancies.” isn’t this the same arguments straights made against gay marriage. Which our hostess rejected as a valid argument?
"It's hard to understand why that sort of viability became the legal line, because denying the abortion means that the unborn remains inside the womb. "
What's hard about it?
I've always understood the point of "viability" meaning that abortion could be banned at that point because she could, at least in principle, induce labor and put it up for adoption at that point, thus allowing "get this thing outta me" to proceed without an abortion.
“Men do have the legal option to choose to end their pregnancies.” isn’t this the same arguments straights made against gay marriage. Which our hostess rejected as a valid argument?
She says no. She says she acknowledged that gay men did have marriage rights and that she wanted them extended to gay marriage. Frankly it is not how I remember it.
you are claiming that there are no cases of "survived abortion" for any period of time,
I saw one on TV. She was an adult.
Have you seen skin cells swimming upstream inside the cervix?
I haven't had my head up a vagina but I suspect you might have done so. You are such an expert.
@YoungHegelian: In my discussions with pro-choicers over the years, the argument always made against pro-lifers is that many base their moral convictions on theological principles, & that this results in a morally invalid political imposition on non-believers.
Then the pro-choices are even more reason-challenged than one would think possible.
Once life begins, these are the ways it ends:
1. Accident
2. Disease
3. Old-age
4. Intent
Abortion is the latter — an intentional ending of a life.
So the question for pro-choicers is this: what separates choice from murder?
You will wait for a very long time for a coherent answer.
(Inga, this rubbishes "Your sperm are alive too. You’re guilty of killing every time you 'spill your seed'", which should have been obvious from the outset. In case you are still confused, google [when does life begin].)
@Althouse: But the legal question doesn't have to be answered in terms of drawing a line. I can be answered in terms of who decides.
You don't get off the hook that easily. The legal question requires drawing that same line.
How many pro-abortion people would support allowing people to kill their pets when they become inconvenient? Or even get their pets abortions?
Inga: "Skin cells that would be “exfoliated” are dead, you moron"
The babies in the womb prior to the dems/left carving them up and selling off the parts are very much alive of course.
And not to worry Althouse posters.
If being called deplorable by Inga truly bothers you, just convert to Islam or join MS13 and you will never again hear a word of criticism from the Left.
Ever.
For any reason.
Period.
"I don't much enjoy being called a liar when having an honest discussionin good faith. It's unnecessary"
Its amazing how far a "I apologize, I should not have done that" will go when someone can put aside their ego.
As Ronald Reagan once pointed out, "I can't help but notice that all the people supporting abortion have already been born."
@Althouse: I asked you (11:03 am) "How do you reach the conclusion that she [the fetus or unborn child] isn't a person", and you responded (11:04 am) "What statement of mine are you misreading like that?"
The answer is: your statement (10:41 am) that "The question has been whether that which is alive is a person, because legal rights belong to a person." I repeat my question: How do you reach the conclusion that the fetus or unborn child isn't a person with legal rights?
"the freedom of women who do not want to be pregnant." I want to be a whore with no strings attached even if it means killing.
How do you reach the conclusion that the fetus or unborn child isn't a person with legal rights?
She now acknowledges that the fetus is a person. She just insists that that person has no legal rights because the Supreme Court says so, and it would be inconvenient for women if they did.
Pregnancy Timeline: Fetal Development Week-by-Week with Pictures
Week 6
Ba-bum, ba-bum. It's way too quiet for you to hear, but your baby's tiny heart has started to beat. That heart sits inside a body that's now almost 1/2-inch long from the top of the head to the rump — about as wide as a pencil eraser. Baby still looks like a tadpole but that won't last for long. Human features are starting to emerge, including two eyes that come complete with lids. The lungs and digestive system are also starting to branch out, forming the organs that will help your baby breathe and eat in just a few months.
The science is straightforward, evolution (i.e. process) is even simpler to understand, the circumstances of pregnancy have been implicitly understood since time immemorial, and civilized societies have conventionally maintained a forward-looking standard to Posterity (i.e. evolutionary fitness). Our Constitution, written for both "the People" and "our Posterity", proscribes "summary judgments" and "cruel and unusual punishment", and was the legal standard until passage of the "Twilight Amendment", and progressive establishment of a Pro-Choice quasi-religion and State. The religious/moral or philosophical (e.g. human rights) question is: When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain the right to life? The "wicked solution" is one answer.
I'm not trying to be lovely. I'm trying to be accurate and to provide a basis for argument that could go either way. I would also use the word "parasite" and, in fact, almost did when I chose "intruder."
You're trying to be accurate and you would use the word "parasite" to describe an unborn baby?
A parasite is a different species than a host.
Both "parasite" and "intruder" have extremely negative connotations. And both words are useful when we are trying to justify violence against innocent people. If you are going to try to sound neutral and factual you might avoid the rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan.
Jews are not termites. Babies are not parasites.
Abortion Reporting - Florida 2017
That link takes you to a summary article that has a link to the source material.
In 2017 FL reported 11 infants born alive during abortion procedures.
Is that a lie, Professor? That's one state and one year. It's very rare--11 cases out of 69,000 abortions, but it happens. It's not a lie to say it happens and it's not unreasonable to discuss what the law ought to say about those rare cases.
By way of comparison, in the same year FL recorded 5 abortions done for reasons of incest. In other words in 2017 there were more than twice as many cases of infants born alive after abortion as there were cases of abortion undergone due to incest. Is it a lie to say women get abortions due to incest? No, that happens--it's very rare, but it happens.
It took all of 2 Google searches to pull that link, Professor. Why did you call the assertion that some infants are born alive during abortion procedures a lie?
Somebody, maybe Camille Paglia, once wrote that she favored keeping abortion legal but that women who had had abortions should acknowledge that they have killed another human being to suit their own convenience.
I agree with that. All this crap about a "lump of cells" might apply to "Plan B" pills but anything after the "Morning after" is a baby,
I still favor keeping it legal until 20 weeks or so but it is a baby.
An article on the Susan B. Anthony List website says only 6 states require reporting on born-alive abortion and lists the count of such cases in 2017 as:
AZ: 10
FL: 11
MN: 3
OK: <5
I pulled the 2017 FL report after one search and verified it shows 11.
The assertion that "it's a lie" to say some babies are accidentally born alive during abortion procedures is incorrect. Having shown documented cases of that occurring it would be accurate to say anyone who claims it "doesn't happen" is lying, but I'll just stick to pointing out the objective facts without questioning anyone's dedication to honesty.
Meet Sarah Horvath:
"What first inspired you to become a doctor?
I came to medicine late. After studying theater at UCLA, I lived in a liberal bubble surrounded by actors, artists, and musicians. In 2004, some friends and I volunteered a bit with the Kerry campaign. His loss was devastating to me. I knew that I had to do more to change the political climate in this country and thought that I could advocate for social justice as a doctor. So I cut my hair, registered for classes and began this long journey into medicine.
What story about one of your patients most sticks with you?
