"... are safe and reasonable. It’s a personal decision. It’s really up to you.' Then I see a look in her eyes, like:
You’re kidding. Up to me? Sometimes it is a look of fear, at least at first. But inevitably it transforms into something else: a deep, probing, inward gaze that shows me she is, in my presence, accessing a very private place within herself. I have not provided her access to this place—she can get there without me—but I have given her permission to enter it. To withdraw, for a moment, from me and my medical expertise, from the judgments and biases of her friends and family, from the shouts of the protesters in the parking lot. This is one of my favorite parts of my job: watching her go into that place and emerge from it with a decision—or a thoughtful question, or just a word, or yet another expression on her face, one of resolution or sadness or grief or relief. Whatever it is, it comes from within her. It belongs to her."
From "Aspirations/As an abortion provider, what I give my patients is not just a procedure but the space to make their own decisions about their bodies" by Christine Henneberg (NYRB).
That corresponds to the sentiment expressed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which I've quoted many times on this blog:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Posts
80 comments:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to take another life.” That sounds like Douglas Adams channeling Satan.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Of course, this 'liberty' is ONLY for Womb People. If a Womb person obtains a non Womb person's sperm (through hook or crook, i think you'd say?) then that non Womb person (a spluge stodge? if That the term), has NO RIGHTS, certainly no 'liberties'.. The stodge is a wallet; nothing more, nothing less... Is That right?
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Wouldn't that also give a person the right to define "a concept of existence" where Alito is murdered and Roe is saved?
After all, it's clear many people would prefer that concept to the current one.
Back in the day, i knew a Pro-Choice "spluge studge". He'd gotten a girl pregnant, and response was "That the b*tch D*amned well BETTER get an abortion", or that he'd 'blow her f*cking head off'
You see? He was Pro-Choice, and HIS CHOICE was that he'd MURDER the girl before he'd pay a dime in child support (He wanted you, to "keep your laws off of his body" (particularly his trigger finger)). It was fair (in his mind), the girl was just a clump of cells; that existed for his pleasure.
As it turned out, the girl was More Than Willing to have him pay for her abortion.. So we never found out just how staunch his Pro-Choice beliefs were.
Why am i sharing this? It's something that i think about Every time a womb person says that abortion isn't wrong. My Pro-Choice associate didn't think murder was wrong either
It should more accurately read “define one's own concept of ONE’S OWN existence”. And then we are back to where we were before. How much right to existence does a 7 month unborn child have.
Gee permission from a medical provider to define what is murder for themselves.To commit hubris and claim the awesome power of taking a life.No wonder the conscienceless feel good.I am now a goddess.No higher power than me.
It's so convenient to forget that in the debate there are two lives at issue. Who speaks for the child?
Years ago I spoke to a psychiatrist who chaired one of the hospital committees in Canada that ruled on whether abortions were approved. The committees were famous rubber stamps. He said he was completely in favour of women having the right to choose, but he was a bit concerned that there were so many repeat customers, indicating that women weren't using birth control. He wanted to have some way of installing an IUD in every woman who had an abortion. I'm guessing he had gone a bit mad.
Can someone please explain to me how the argument "my body, my choice" can be reconciled with the many laws that don't involve abortion but that limit things we can do with our bodies, including but not limited to in the health care arena?
I want to steel man the argument, so it's a good faith question.
It's a personal decision. Should I steal? What kind of view of other people's property do I want to be mine? Why would the state interfere with something so personal?
That language from Casey’s is such BS, it could be used to justify and legalize anything. And it’s not just “their bodies,” it’s also those other bodies. But my question is: how many women go to the clinic and say “hey Doc, should I get an abortion?” when there’s not any threat to the mother’s life? Maybe 2%?
Ah yes, liberty and the mysteries of life. A matter of governmental convenience and logical inconsistency Where was the eloquence in Casey when our government mandated vaccines?
The Mississippi law that is being addressed is less restrictive than France's abortion law. You have 14 weeks and must have two medical consultations.
A woman deciding whether or not to abort is under compulsion from every angle imaginable. What a load of horseshit this person is peddling. "She looks deep within..." Please.