As a resident, I cared for a pregnant patient with pulmonary hypertension. She was diagnosed as a teenager and knew that her disease meant she that if she ever became pregnant she had a 30-50% chance of dying. She had used contraception for decades. This pregnancy was intentional. She wanted to be a mother so much, she was willing to die trying. She was not only a special patient to me, but became symbolic of my dedication to patient autonomy. I passionately defended her decision to carry her pregnancy. We must not judge a patient’s decision to parent anymore than we should judge our other patients’ decisions NOT to parent.
What current policy issue especially motivates you to be an advocate?
The Hyde Amendment prevents any federal money from paying for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or maternal life-threat. This disproportionately affects low-income women reliant on Medicaid. Initially passed in 1976, it has been reauthorized every year since. It creates a financial barrier to health care for poor women, immigrants, women in the military or civil service, women married to people in the military or civil service and many others. While there are many, many contemporary problems with insurance, politics and health care, the Hyde Amendment continues to impede reproductive justice for women in the United States."
https://prh.org/updates/meet-advocates-dr-sarah-horvath/
The person with the pregnant body gets to make the final call. Someone must decide, and the answer in the law — which I support — is the person with the pregnant body.
-----------------------
Society ultimately will make this decision, as we should.
Society decides whether we allow organ sales. (We don't.) Society decides whether we allow euthanasia of humans (we don't). Society decides which pills, drugs, alcohol, etc. we are permitted to legally put into our bodies. Society decides whether or not we are able to consume hormones or have elective medical/surgical procedurs (Some we are allowed, some are not permitted.)
In the end, the Supreme Court will decide that society too has the right to say whether or not unborn humans, at whatever stage of growth, have the right to unimpeded growth or whether we permit legal medical procedures that end that growing life. Society has the power to decide this, just as we do all of the other issues above... The Court knows this.
There are no special rights for women to put their own needs over those of society. She can't sell her organs ("... but they're mine1 In me!! *stamps feet*). She can't kill herself, legally. (Today is the the day I want you to put me under, doctor. I DEMAND that procedure be performed on me, because it is MY BODY, MY CHOICE!")
Society can educate women, or even by consentual default, help them to understand their birth control and sexual activity options. Mature sexual activity can be encouraged by society only for mature adults, like we do alcohol and cigarette use.
But we can deny healthy pregnant women the societal support needed to kill a healthy child growing inside of her. If she wants to break the law, so be it. Hopefully, most will take the state support, bear the child (there's no law she must actually raise it), and learn how to avoid the situation in the future that creates another life.
Hope this helps!_
Article without the creative wordplay or "rhythm".
British researchers analyzed scans of the hearts of healthy fetuses in the womb and found that the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week.
This is much later than expected, according to the study published Feb. 20 in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface Focus.
Previous studies of early heart development in humans have been largely based on other mammals -- such as mice or pigs -- as well as adult hearts and samples from dead people.
The data being collected by the University of Leeds-led team is being used to create a computerized simulation of fetal heart development. This will help improve understanding about normal heart development in the womb, and could lead to new ways to detect and treat some fetal heart problems early in pregnancy, according to the researchers.
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=167987
There is a lot of discussion here and in the political realm about whether a fetus is a human being and at what stage to be considered a human. So called rational people show photos of how a fetus looks at certain times in order to prove that abortion is infanticide to sway public perception and opinion. However a fetus is not an infant.
What disturbs me the most about this discussion is the total lack of compassion for actual living humans, females who are having abortions. There has been no mention of the fact that the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers -- who don't want another child because they want to protect and provide for the family they already have. They are fully aware of the awesome significance of what they are doing. Is it really fair or humane to call them murderers? Or should they be treated with some respect for taking on the responsibility of that choice?
There's also no discussion of social/sexual mores where men expect to have sex with their girlfriends and hookups are normal. How many unmarried guys take the time to inquire if a date is is employing birth control let alone ask about her ovulation cycle in order to evaluate the risk of pregnancy? How many people use alchohol to reduce social (and sexual) inhibitions? We humans are irresponsible, we have to acknowledge that. Why blame the women for unwanted pregnancies? Men are just as much, if not more responsible, when they are the ones who typically initiate sex.
I still favor keeping it legal until 20 weeks or so but it is a baby.
-----------------
"First, do no harm..."
You can't teach me anything. - Trumpit
First, honest comment you've ever made.
We humans are irresponsible, we have to acknowledge that. Why blame the women for unwanted pregnancies? Men are just as much, if not more responsible, when they are the ones who typically initiate sex.
------------------------
Rut away, irresponsible humans...
The rest of civilized society does not have to condone your taking of a growing life (call it a fetus or a child, but it is indeed a growing life that will grow into a human being, if nature does not spontaneously abort and there is no intervention via legal or illegal interventions/procedures.)
Morally, life is cheap.
Sex is cheaper. We can pretend that this is natural, the way it has always been.
But some of society is done pretending and can't look past the nubers of premature lives cut short by irresponsibility. -- people who created that growing life, but think it is their "right" with society's approval, to casually snuff it out.
Society imposes laws that humans do not always agree with. The Court gets cases wrong, and often -- years later -- corrects their legal mistakes and overturns legal precedents.
It is too late to bring back the unborn children that the Court told us society saw fit to dispose of, but the Court can evolve on human rights issues, as we have seen in the gay rights cases.
Unborn children, in the eyes of living members of society, are worth protecting in civilized society. Even over the wishes of those who think their "rights" will never be restricted, and they will be masters and mistresses of all the life they "possess".
"There is a lot of discussion here and in the political realm about whether a fetus is a human being and at what stage to be considered a human. So called rational people show photos of how a fetus looks at certain times in order to prove that abortion is infanticide to sway public perception and opinion. However a fetus is not an infant. "
Using the initial terms in your post, do you prefer the more general "murder"?
It looks like you prefer no limit, regardless of viability/humanity.
"Jews are not termites. Babies are not parasites."
Indeed. I find it shocking that our hostess would call a baby that - in the name of accuracy no less.
R.J. Chatt said...They are fully aware of the awesome significance of what they are doing. Is it really fair or humane to call them murderers? Or should they be treated with some respect for taking on the responsibility of that choice?
I'm not sure you can square a belief that abortion has "awesome significance" with a view of abortion that it's nothing more than a common medical procedure akin to removing one's tonsils. If it's an awesomely significant act it has to be because it has some moral weight/import, but if that's true then it's distinctly different from a tonsillectomy (and it wouldn't be odd, in that case, for the moral/political/legal discussions to also differ!).
To the "murderer" point I'd say if you view an abortion as killing a person you're correct that the act could then have some justification--not every deliberate homicide is murder since some are for self-defense, etc. The burden of demonstrating why that particular deliberate homicide would then be on the woman, though; you're correct to say it'd be wrong to assume "murderer" but since most abortions are done for reasons of "convenience" and only a minority for reasons of physical health, fetal abnormality, or rape/incest I'm not sure this would shift the perception as much as you might think.
The strategy, then, is to say that the act has no moral weight and is not "awesome[ly] significant" as it therefore needs no (moral) justification--I don't have to justify a decision to remove my tonsils or undergo any other similar medical procedure to anyone.
So I think your premise is off, with respect to the argument most pro-choice people most often make.
Elective abortion is the premeditated termination of a viable human life, the other labels (e.g. fetus, baby, infant), notwithstanding. The circumstances of pregnancy were implicitly understood since time immemorial, and are today explicitly understood. Both the father and mother are responsible for the life of their child, civilized society is responsible for normalization of behaviors and causes, and the mother, in particular, must coexist with their child for approximately the first nine months. So, the legal question is if "our Posterity" is inclusive, common sense, and scientific based, respects "due process", and proscribes "cruel and unusual punishment. The religious/moral or philosophical (e.g. human rights) question is: when and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain the right to life.
R.J. Chatt said...There has been no mention of the fact that the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers -- who don't want another child because they want to protect and provide for the family they already have
I'd want to think deeply about that idea on its own, as well: we probably all agree that parents wanting to protect and provide for their children is a good thing and we probably all agree that actions undertaken for that reason should be given wider latitude/acceptance than for a more-selfish reason, but there are surely limits to that sentiment!
If a person steals the proverbial loaf of bread to feed their hungry children we'd understand. If a person shoots another person in the head in order to steal their wallet to get money to buy a loaf of bread to feed their hungry children we'd...understand a bit less.
In times of famine a parent might have to make the horrible choice to mercy-kill one child in order to have enough food for their other children--that's an extreme example but the morality of it would be such that most people (I'm guessing) would excuse the homicide/murder even while recognizing the "awesome significance" of that act. That doesn't mean, though, that we'd excuse a parent who killed one child in order to have enough money to buy their other children fancier clothes (or send them to a better school, or whatever). A similar economic calculus would hold (kill one child and free up resources for the other children) but the moral circumstances are vastly different (prevent everyone dying due to starvation vs. only prevent everyone from having a slight-lower standard of living).
Your framing implicitly casts the decision to abort as morally equivalent to the "homicide during famine" situation but at least in America today it's more likely the decision is closer, morally, to the second example--the standard of living for even quite poor people in our country today is so much higher than the average for most people in the last few centuries it's difficult to hold the burden and expense of having additional children equivalent to the actual life threatening/famine examples in any respects.
By now, I find the abortion question boring. If I were in charge, I would probably do as Dr K suggests and draw the line at 20-24 weeks.
But I wanted to go a little sideways here.
Back almost three decades, the ultimate mother of my kid was having troubles carrying to term. So, at some point, before the tree months that we were using as a deadline for announcing the pregnancy, her Ob/Gyn did an ultrasound looking for a fetal heartbeat, which was exhibited as a quickly flashing light. Shortly thereafter, at the three month mark, we went to my family to announce the pregnancy, and chose to do it via a recording of that ultrasound. Popped it in the VCR, and it started to play. I should add that this was during the bombing phase shortly before Desert Shield became Desert Storm, and video of guided munitions on their final approach and detonation had become standard fare on national news. And that was what my parents thought we were showing them. Somehow, my youngest brother, who seemingly has no reason to know, recognized what we were showing them, and told them that they were going to finally become grandparents. Unfortunately, my mother didn’t live long enough to see their one grandkid graduate from high school. My father did, and lived almost long enough to see them hooded last year as a PhD.
As a point of reference, this was either late 1990 or early 1991, and the pregnancy was 8-12 week along, when the heartbeat sonogram was taken.
Cavell on abortion
https://tinyurl.com/y55a5sos
The debate of When a baby is a baby is like masturbation. It gives you something to do and you might have a good feeling when its over, but nothing was accomplished.
The only way to settle the debate is to decide it like everything else. Through our elected representatives.
Not the federal Legislature. The Constitution specifically says it shall be left to the people or the States.
Before SCOTUS took Roe v Wade, something they had no jurisdictional power to do. The people and the states were very capable of self governing. If you cant get the people that share your view, tough. Keep working it.
“Men do have the legal option to choose to end their pregnancies.” isn’t this the same arguments straights made against gay marriage. Which our hostess rejected as a valid argument?
Are you expecting feministas to be thoughtful and rational, not to mention fair?
Their feeble attempts at philosophy don't go beyond "Me! I'm special! Because chromosomes! Take care of me! I'm special!"
"First, do no harm..."
The Hippocratic Oath also banned "cutting for stone," which would all urologists out of business.
It is a question of who chooses. I have seen too many botched illegal abortions (granted before the Pill) to want to risk that.
You could also make a case for driving around and shooting girls with a depo provera pellet,
For some reason this old Peanuts cartoon that showed up on my daily gocomics email (daily comics IS a web service I'm willing to pay for) seems wildly appropriate to many discussions about this and similar matters.
https://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/2019/05/15
“I still favor keeping it legal until 20 weeks or so but it is a baby.”
I agree, even though you are an asshole.
R.J. Chatt said...
There has been no mention of the fact that the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers -- who don't want another child because they want to protect and provide for the family they already have.
That's a pretty bold assertion - that in my personal life I've seen absolutely no evidence of. Aside from it being an assertion, I'd like to statistics backing that up. Seems to me the vast majority of abortions are being done simply as another more expensive form of birth control. And Margaret Sanger would heartily approve of the statistics showing who is getting them.
Are these stats, particularly the nation-wide one, accurate?
Candace Owens
Verified account @RealCandaceO
6h6 hours ago
62% of abortions in Alabama are performed on black women.
Black women are only 7% of the population but account for over 40% of ALL abortions performed in America.
Due to abortion, black population growth has stagnated.
Planned Parenthood is voluntary genocide for black America.
--
Also, are there stats re those who skip contraception entirely and why?
Does availability of abortion influence that "choice"?
Is it really fair or humane to call them murderers?
It's like calling slave-owners monsters, and then you remember that Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were all slave-owners.
The people responsible for this violence are our authorities, who said it was "right" and insist upon it.
And the doctors who actually do the killings.
And the people (both men and women) who pay for the killing.
And the journalists who hide the bodies so nobody sees the violence.
There are a lot of guilty people. I think that's what is making this fight as awful as it is, all the suppressed guilt and shame.
Legally, of course, nobody is a murderer because our Constitution forbids ex post facto crimes. By the same rationale, nobody was arrested and prosecuted for kidnapping once slavery was abolished. Crimes have to be defined before the event, not after the fact.
Are these stats, particularly the nation-wide one, accurate?
I can't verify those facts, but it is true that more Black babies are aborted than born alive in New York City these days and for several years. It is also true that most abortion clinics are located near or in low income Black and Brown communities.
"As a point of reference, this was either late 1990 or early 1991, and the pregnancy was 8-12 week along, when the heartbeat sonogram was taken."
You want to see the heartbeat in the 6th week to feel safe. It's possible to see it later and have a successful pregnancy, but it raises miscarriage risk if you don't see it by the early part of the 7th week. Every day you don't see it means you've got a greater risk of miscarriage, unless you counted your dates wrong. Some pregnancies show a heartbeat in week 5, but it stresses people out to look that early when they are hoping for a pregnancy. Too many people don't get to see the heartbeat and they are scared until the next ultrasound. Doctor's suggest waiting until the end of the 6th week to look.
These aren't weeks from conception; it's weeks from your last period. First day of your period is day 1. Ovulation is 11 days later in week 2. It takes 5-6 days before the embryo can start to implant.