Yes, there's legal, and the State should be very restrained in how it interferes. Social compulsion, though, is everywhere. Most of this woman's friends, especially and including the biological father, will pressure her with every argument, every meanness, every withholding of love and acceptance, they've got to get her to abort. If she does, their lives go blithely forward, while she's forever changed no matter which way she decides.
I detest this pseudo-zen pabulum regarding abortion. The decision is agonizing, it's brutal. The State, if it acts reasonably, can save women a lot of pain by putting this choice within defined boundaries by which all of society must abide.
We are the only country in the developed world that allows abortion to term.
These words are just voodoo to support abortion. They ignore science. Would you agree to them if espoused by Charles Manson before he carved up his victims?
Does this abortionist show the woman videos of babies in the womb at the stage of development in each case? Does the abortionists show videos of the actual abortion process including breaking the baby’s skull and sucking out his/her brains?
The only honest logic of abortion is “I don’t want this child, I have the power to kill it, I want to exercise that power.” All the rest is dishonest justification.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
All the soaring rhetoric anyone can throw at this can't alter the fundamental issue: Under what circumstances does a fetus become human, and thereby entitled to the protection of its inalienable right to life? To say that the fetus-host has the sole legitimate authority to determine this is to say that the fetus has no rights whatsoever. It is clearly an extreme position.
It's always interesting to read interviews with hired assassins. It's so strange to see how they see themselves; as professionals providing a service. But in providing that service to A, one must needs provide a very substantial disservice to B. Now, how does one choose whom to serve?
To quote a Nobel Prize-winner, "You've gotta serve someone."
Appreciating women's deep introspection as they contemplate whether or not to rip tiny human beings limb from limb. Dispatches from bizarro world.
"Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Ah, the good old days, when compulsion of the State was viewed with some skepticism.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Under the Mississippi law you have 15 weeks to make a personal choice.
After 15 weeks you now have some responsibility.
Yeah I know some women find the word responsibility abhorrent.
They will never be happy people and we should not allow their malignancy to infect our society.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
The mystery of life. There is the rub. If we are free to define that, under what constraints do we operate? It seems there is a lot of government compulsion in how we define the attributes of personhood. We can't say certain races or genders lack essential personhood (at least not any more), but we can say that certain stages of life lack personhood. There is no sufficient argument to say that under one case we can define for ourselves what personhood is and in another we cannot due to the "mystery" of life.
This argument is not about freedom, but about where we draw our lines. When someone is unborn, their personhood is defined by one other person who has a vested interest in that definition. At all other times, that personhood is defined by law (or as an inalienable right, which is only valid so long as the law agrees) and protected vigorously by the compulsion of government. In no other case except for the unborn is one's personhood subject to another person's belief and "freedom".
Them penumbras surely do emanate with nice language, don't they?
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Yep, that's exactly how I'm sure every woman contemplating an abortion sees it.
Fun fact. Almost 50% of women who have an abortion has had one or more previously. I guess they're still trying to figure that all out.
What a cop out.
"Aspirations". In the medical meaning, of course.
I am Laslo.
"At the heart of liberty..." Justice Alito quotes that line from Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in his draft opinion to overthrow Roe v Wade. He plainly isn't impressed by Justice Kennedy's profundity. Neither am I. Are you?
The thing that's missing in this abortionist's musings is the presence of the third party in the room. What about the existence of the unborn child? If we believe a dementia patient has a right to his existence, then just because an unborn child is not mentally competent yet would not negate his right to life. What we have in the vast number of abortions is two people who have behaved selfishly by creating a child they do not want deciding selfishly they have the right to kill the child. Or at least the woman has that right. The abortionist isn't giving her the opportunity to make that choice. We as a society have done that. The abortionist is the woman's weapon of choice. The whole "abortion on demand" movement is contemptable. The expectant mother most of all. Do the right thing. Give the child life and then give the baby to someone who deserves to become a mom. Then stop making babies you don't want. Treat the abortionist as a lethal weapon.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Exactly which provision of the Constitution says that?
"Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Exactly which provision of the Constitution prevents actual states from so compelling people, as they have done in various areas for most of American history? And I seem to recall that a condition for Utah's admission to the Union was giving up its people's concept of existence.