Then it takes a few days for the uterine lining and embryo to signal to each other, burrow in, and link up early connections. Wait a few days and you are able to get a positive pregnancy test with HCG is in the blood stream. That's about 12 days after hatching and implantation. Some sensitive pee sticks might catch it earlier, depending on how much HCG gets in the blood stream. After your positive blood test, it's a week or two until you can see the heartbeat on ultrasound.
We have pictures from the heartbeat of our first. I would have to look at the scrapbook, but I believe it was week 6 day 3. One of the best days of our lives.
Hippocratic Oath
I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.
The Oath recognizes specialization in medical practice.
“Have you seen skin cells swimming upstream inside the cervix?”-me
“I haven't had my head up a vagina but I suspect you might have done so. You are such an expert.”- old coot MD
I doubt that. You certainly have your head up Trump’s anus. I’m quite sure that when you performed the abortions you admitted to performing in the past, you had a very up close and personal view of a woman’s vagina.
62% of abortions in Alabama are performed on black women. Black women are only 7% of the population but account for over 40% of ALL abortions performed in America.
Meanwhile, liberals are trying to figure out why black women are having more premature births than white women.
NPR says it is stress from racism.
A more likely cause is the difference in abortion rates.
Surgical abortion requires the doctor to break through the mother's cervix to perform the abortion. The cervix is a muscle that the doctor has to rip into. The hope is that it will heal. But in some cases, after your abortion, you now have an incompetent cervix. And your uterus won't be able to hold a baby for long. And your next pregnancy will end with a premature birth. There was a massive study in Scotland on this very subject.
Lewis Wetzel opines: We have scientific definitions of what is and what is not a person. In the olden days they didn't have blood tests, they knew nothing about how the sex act led, eventually, to the birth of a human being by the mother, though they of course they knew it was a result of coitus.
In one of David's Psalms, he says that God "knit me together in my mother's womb". That's pretty descriptive. And, no, he was not implying God was using knitting needles and poking them into her uterus. People weren't quite as ignorant as we often think.
I had a friend who swore that some primitive tribe somewhere believed that pregnancy was caused by thunder. The idea was so absurd I laughed -- what, they never noticed that the kid looked like the parents & pregnancy only occurred after male-female intercourse? How did one of the men of the tribe feel when his kid looked more like his friend than it looked like him?
He wasn't joking. And he had a degree in anthropology.
@Trumpit: "The planet is extremely overpopulated, and it is unsustainable. "
This is NOT true. There are approx. 5 acres of land for every man, woman and child on the planet. Do the math, if you don't believe that. That is not extremely overpopulated by any measure.
If a woman already has 'too many' children, she could adopt it out. In fact, not long ago when people had large families, sending children to live with financially better off relatives was quite common.
@Trumpit: "The planet is extremely overpopulated, and it is unsustainable. "
It is overpopulated by one, Trumpit. And guess which one?
The world has always been overpopulated. The number of people has always outstripped the amount of resources necessary to sustain them. As a result, many died early. You know what they did about it? They exploited the Hell out of the environment. Even in pre-scientific days they converted forest and marshes to farm land. They grabbed every fish out of every stream and lake they could. The result was not the end of life on earth, it was us.
People who believe that "there are too many of us" should do what it is obviously in their power to do -- reduce the population by one.
Otherwise they are gas bags.
@ Blogger HoodlumDoodlum Check the link I provided for why the abortion argument does not reflect the feelings of the majority of women who have had abortions, i.e., women who already have children. In short, people make the arguments about "clumps of cells," which is true for a very short time, to avoid having to discuss abortion in terms of personal experiences and be exposed to judgement. It's a defense mechanism.
Personally I don't want to make a decision about abortion rights by looking at photos of fetuses anymore than I want to make a decision on gun rights by looking at photos of people with gun shot wounds.
"I can't verify those facts, but it is true that more Black babies are aborted than born alive in New York City these days and for several years. It is also true that most abortion clinics are located near or in low income Black and Brown communities."
Gee, if conservatives were the racists the leftists claim they are, they'd applaud abortions. Wouldn't racists be happy about fewer poor black babies being born?
All those deaths sure make Trumpit happy.
Trumpit, I'm not sure why you're so upset about those doctors who "murdered" your mother, since you're perfectly fine with medical murders. Those doctors did a noble and commendable thing, since your mother was using up Gaia's precious resources. You should have sent them flowers and chocolates.
Before Roe abortion was legal. Rare. undertaken seldom. A Doctor could perform an abortion for need. The local elected prosecutor would only investigate if the community voiced there displeasure that a certain Dr might be having a lot of traffic from women outside the community. The community had decided what was appropriate, and through their elected officials enforced community standards.
That is how a self governing populace is supposed to operate.
sending children to live with financially better off relatives was quite common.
It worked out pretty well, as with General Sherman who was adopted by a wealthy family friend after his father died young.
It was almost a rule among Romans, many children were adopted by other families as a routine.
The Samoans adopted older children for voyages, leaving younger at home with other families.
That is how a self governing populace is supposed to operate.
I knew girls who had abortions. The president of the LA County Medical Association did some as favors.
Surgical abortion requires the doctor to break through the mother's cervix to perform the abortion. The cervix is a muscle that the doctor has to rip into.
That is not an unreasonable theory although other studies (which don't come up on pubmed now) showed that military wives and active duty births showed a difference in brith Weight and perinatal problems by race. Blacks the worst, Whites, next and Hispanics had the least trouble.
Well we have had over 250 comments and the end result is that Ann gets pancaked again. Every time she steps out from behind the screen and shows her social progressive core she gets nailed. You can just smell the stench of 60s social engineering in the phony strawman "a Women has the right to have an abortion if she wishes, it's her body". What about the living thing in her body. Does it have a right? So you see the the rights angle is a incomplete construct.
Always remember Roe vs Wade was about a whore wanted an abortion so she could go on whoring for dope money. Such a noble goal for feminism to rest its raison d'etre. Stick to equal pay.
Dr. Mengele would be Terribly proud of Althouse. And I do mean terribly.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if one of the 50 million plus babies that have been killed by abortion would have cured breast cancer if allowed to live?
If 'viability' is the concept on whether an abortion is acceptable, then how do you prevent post-birth abortion. No newborn is 'viable'. SO, is abortion okay up to age 5, say? Is a 5 year old sufficiently self-sustainable to be considered 'viable'? This whole line of reasoning is a joke to perpetuate the murder of the unborn.
Hey, Walter, Sarah should meet Obamacare.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if one of the 50 million plus babies that have been killed by abortion
That's just in America. Other nations have or had a one-child policy. America hosts selective-child or the "wicked solution" (a class of "final solution") nationally and globally through corporations including Planned Parenthood Federation. That said, I think it is incumbent upon civilized people to conceive and develop a better solution. And there are life-affirming, individual dignity-aware, viable solutions offered by Catholics, Eastern and Russian Orthodox, Orthodox Jews, and some conservative Protestant denominations, that reconcile the rights of the mother, father, and child, the value of human life, and normalize (i.e. promote) rational choices for edge cases (e.g. rape-rape).
Dr. Mengele would be Terribly proud
Dr. Mengele, yes. Recycled-child occurs for the sake of medical progress, and is closely associated (not like NYT journolistic style standards) with selective-child that was normalized for social progress (and democratic leverage).
"Is it really fair or humane to call them murderers?"
Humane? Can we get a hyperbole check on aisle #3? Inhumane should be reserved for something worse than labellig abortion as murder. Like slicing people into little pieces and scaping their remains off the wall of the uterus. Thats inhumane.
“The answer is: your statement (10:41 am) that "The question has been whether that which is alive is a person, because legal rights belong to a person." I repeat my question: How do you reach the conclusion that the fetus or unborn child isn't a person with legal rights?”
Again, I never said the unborn is not a person.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood for the express purpose of aborting black babies as part of her eugenics ideas. Guess she was a closet Republican, right?
Abortion... The cervix is a muscle that the doctor has to rip into.
That is not an unreasonable theory although other studies (which don't come up on pubmed now) showed that military wives and active duty births showed a difference in brith Weight and perinatal problems by race.
They may have common cause, or correlation, but different origins. While dysfunction forced by elective abortion may originate in physical trauma, the other forcings may have genetic or phenotypic origins.
You have rights against the govt.
The woman’s right is against limits govt might want to impose.
The right you might want the unborn to have is an assertion of a power of one private citizen over another, similar to the right against slavery, but you’re relying on constl text that is limited to what govt can do.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood for the express purpose...
Perhaps some Republicans, if not in principle, then as an exception. However, Republicans stood for Constitutional rights as originally recorded, which did not carve out exceptions for diversity, sex, age, etc.
We are not talking about gov't rights but inalienable rights. Gov't rights come and go but the inalienable right to life is beyond the vagaries of man.
Personally I don't want to make a decision about abortion rights by looking at photos of fetuses anymore than I want to make a decision on gun rights by looking at photos of people with gun shot wounds.
Your analogy is bad.
That analogy would only work if the government was saying, "Nobody dies because of the gun industry." Then honest journalists would run photographs of gun deaths to prove that such a thing is happening.
The government is literally saying, nobody is dying from an abortion. That's the government's claim, that the babies are not people and nobody has died.
It's a lie, a vicious lie.
A gun, by the way, is simply a tool by which people kill one another. That tool may be used rightly or wrongly. Pro-lifers aren't talking about outlawing tools, the knives or poisons that are used to kill unwanted children. Pro-lifers are talking about the violence itself that is evil and wrong.
A proper analogy, then, would not be a gun industry that profits by selling tools. Rather, you'd have to imagine some sort of billion dollar industry where people can pay money and kill helpless and innocent "non-viable" people.
Suppose, for instance, a Supreme Court who said that non-citizens are non-people and there is a constitutional right to terminate them. Imagine the billion dollar industry that profits from all those killings. And then imagine a media determined to hide this violence and pretend like it's not happening.
Ann Althouse said...Again, I never said the unborn is not a person.
That's true. You pointed out: The Supreme Court cases say the woman gets to decide when there is a person.
Ann Althouse said...The right you might want the unborn to have is an assertion of a power of one private citizen over another, similar to the right against slavery, but you’re relying on constl text that is limited to what govt can do.
That's true, too. The government can make it illegal for a person to kill another person--every person has a right to life and individuals are Constitutionally bound to respect that right and so that laws aimed at preventing the taking of a life are ultimately derived from individual personal rights protected by the Constitution.
But I'm not sure what the distinction you're making here is meant to do. My right to life isn't just against the State--the State can't kill me (without due process!) but the State can pass a law making it illegal for any individual to kill me. I can assert my individual rights against the State but infringements against those rights, by individuals, can be prevented by the State as well.
If the State tries to prevent me from putting up a political sign that's an infringement of my individual Constitutional rights, sure. But I can assert my 1st Amendment right against a non-State person who, say, tore down a sign of mine as well--that'd be illegal destruction of my property and the State could seek to prevent that and/or punish it.
If I don't have rights against individuals killing me what's the basis for laws prohibiting murder? At a very minimum the State seems to have an interest in not allowing people to kill me! Why wouldn't the State have the same interest in preventing the killing of a newborn? If that exists then the actual question rolls back to why not an unborn person a time = X (picking the X of your choice), which is where we started I think.
I'm trying to understand why a person would have an individual right to life with respect to the State but would not have the same right with respect to another person/other people. "You don't have a right not to be killed by a person, but you do have a right not to be killed by the State" seems odd, but maybe I'm missing something.
R.J. Chatt said...Personally I don't want to make a decision about abortion rights by looking at photos of fetuses anymore than I want to make a decision on gun rights by looking at photos of people with gun shot wounds.
That seems sensible to me but you're dangerously close to saying you want emotions/emotionalism to play less of a role in lawmaking and/or moral decisions and I should warn you against making that assertion here. Prof. Althouse has many times pointed out that it's wrong to ignore the role emotions/feelings play in cognition generally and in political opinions/debates specifically--she's been pretty harsh towards people who argue that's a bad thing or not true or should be changed. So, you know, your preferred non-emotional consideration wish is dangerous!
Ann Althouse said...You have rights against the govt.
Do you mean individuals have rights ONLY against the government (and not against other individuals)? If I don't have any rights other people/individuals/groups have to respect then I'm potentially in a lot of trouble--Amazon could enslave me and chain me to one of their packaging stations and I guess I'd have to say "well, that's just how it is, I have rights against the government but Amazon isn't the government--too bad for me!"
You have rights against the govt.
And OTHER rights too, yes?
Or, if the government falls tomorrow, do I have no longer have rights?
Personally I don't want to make a decision about abortion rights by looking at photos of fetuses anymore than I want to make a decision on gun rights by looking at photos of people with gun shot wounds.
Are you meaning to say that photos of fetuses are an emotional appeal? If so, I can understand that. They should not be used that way.
For me, it's like hearing that automatic rifles are a school shooting scourge, but the pictures show the weapons in question are really semi-automatic pistols.
The right you might want the unborn to have is an assertion of a power of one private citizen over another
No. That's the right you're trying to assert. The right of the mother, via contract, to kill her unborn child.
Even if you want to say a woman has a right to commit violence against her own person, and violence against the baby inside her uterus, she has no constitutional right to contract, to pay other people to terminate her baby for her. There is no such thing, under Lochner.
I realize the Supreme Court has been pretending that abortion is not an industry for 45 years. Apparently commerce that involves a doctor's office is somehow different from commerce that involves the baking of bread. A more eloquent right-wing Supreme Court might have written about the sanctity of our kitchens! How dare you try to regulate our kitchens, New York!
I put it to you that if liberals believe what they say, they should be willing to provide free abortions, pro bono abortions. Even if, as you say, a woman has a right of autonomy, that doesn't include a right to contract and to have a billion dollar industry that is unregulated by anybody.
As a pro-lifer, I say that an unborn baby has a right to life. And that people cannot be denied the equal protection of the laws. But if this argument fails, then I say that Congress and the states have explicit authority to regulate commerce, and they've always had such authority. And it's liberals who taught me that.
Why is this one industry outside the law? And why is reproduction more sacred and important than eating bread?
"electrical activity in a rudimentary group of cells"
A group of cells sentient people, when hearing about such electrical activity, call a baby.
"It's hard to understand why that sort of viability became the legal line."
Not hard at all. Prog overlord made it up and made it stick. That arbitrary imposition is "legal" in the US of A. Easy.