Of course, as an empirical matter, rather than a form of second-rate philosophizing, the second claim is simply false: beliefs about these matters can easily define the attributes of personhood if compelled in some way.
And of course, for abortion believers there is no "mystery" about human life at all: prior to birth, any clump of cells can be removed at will. Mystery solved.
And that is one is the stupidest fucking lines in the history of the Supreme Court. It's one thing to form and speak these beliefs, but it's entirely different to use it as justification for any possible behavior. This line can literally be used to justify mass murder and licking an ice cream cone and everything in between.
I'm getting kind of a Leopold and Loeb vibe here.
"It’s a personal decision"
The result of which may involve the services of a medical professional.
Which are inevitably regulated by the state.
So the issue in defining "abortion rights" is not simply how and when women (sorry!) can make the "personal decision" that the meaning of the universe should not encompass the life within, but also how, if at all, professionals charged with enhancing health should be allowed to kill a developing fetus.
Abortion was never a "private" matter, and can't be.
https://www.livescience.com/5585-fetuses-memories.html
I did not realize that the sweet mystery of life passage was such an important sentiment to you, Professor Althouse. I previously had a very high opinion of you, but this really does shake that. Not that this should mean anything to you - I'm sure it doesn't and probably shouldn't.
It's just that it's so vacuous. It's like something John Lennon would have rejected when writing "Imagine."
Alito properly notes,
The Court did not claim that this broadly framed right is absolute, and no such claim would be plausible. While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they
wish about "existence," "meaning," the "universe," and "the mystery of human life," they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts. License to act on the basis
of such beliefs may correspond to one of the many understandings of "liberty," but it is certainly not "ordered liberty."
Jeffrey Dahmer's concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life was to kill, dismember, and consume teenage boys and young men, this does not mean that the constitution protects this liberty.
You are better - meaning, more intellectually rigorous - than this, Professor Althouse.
The power to if only for an instant to be God.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Thus the progressive path and slope of human rites, abortion chambers, Mengele mandates in secular societies. No one has a right to redefine evolution of a human life, which has been scientifically established from conception, not for granny or baby. Six weeks to the first heartbeat, to coherent nervous system function, to viability. A baby step back to conception.
I have too much respect for Althouse's extraordinary mind to think that she actually believes that horseshit language concludes the issue....or any issue outside of a philosopher's hookah lounge.
- Krumhorn
Do the right thing. Give the child life and then give the baby to someone who deserves to become a mom. Then stop making babies you don't want.
Yes, four choices: abstinence, prevention, adoption (shared), and compassion (personal). And an equal right of self-defense through reconciliation is the only internally, externally, and mutually consistent justification for elective abortion of a wholly innocent human life. That said, six weeks to the first heartbeat, to coherent nervous system function (closely correlated with consciousness), and a baby step back to conception (the "big bang" of human evolution) for baby and granny alike.
The power to if only for an instant to be God.
Mortal goddesses and gods, anyway, which are all too common in secular religions, cults, really, and particularly in the last century or so, where they have overseen mass abortion practices, fields, at the beginning, end, and throughout life.
Okay, so CASEY is the thing, not ROE. Got it.
This sounds a lot like Eve when she proffered the apple to Adam.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Remove "State" and insert "God" and you have a hackneyed rationale for atheism as well as abortion. Push a little further and you can justify murder.
Regardless of the hifalutin legalese and the "personhood" BS, abortion is inarguably the killing of an innocent human being.
The excerpt here is supposed to fool people into thinking that there is a real discussion and that the choice is really the WOMAN'S. But this is fraudulent. This is NOT informed consent. This is telling ONE side of the facts and not telling the whole story, which leads to an decision that has been molded and formed by the abortionist.
Where is the information about what abortion actually entails, namely, the killing of a living human being?
Meanwhile, contrary to his arbitrary declaration, the Constitution does not enshrine Anthony Kennedy's embrace of relativism.
Levi Starks said...
"The power to if only for an instant to be God."
And the longer one lives the more one should terrified of such power.