I think this same argument should have been used in Griswold, by the way. The idea that government cannot regulate drugs is preposterous. There is a lot of evidence that early birth control pills increased breast cancer risk among women. That's because early birth control pills were filled with estrogen and there is a link between estrogen and breast cancer.
Consider that Griswold, that wonderful Supreme Court opinion that everybody loves (except for Hugo Black), probably killed some people. Oops.
The right you might want the unborn to have is an assertion of a power of one private citizen over another, similar to the right against slavery, but you’re relying on constl text that is limited to what govt can do.
So laws against murder, manslaughter and homicide are what? Moot? Unconstitutional? Subject to the whim of five people in black robes?
An interesting contradiction on the Left: if husbands are controlling their women and making them vote for Trump, do they not also have oppressive control over forcing them to get abortions they don't want? But you never hear that argument. Odd.
I support assisted suicide, I think I should have the Liberty to decide to die. But I've backed off from the position because people smarter and wiser than me have effectively argued that what we really end up with is people being put down by family or state who no longer want them.
I never said the unborn is not a person.
Okay. Does that mean you think it's a person? And if so, why does this person not have the same rights as other people.
Please don't get pissy with me again or call me names. I'm not deliberately trying to misrepresent your words or pull a Maureen Dowd by clipping your senjtences. I'm asking in good faith because I don't understand how you can apparently(?) agree the unborn is a person while ignoring that person's rights. Or do you mean some people don't have rights?
I use the word "apparently" because you equivocated: I never said the unborn is not a person. I want to assume that means you believe the unborn is NOT a person, but that's not what you really said.
"I never said I was a Cowboy's fan. I also never said I wasn't."
Alabama just passed a law prohibiting men from having tumors removed. The law says this is a natural part of a human body and surgeons should not be altering God’s intent! You must live with it, and see how it works out. You alone are responsible for your own body no matter what might be growing inside you. Even if it kills you. Even if something external caused this tumor, you are responsible for it. Take care of that tumor.
Does the State, or society generally, have a right to force birth after the age of viability, after birth? Is three months (a.k.a. "trimester") too long, too short? Six months? Is the limit established through context and a well-understood process? Is post-birth responsibility the issue? Is education the missing link? Are there viable alternatives to selective-child?
When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain the right to life?
God, according to historical record, and other myths, established a religious/moral philosophy, advises to separate logical domains, and had the presence of mind to encourage men and women to exploit Nature in order to promote individual and general welfare of humanity.
The right you might want the unborn to have is an assertion of a power of one private citizen over another, similar to the right against slavery, but you’re relying on constl text that is limited to what govt can do.
This is a terrible argument. By this logic, the the laws against murder are unconstitutional.
It's also unsatisfying to say that abortion is only legal because of a technicality.
An interesting contradiction on the Left: if husbands are controlling their women and making them vote for Trump, do they not also have oppressive control over forcing them to get abortions they don't want? But you never hear that argument. Odd.
Even more damning, feminists are always warning us about coercion when it comes to sex.
How is it that men are so coercive and evil when it comes to sex, but we're always nice and agreeable once a woman is pregnant?
I'll bet the abortion conversations are a hell of a lot meaner than the "let's have sex" conversations.
"I love you. Let's have sex."
"I don't love you. You better have an abortion."
Never have I read more feeble arguments than the ones presented here to support abortion.
Why not save time and call "clumps of cells"
gooks
Gooks are lowest on the interstitial scale
They inconvenience people
I can see where we don't want govt telling women what to do
but with the ADA they mandate business owners accommodate disabilities
Building ramps, allowing for blind strippers
at the owners cost - govt tells people what they MUST spend on
Maybe these gooks women carry around are really "disabled"? perhaps gooks could be added to the ADA...
An unborn baby has been called an 'intruder' and a 'parasite' and now compared to a tumor. Ridiculous!
Alabama just passed a law prohibiting men from having tumors removed. The law says this is a natural part of a human body and surgeons should not be altering God’s intent! You must live with it, and see how it works out. You alone are responsible for your own body no matter what might be growing inside you. Even if it kills you. Even if something external caused this tumor, you are responsible for it. Take care of that tumor.
I wish I could say you are the first person I've ever run into who analogized abortion to removing a tumor. Unfortunately I've heard that one before.
See also "parasite" and "intruder."
A baby is not a cancer, not a disease, and not a criminal.
“Evangelist Pat Robertson on his television show Wednesday said the Alabama law is "extreme" and opined it may not be the best one to bring to the U.S. Supreme Court "because I think this one will lose."”
When you’ve lost Pat Robertson...
“I think Alabama has gone too far, they’ve passed a law that would give a 99-year prison sentence to those who commit abortions,” Robertson said Wednesday, as Talking Points Memo reports. “There’s no exception for rape or incest. It’s an extreme law and they want to challenge Roe v. Wade, but my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think this one’ll lose.”
Saint Croix said...
“A baby is not a cancer, not a disease, and not a criminal.”
What do all these things have in common? They are threat to one’s survival. Do you not understand that having a baby and raising it under the wrong circumstances is actually a threat to one’s survival? You think it’s better that government makes the choice rather than having control over your own body? Come on guys, embrace your tumors! Show me what a real man you are! Don’t wimp out and go to a doctor.
The State under establishment of Pro-Choice already forces women to give birth to her child at the age viability. Elective abortion is not the issue, and may, in fact, be a straw man -- clown, really -- apology with an ulterior motive.
Nothing like abortion to generate a 300 comment post.
More evidence about how stupid that Roe v Wade decisions was.
It's ironic that secular sects believe that evolution (i.e. chaos), supported by underwhelming myths of physical artifacts and assumptions/assertions about the system and processes, is the origin of human life, but not in the observable, reproducible evolution of human life following conception in the present. In Stork They Trust, I suppose.
That said, the State under establishment of Pro-Choice forces birth at the age of viability. Is responsibility the issue? Is there a missing link in education? Is it about democratic leverage? Perhaps it's about Planned Parenthood et al and recycled-child for medical progress.
Hey Mary, maybe the men here can name their tumor after their favorite President.
Nothing like abortion to generate a 300 comment post.
The comment density is actually rare for this topic. There is a greater likelihood of a thread covering peeing in a bed, prophecy of future climactic events, he said/she said tales of political opportunity, or defense of diversity and other colored judgments, yielding a higher comment limit.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“Hey Mary, maybe the men here can name their tumor after their favorite President.”
Right on!
the tumor analogy is stupid.
Pick something that actually makes sense.
It must be awfully hard for a woman who's had an abortion to carry for the rest of her life the thought that she'd actually had a life inside of her killed. So I can understand the need to make it seem something not that, and so the big lie. Maybe inevitable that some now make "tumor" jokes.
Althouse - “Men have the right to choose not to have an abortion.” Kinda sorta like “Gays have the right to marry, so long as it isn’t someone of the same sex.”
Blogger Michael K said...
. . . sending children to live with financially better off relatives was quite common.
It was common as recently as the Great Depression. Husband loses job, can't find another. Wife goes to live with parents or a better off sister, kids are parceled out to whichever relatives can afford them, husband hits the road and maybe sends for them when he finds work.