Strip away the verbose gibberish, and it's actually an interesting argument: When human life starts should be an individual choice, not a government fiat.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
I'm sure the southern plantation owner felt rather strongly about his concept of existence and the mystery of human life. That concept didn't include the darker skinned among his "staff".
Was this the Court's inspiration in Casey? It's no less profound, or germane.
David French hits the nail on the head: "It’s the impact on the unborn child that sets apart Dobbs, the case on which Alito wrote his draft opinion, from, say, Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court’s ruling on same-sex unions. Gay marriage involves consenting adults. No unborn child consents to his or her own destruction."
Liberal commentators from Slate, MSNBC, et al pushed the recent polls which show that 65% of the sampling taken favors keeping abortion. But one can wonder what the polling would have been like if all 60 million aborted babies had been welcomed into our world.
Any right or liberty to arbitrarily take an innocent human life, like any claimed right or liberty to own another innocent human life, only diminishes the person claiming it.
"Aspirations/As an abortion provider, what I give my patients is not just a procedure but the space to make their own decisions about their bodies"
Everybody with any public profile talks like a PR flack or ad man nowadays.
But is it in good taste for an "abortion provider" to use the word "aspirations" given that "aspiration" is a word for an abortion procedure?
David French hits the nail on the head: "It’s the impact on the unborn child that sets apart Dobbs, the case on which Alito wrote his draft opinion, from, say, Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court’s ruling on same-sex unions. Gay marriage involves consenting adults. No unborn child consents to his or her own destruction."
Hardly original thinking here.
Harry Blackmun said essentially the same thing in Roe v. Wade, that a woman cannot be isolated in her pregnancy and that there is another human life involved (even if he tried to squirm out of it by irrationally referring to him or her as "potential" life).
I appreciate Althouse blogging so much about abortion these days. Hopefully, it will give some reason to to think about it.
The problem I have is it's being reduced to a legal argument. I usually take every opportunity to express my loathing of precedent. This "opinion is based off another opinions based off that opinion"...off on tangents so far removed from the Constitution it's never even mentioned.
Laws are based off morality. Period.
Maybe spend a few minutes in thought examining the morality of abortion.
That corresponds to the sentiment expressed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which I've quoted many times on this blog:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Wow! So if I define "liberal Democrat" as "not a human life", I can kill them and no one can stop me?
That line was asinine then, and it's still asinine now. Were those black slaves people, or property ?
You'll note we don't let people have their own definition on that, either.
You have the total right to control your own body. Don't want to get pregnant / get someone pregnant? Don't have sex. Or make damn sure that your sex will be non-procreative
But once you've created that other human being, it's not just about you.
And because you live in a society, the rest of us in that society get a say one "who counts as human", and therefore worthy of our protection
Stories like this is why people are posting how to get abortion medicine at feed stores.
You’re kidding. Up to me?
Not if it is about wearing a mask or using anti-viral medicine to fight Covid.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
You have to go down a long way to get to the important numbers
When, exactly, during a pregnancy should abortion be legal, and at what point should it become illegal? To help answer this question, the survey posed follow-up queries about three periods: six weeks (when cardiac activity – sometimes called a fetal heartbeat – can be detected), 14 weeks (roughly the end of the first trimester), and 24 weeks (near the end of the second trimester).
The survey data shows that as pregnancy progresses, opposition to legal abortion grows and support for legal abortion declines. Americans are about twice as likely to say abortion should be legal at six weeks than to say it should be illegal at this stage of a pregnancy: 44% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal at six weeks (including those who say it should be legal in all cases without exception), 21% say it should be illegal at six weeks (including those who say abortion should always be illegal), and another 19% say whether it should be legal or not at six weeks “depends.” (An additional 14% say the stage of pregnancy shouldn’t factor into determining whether abortion is legal or illegal, including 7% who generally think abortion should be legal, and 6% who generally think it should be illegal.
At 14 weeks, the share saying abortion should be legal declines to 34%, while 27% say illegal and 22% say “it depends.”
When asked about the legality of abortion at 24 weeks of pregnancy (described as a point when a healthy fetus could survive outside the woman’s body, with medical attention), Americans are about twice as likely to say abortion should be illegal as to say it should be legal at this time point (43% vs. 22%), with 18% saying “it depends.”
6 weeks: 51% legal, 27% illegal, 19% "it depends"
14 weeks: 41% legal, 33% illegal, 22% "it depends"
24 weeks: 29% legal, 49% illegal, 18% "it depends"
When polls say "Americans support Roe", what they're actually saying is "Americans have been sold a bill of goods on Roe".
The American people do not support "unlimited abortion right" even to the end of the 1st trimester.
So, what's going to happen if Roe gets struck down?
Democrat politicians will be forced (by their base) to come out in favor of "abortion up until birth", and they'll drive away all moderate voters
The daughter of one of my work friends had to have an emergency C-section on April 16th. Little Henry was born 12 weeks early, weighing just 3.7 pounds. He's been in the NICU since then, growing bit by bit, another tiny miracle. And he's a person, not a fetus. The idea that an unborn baby the age of Henry could be aborted is an abomination.
It does seem to be wise, but there is a hidden context of "we are only talking about these nine months of gestation." That is an unacknowledged framework in the statement. Once we realise we have put this framing on the question we then can ask if the statement still sounds logical outside that frame, and see immediately that it does not. We do not get to define the concept of existence for other beings. This leads to the next question, of "Is this framing that we are imposing legitimate? Because if the framing does not apply, then the statement falls to the ground, regardless of how we feel about that."
So I wonder in what way we have this indefensible statement, which might become defensible in a particular context, eligible for the special pleading of applying the context? Various avenues might be attempted, but I don't see that any of them are all that solid. To say "well, as there is some question, as there is not about a one-month old infant, we get to apply that context simply because a difference of opinion exists" won't hold up on followup. To say that the unborn child does not look like a full human, with that increasing as we go back in development also goes down one question later, as infants don't look much like adults either.
Pro-choice people do find the extreme comparisons unfair and annoying, about being able to define Jews or handicapped people as not real lives, because it seems so beside the point because no one is advocating that. Yet logically, annoying or not, it does hold. It is probably better to keep the focus on the already born, but it's not illogical.
To appeal to inward-looking impressions is ultimately to rely on feelings, which are deeply influenced by the fact that the fetus is invisible to the outside observer without artificial equipment. I see why that is a powerful experience, but I do not see that it influences the logical issues in any way. That women (and sometimes their partners) grow contemplative and thoughtful in the face of the experience is not any evidence that they are thinking accurately. Poetic self-impression, no matter how vividly and skillfully expressed, can be too easily manipulated by a hundred things to be considered serious thought.
"How do you write eomen so well" she asks- First, I think of a man,,,,,,,, then I subtract reason and accountability."
Jack Nicholson's greatest movie line.
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/05/06/cnn-scotus-draft-decision-hasnt-changed-the-midterm-landscape-n467616
Has number from an AP poll earlier this year (as a graphic, no link to the poll :-( )
1st trimester: legal in all cases : 38% legal in most cases: 23% illegal in most cases: 22% illegal in all cases: 16%
2nd trimester: legal in all cases : 15% legal in most cases: 19% illegal in most cases: 30% illegal in all cases: 35%
3rd trimester: legal in all cases : 8% legal in most cases: 11% illegal in most cases: 26% illegal in all cases: 54%
So, "mostly legal" vs "mostly illegal":
1st: 61 - 45
2nd: 34 - 65
3rd: 19 - 80
That's not Roe, that's not Casey, and by the time November rolls around 60%+ of American voters will find that repealing Roe left them either where they want the law to be, or the law still TOO pro abortion
Like the deep satisfaction a criminal gang member might feel as he initiates a new member by invitation to some bit of violence, to see the younger man go into himself and make a decision.
Evil corrupts one's ability to reason and blights one's imagination. That women are apparently only learning that they have a conscience and free will in an abortionist's cubicle ('she came in for an abortion, and what she got instead, or first, was a glimpse of this: her agency') is a terrible symptom of our society's decadence.
I am strongly Pro-Choice, so I will get that out of the way first.
But this quote: ""At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." While I know that I share practically zero values with the commentariat here (and precious few with the hostess), I have to say commenters have been pretty damn spot on to sneer at this quote as a justification for some sort of court decision or even policy, for that matter. Whatever gesture towards the value of liberty itself exists within that quote, commenters are correct to note here that this is the sort of thing that can easily be said to justify any number of atrocities, public or private. Hell, any number of our living oligarchs--Bezos, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, Musk, Cuban, whichever one comes to your mind--could easily have said those words and then a lot of people would squeal at how deep the thoughts of the strivers are. It reeks of elitism through and through. Kennedy himself was of the oligarch class, though, so yeah.
If it's not a medical concern driving the decision, why would she ask this "provider" for opinion If she's that confused, she should be encouraged to go home and do some thinking and consulting away from the office.
The abortion rights group would have done better if they stuck with the tone of the 90s where the motto was Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I can understand why that shifted. Because more than one anti abortion activist would quip something like, "Why rare? By saying it should be rare you are acknowledging it is wrong." And because abortion rights are so treasured by some it probably felt like giving anything to the other side would risk everything. But fundamentally most people think there is something of worth, something human in an unborn child that is near term. But trying to sacramentalize abortion as an individual right and pretending there is no other life strikes many as wrong. And by wrong I don't mean morally wrong, though obviously many feel that way, I mean wrong as incorrect. Abortion rights groups could get a lot of support if it was treated as an at times a necessary evil. One that must be protected to avoid inflicting greater evil on women.
But a lot potential supporters of abortion rights will not support them if there doesn't appear to be any counterbalance against the choice of abortion. And if it at the heart of liberty to define one's own meaning for existence, then why have the cutoff at birth? To my mind there are four possibilities of when a human being becomes a human being: 1) conception, 2)sometime after conception but before birth when there has been sufficient development, 3) at birth, and 4) sometime after birth when the baby gains sentience. Now position four sounds monstrous to many but to my mind it is far more intellectually defensible than position three. In fact I find it very hard to defend position three at all. What exactly changes that causes this transubstantiation of organized grouping of tissue into human being? If the birth is in process and the only portion left in the birth canal is the that baby's foot, does that become it's Achilles heel? Is it not human because of that? And in regards to position four, in much of human history infanticide was the norm for children that were deformed or abnormal. So it is a position that humans have settled at for a while. But our whole way of life depends on human beings being special, of having inherent human dignity. And when a human has inherent human dignity at minimum it means that society has to, to some degree, protect that human's life. And the unavoidable question that society has to address, not the individual, is when does society deem a human a human. Even if society, through state legislation arrives at position two, or even position one, that doesn't mean that women will necessarily lose their abortion rights. To my mind all pro life anti-abortion legislation has exceptions for the life of the mother and in cases of rape
Individual liberty is a value, like every other right, which exists on a continuum. Absolute individual freedom may be said theoretically to exist in a completely anarchic state where every man can do what he wills. Ironically, most men (and all women) would not experience that as liberty in reality. In an ordered society we all sacrifice that theoretical absolute freedom, to secure ourselves against the kind of oppression most of us would actually enjoy in an anarchy. In a republic, that means laws limiting our freedom set by majoritarian institutions in a democratic negotiation reflecting individual and sub-group morals as compromised (and changed over time).
The only exceptions to our majoritarian rule, which unelected judges are empowered to enforce, are enumerated in the Constitution (which itself can be amended by super majorities).
What has this kind of existential philosophizing to do with legally interpreting a Constitution, which for more than 200 years was never discovered to enshrine an absolute right to abortion, and was certainly never amended to expressly include such a right?
If Kennedy's method is somehow a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution Bill of Rights, how could it have been limited to abortion? Surely if "my body, my choice" is a Constitutional principal on a equal footing with every other individual right in the Bill of Rights, it applies to men as well as women, to young as well as old, to mentally ill as well as sane, to suicide, recreational drug use and vaccine mandates as well as any other medical procedure dictated by State.
I am strongly Pro-Choice, so I will get that out of the way first.
You'll never get that out of the way, no matter how much you equivocate or rationalize.
Don't want to get pregnant / get someone pregnant? Don't have sex. Or make damn sure that your sex will be non-procreative
That's exactly Althouse's position when it comes to men. It's only women (however the word is defined) that have a "right" to kill their unborn child instead. yet another case where "equal" means "privileging women".