There's a well-written memoir on Gutenberg by a fellow who did this. He went to CA to work as a test pilot, for Grumman, IIRC, but it was a crappy job. There were so many veteran pilots out of work that the supply of test pilots exceeded demand, and the way the company worked it was the test pilots were paid per flight & whichever pilot bid the lowest got the job.
There’s literally no excuse - birth control is free - you can utilize as many forms needed to guarantee no pregnancy - it’s easy, start with an IUD, take the pill, use a condom, and then pullout before splooging...
“It must be awfully hard for a woman who's had an abortion to carry for the rest of her life the thought that she'd actually had a life inside of her killed. So I can understand the need to make it seem something not that, and so the big lie. Maybe inevitable that some now make "tumor" jokes.”
Lydia, I had for pregnancies and four births, giving me four wonderful children. I never ever considered having an abortion. I however, don’t think it’s our place to dictate what other women, many in dire straights do with their bodies. We don’t have a right to force women to carry and give birth to children they thought so little of that they would abort them.
The tumor jokes were directed at men and sometimes a bit of levity is not a bad thing.
Seeing Red said...
“the tumor analogy is stupid.
Pick something that actually makes sense.”
This does make sense and you know it. You just don’t want to deal with it.
and
Lydia said...
“It must be awfully hard for a woman who's had an abortion to carry for the rest of her life the thought that she'd actually had a life inside of her killed. So I can understand the need to make it seem something not that, and so the big lie. Maybe inevitable that some now make "tumor" jokes.”
It’s not hard at all for a woman to carry out the rest of her life, post-abortion, when she absolutely made the right decision. These are not your decisions to make. This is not your life to live. The “Tumor” is no joke. Go ahead, live with a tumor if you want, it’s natural, isn’t it?
Rather than tumor, the better analogy is organ... bringing a pregnancy to term and subsequent breastfeeding is essential to long term health - especially for the guy..
I'm asking in good faith because I don't understand how you can apparently(?) agree the unborn is a person while ignoring that person's rights. Or do you mean some people don't have rights?
Apparently Althouse believes that your right to life as a person only extends to government action, and that private individuals are entitled to kill inconvenient persons free from government intrusion. Well, at least women are.
This is not your life to live.
You're entirely right. It is not my life to live...it's the murdered baby's life to live we are talking about.
@Althouse: You say that those of us who think that it's wrong for the Government to authorize killing unborn children are mistaken, because the Constitution only limits what the Government can do, and the abortion is not done by the Government but by the abortionist at the request of the mother. (6:19 PM) Your argument is wrong because the Government is not simply standing aside, washing its hands; the Federal Government is affirmatively authorizing abortion and prohibiting State Governments from acting to protect the lives of the unborn.
Further, your idea of law as wholly negative runs contrary to the principles stated in our founding document. The Declaration of Independence says:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So if an unborn child is a person, which you admit, she has a right to life, and the purpose of a just government to protect that life. If the Government becomes destructive of that purpose, we have the right to abolish it.
This does make sense and you know it. You just don’t want to deal with it.
Tumors are not human beings. It was bad enough when you leftwing wackos tried to equate animal life with human life...but now tumors?
@Mary,
Go ahead, live with a tumor if you want, it’s natural, isn’t it?
No a "pathology" is not "natural". That's why we use the term an "illness". It's not "natural" any more than a boulder rolling down a hill & crushing you is "natural".
Pregnancy is not a pathology. It's what female mammals are designed to do from the cellular level up. That it is "natural" doesn't mean it's risk free. Homo Sapiens evolved to hunt & kill animals for meat (e.g. your teeth & guts are for meant for an omnivorous diet). Hunting animals isn't exactly risk free, either, since large herbivorous mammals take a dim view of a group of bipeds trying to spear them, & react with predictable violence.
Further, your idea of law as wholly negative runs contrary to the principles stated in our founding document. The Declaration of Independence says:
As a lawyer, Althouse will tell you that the Declaration is not law, and merely dictum to be ignored.
I however agree with your argument.
A tumor analogy is not accurate because a tumor is an abnormality, while a fetus is a human being at an early stage of development.
It is very odd to believe that sometimes, after intercourse, a woman develops an internal growth that has its own circulatory system and nervous system, meaning that it can experience its own existence, and that this is a "medical condition" that can be excised or allowed to develop until it turns into a human infant.
Why do feminists believe that being more like a man makes a woman more more womanish? How is her femininity enhanced by her killing her children?
Gahrie said...
“Tumors are not human beings. It was bad enough when you leftwing wackos tried to equate animal life with human life...but now tumors?”
Tumors are part of a human being, correct? It’s alive, no? Why not save it? I have not seen an argument yet that will convince me otherwise. My broader point was specific to “men with tumors”, you see? Just men. You have to live with your tumor. Sorry but that’s nature. And that’s the law in Alabama.
Mary, maybe MEN with a pilonidal cyst which can contain hair and even teeth, would sound less pathological to them and could even be named Harry.
Tumors are part of a human being, correct?
This is where you make your fundamental and inexcusably ignorant mistake. A baby is not "part of a human being". It is a distinct human individual different from its mother genetically.
The hateful term "parasite" is more correct.
The analogy you should be making is to a tapeworm, not a tumor you ghoul.
One of the weaknesses of Roe is its reliance on viability. While i am surprised it has not happened sooner, eventually there will be artificial wombs and viability will essentially come much much earlier. Then they will have to switch to "viability within the organic womb" or something similar.
How is her femininity enhanced by her killing her children?
Exactly! Women should be proud of their ability to give birth. It is the one thing they irrefutably do better than men. It is absolutely vital to the preservation of the species.
Oh sorry, it’s called a dermoid cyst.
“Women should be proud of their ability to give birth.”
Most women are.
“It is the one thing they irrefutably do better than men.”
Oh please.
“ It is absolutely vital to the preservation of the species.”
Didn’t you say you were childless Gahrie? Why haven’t you procreated?
If I had a tumor that would almost certainly develop (with some discomfort to myself) into a human infant I wouldn't have it killed. I suppose most guys wouldn't. It's not like you have to care for it, you can always give it away to a couple eager to have it.
I think that one of the Greek philosophers said that without the ability to reproduce, women would be seen as they truly are, that is, as spindly, mutilated men. Why don't women understand this?
“[W]omen who do not want to be pregnant” should have the freedom to choose not to have sex.
Didn’t you say you were childless Gahrie? Why haven’t you procreated?
Bad decisions. It's my only regret in life.
“Didn’t you say you were childless Gahrie? Why haven’t you procreated?”-me
“Bad decisions. It's my only regret in life.”- Gahrie
Well for pity sake! Don’t lecture women on their bad decisions then.
YoungHegelian said...
“No a "pathology" is not "natural". That's why we use the term an "illness". It's not "natural" any more than a boulder rolling down a hill & crushing you is "natural”.”
I think all these arguments are philosophical and religious in nature, if you believe an embryo is a person, then you will have a different perspective than someone that believes it’s just an embryo and NOT a person. A destructive tornado is completely natural, but would you stop it if you could? These are questions about when we do have the power to control our own lives, do you simply accept what has happened, even though you have control over it? You are asking women to surrender to some type of doom. Surrender Dorothy! Sorry for the joke but I just sort of set myself up for it while I was typing.