Lloyd W. Robertson said...
Years ago I spoke to a psychiatrist who chaired one of the hospital committees in Canada that ruled on whether abortions were approved. The committees were famous rubber stamps. He said he was completely in favour of women having the right to choose, but he was a bit concerned that there were so many repeat customers, indicating that women weren't using birth control. He wanted to have some way of installing an IUD in every woman who had an abortion. I'm guessing he had gone a bit mad.
How about tying the tubes as part of the second one? Oh, wait, some might find that a little harsh. Let’s compromise- tie them as part of the third abortion. After all, in liberal land, that’s how compromises work going th other way.
Laslo @ 12:13: "...Aspirations..."
OMG. "Threadwinner" doesn't do this justice.
I could define my own concept of the universe, but the universe is indifferent to me and to what I think of it.
"what I give my patients is not just a procedure but the space to make their own decisions about their bodies"
Anywhere else that's called the waiting room.
"To my mind all pro life anti-abortion legislation has exceptions for the life of the mother and in cases of rape"
But that isn't what any of the new restrictive laws have allowed. You can think this, but those who believe in life at conception are writing the laws ... and without these carve outs.
It's cute you think mentioning them on a blog gets you somewhere.
"We are the only country in the developed world that allows abortion to term."
Once again, Michael K claims to speak medical truth, but actually lies (see: Canada).
Why anyone takes anything he says in good faith I will never know, given his track record with truth here.
When a woman in an abortion clinic asks "What do you recommend"? She isn't asking for a medical recommendation and she's definitely asking the wrong person for a moral recommendation.
This is indescribably sad. There's a part of her who knows this is wrong. The abortionist is giving her permission to ignore this part of herself. What he should say is, you are looking for moral guidance and I am a doctor who you only just met. Go, seek out someone you know and trust, let this person guide your decision.
When a woman in an abortion clinic asks "What do you recommend"? She isn't asking for a medical recommendation and she's definitely asking the wrong person for a moral recommendation.
======
when there is no inner self that can make decision on moral life or death issues >>> why does everyone call it selfish decision?
she should know that -abortion provider- antonym for /intimacy co-ordinator/
I am 100% pro-choice [included is abortion] as long as it is DIY : womb-woman doing it as project at home/safe space.
I am 100% pro-choice [included is abortion] as long as it is DIY : womb-woman doing it as project at home/safe space.
When a woman in an abortion clinic asks "What do you recommend"? She isn't asking for a medical recommendation and she's definitely asking the wrong person for a moral recommendation.
======
when there is no inner self that can make decision on moral life or death issues >>> why does everyone call it selfish decision?
she should know that -abortion provider- antonym for /intimacy co-ordinator/
I'm wondering where in that heart of freedom is the fundamental right to take the life of another human being just because that life is inconvenient.
I agree with Joe Rogan: where do we draw the line? Does an adult have the right to refuse to care for a newborn infant, to actually kill that infant?
The difference between abortion and removing a wart is not that both of the things being removed are living human cells, it's that one of those things has independent DNA and, if not actively prevented, will shortly grow into a recognizable human child. So, what are the prerequisites to obtain the guarantee of full human rights? Fetal viability? That age becomes less and less as technology increases. What happens when the first artificial human womb is created? At what point does the developing human get the protection afforded all humans? We are already seeing socialized health care systems in some Western countries tie access to treatment with economic potential, e.g., older people diagnosed with cancer in the UK are much less likely to be approved for treatment than younger people.
We as a society need to stop dismissing these concerns, unless we're okay with huge factory farms that breed humans for the harvesting of organs, blood, etc., or worse, harnessing of human brain function, in some dystopian version of 'The Matrix.' This is what the future will bring, because it's what technology can bring... and will bring if there is some perceived benefit.
Humanity is about embracing the values that are not innate to our nature, e.g., mercy, kindness, forgiveness over vengeance. It's what separates humans from animals, and what separates modern societies from more primitive barbarian societies... but humans are always born barbarians and civilization is maybe a generation deep.
She goes to a deep place w/in, eh?
(Apparently) Not as deep as the womb.
Post a Comment