“Bad decisions. It's my only regret in life.”- Gahrie
Well for pity sake! Don’t lecture women on their bad decisions then.
Thinking that the girl I should have courted in high school was too good for me is not nearly the same thing as deciding to kill a child.
“Thinking that the girl I should have courted in high school was too good for me is not nearly the same thing as deciding to kill a child.”
Your “bad decision” may have prevented a lovely child from being created.
You could’ve donated your sperm Gahrie, if you were truly so concerned about the preservation of the species.
These are questions about when we do have the power to control our own lives, do you simply accept what has happened, even though you have control over it?
Women today, especially in the United States, have more control over their lives, bodies and ability to get pregnant than at any other time or place in human existence. Rape and sexual violence are anathema and punished severely. (Personally I would support the death penalty for people who commit multiple rapes) Birth control is cheap and easily available. The Right wants to make birth control pills available over the counter. It is universally acknowledged in the West that women have the ultimate veto in the decision to have sex, even in marriage. After birth there is huge support for mothers from the government even if the father and family are not there to provide. If you truly don't want the child, there are millions of Americans who do...and have to adopt from overseas instead because of all the abortions. There are countless ways the government controls our lives. It has forced men to die for us and our nation.
Women complain that in certain times and places they have been treated as sub-human, as property. I join with them in condemning that. I simply don't understand why they now insist on doing the same thing to our children.
Your “bad decision” may have prevented a lovely child from being created.
I'm sure it did. Several in fact. My only consolation is that she did have a beautiful family anyway.
"Hi women! We, the men, have come up with a variety of methods that will prevent you becoming pregnant. It's your choice, now. All you have to do is take a pill daily & you can stop doing that whenever you want & get pregnant."
"What if I forget to take the pill and get pregnant by accident?"
"Well, then you have to bear it to term. You can give it up to a loving family, however. No stigma!'
"Are you INSANE! Unless I have the ability to kill the developing child I am not in control of my own reproduction!"
"???"
@Mary,
I think all these arguments are philosophical and religious in nature
You speak as if moral arguments could possibly be anything else.
To say an argument is philosophical in nature is not to then automatically claim "Well, you got yours, I've got mine".
Some arguments are better than others, after all.
I sometimes think that whether to abort or not is a kind of ethical test. It defines what it is to be human and how we respect that humanity. A sleeping human is utterly helpless. It is not conscious, it can't voluntarily do anything. It has the potential to be what we think of as a functioning, self aware person when it awakes, but it is not that while it sleeps.
We sometimes kill people because they have made poor or understandable decisions. In war we legally kill people because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Killing because we may thereby profit in our personal well being is repugnant to humans. I can't think of any exceptions other than killing for revenge, and this is morally questionable to modern people.
In abortion we legally kill because the growing infant might leave stretch marks? Or require the loss of a few weeks of work? It's ridiculous.
Althouse: “but the statement about the possibly null set is clearly true.”
Okay, this is an error. You are not making a statement about the null set, you are making a statement about an element of the null set. This is not a trivial distinction. “Sharpen up!”
Now, all statements about elements of the null set are true. That is because there is no element of the null set, and assuming one exists to make a claim about it is a contradiction. A contradiction implies everything. “Meade can terminate his pregnancy” is a true statement. So is “Meade cannot terminate his pregnancy.”
Women, as a group, seem to want to be as autonomous as men are.
The social pressure men feel is not to be autonomous. No one envies the thirty-five year old dad with three kids that are in the custody of his wife (who also has the home).
FBI Agent: ...and then you placed the powerdrill against the back of her skull, pulled the trigger and scrambled her brains, correct?
Fen: These are not your decisions to make. This is not your life to live.
Inga: Agreed. I don’t think it’s my place to dictate what men, many in dire straights, do with their bodies.
Fen: ...money for nothing and your chicks for-
FBI Agent: Knock it off!
I have not seen an argument yet that will convince me otherwise.
A tumor is a mutation of your DNA
A baby only shares 50% of your DNA, the other 50% is from someone else. It is not your property, you have no right over it, it is not your body.
Once cloning tech advances, the law will catch up to allow men to protect their DNA. And that will include the DNA that doesn't belong to you.
You are on the wrong side of history. Tech will make abortion irrelevant, just as did slavery. And people like you will be regarded the same way we regard slavers today. Your statues will be toppled, your graves turned up. You will be as known as monsters who served their babies up as veal.
Ann Althouse said...
"As long as men don't have the same legal options, I don't care."
Men do have the legal option to choose to end their pregnancies.
5/15/19, 8:54 AM
The pregnancy that the man fathers is his pregnancy too. If not, then he has no stake in it.
Think about autonomy arguments in the area of sexual relations.
An adult can have sexual relations with any adult. We leave this almost entirely unregulated. This is what the Supreme Court might refer to as "privacy."
But this doesn't apply to prostitution. The state has always had authority to regulate prostitution, under its power to regulate commerce. It's the dollars traded that take this transaction out of the realm of privacy. Right?
If you take this argument into abortion politics, it means the state can't regulate abortions that are done freely, as pro bono, as a doctor who is "helping" a pregnant woman out of a "bad" situation. If you reject the idea that abortion is killing a baby, or a danger to women, at least we should accept the idea that the abortion industry is a business. And there is no general right to contract or engage in commercial activities, at least not at the level of the U.S. Constitution.
It's one thing to say, "I killed this baby to save a woman from a fate worse from death." Maybe that's so. Maybe it was an ectopic pregnancy, or you believed her when she said she was raped.
It's quite another thing to say, "I'm in the baby-killing business and I charge a fee for my services."
When Bill Clinton says that abortion should be "rare," it's quite obvious that he knows the profit-seekers in the abortion industry are obscene. It would be awful to here some abortion CEO talk about how they increased revenues 20% this year, and how they're having spectacular success with their new lines of poisons. This is why Planned Parenthood pretends to be a "non-profit." And yet how many free abortions do they do? Are you a charity or are you a hypocrite?
@Mary,
"I think all these arguments are philosophical and religious in nature"
It is, I think, a moral arguement. And ,as someone above has said, it tells us a lot about us in how we deal with it. First principals.Is it alive? Yes? Then it has all the genetic material to be a complete unique human being. I think a lot of the atguement on the pro abortion side is to mask this point as much as possible. Death is permanent.
If you came to this discussion understanding nothing of the topic. You would be forced to conclude that the side arguing a tumor and baby are equal, are not to be taken seriously. A person arguing from such an inane assumption deserve no respect.
And the same people who call a baby a tumor, a parasite, and an intruder, will howl with rage if you shoot an iguana, an invasive non-native species in much of the world.
I read this entire thread as it unfolded - when I should have been working.
I'm impressed with many of the comments from the anti-abortion side, most of then measured and thoughtful, and I've thought of things in a new light.
But is this really the best that the pro-abortion side can do? Calling a baby an intruder, a parasite, a tumor? There is nothing there, no substance, nothing.
50 million(?) dead babies since Roe v. Wade, based on nothing. A holocaust.
If women are the group that's really so pro-abortion-
Why are most abortionists male?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा