What’s Wrong with the World

Why are those the only two options open to a liberal? Why couldn't a liberal think that, regarding fetuses, whether it's a person depends (in part) on the mother's wishes? Thus, when the mother values the fetus, it's a person and so killing it is murder. But when a mother doesn't value it, killing it is not murder.

Why isn't that consistent?

Tod, that's a very good point. I should have included that one! I'd really like to know what Al thinks about your choice # 3. Al? Any objections?

Why couldn't a liberal think that, regarding fetuses, whether it's a person depends (in part) on the mother's wishes?

I think you have it partially right, at least from a generic pro-choice standpoint (which I don't subscribe to so I won't defend it). The mother's voluntary commitment to the fetus extends her personhood like a protective umbrella. An attack against the fetus without her consent is an attack against her "dual" person. This tentative arrangement is the only access the fetus has to legal protection until birth.

The killing of a non-person may be legally prosecuted as murder.

I am afraid this is the brave new world we are living in. The ride may get bumpy.

When, in all of the world's history, hasn't the ride been "bumpy"? The question is not whether we should choose a smooth or bumpy path, but whether we have the courage to choose the Christian path.

Sigh... Jeff,I could also have referenced 18 U.S.C. 1841

"§ 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a)
(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section..."

"(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

And that is as it should be. We don't want to be having to go to court and deal with a fetus have court appointed counsel should it be necessary to terminate a late term pregnancy in order to protect the life or health of the mother.

This law was passed in 2004 by a conservative Republican Congress and signed by a conservative, Christianist, Republican president. The abortion exclusion is necessary as abortion is a right under our Constitution - as it should be.

"This tentative arrangement is the only access the fetus has to legal protection until birth."

This is true during the first few weeks and, again, this is as it should be. I'm not inclined to be my usual tender-hearted self as I've had to spend the afternoon dealing with the potential legal fallout from the actions of a young man whose high school drop out unwed mother and high school drop out unwed father chose adoption instead of abortion twenty some years ago. Had they done the right thing, my friends would be bucks up a small fortune and the world would be down a reprobate - so no lo, the noble fetus from moi.

Had they done the right thing, my friends would be bucks up a small fortune and the world would be down a reprobate - so no lo, the noble fetus from moi.

Al, before I respond as I would like by simply calling you a moron, I'm going to sleep on it first.

In the meantime, please tell me what you think about Tod's solution, that a fetus has real personhood if the mother values it as such, but does not have real personhood if the mother does not value the fetus as such. Does that work for you? Why or why not? Thanks in advance.

the California statute which codifies the "killing of ... a fetus, with malice aforethought" as no less than murder, except when "solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus".

So if I'm understanding this law, the conception that really counts is not the one in the mother's womb but the one in her mind of the child's true worth? Such that the child's life is consecrated to its mother's power over life and death, and that her choice of the latter is so like unto a holy thing that it must be protected by force of law, yet if that same power is exercised by another party, it becomes an act so depraved some dare call it murder? Somebody beam me up.

Tod, btw, did not offer a genuine 3rd option, but merely repeats what is implicit in the California law.

Good luck with al. I think you'll find trying to pin him down is like trying to clean up an oil slick with your bare hands.

In contemporary thought, the sovereignty of the individual trumps everything else, so Tod is right I think.

The abortion exclusion is necessary as abortion is a right under our Constitution - as it should be.

Either our Coonstitution is flawed, then, or the interpretation of it is. I vote for the latter, since it is easier to deal with rationalizations or downright delusional thinking in people than in documents. No person who wrote or ratified the original Constitution would have accepted such a right to an abortion and the Scotus that ruled on Row V. Wade did not say that abortions were a right under the Constitution, anyway, but rather that privacy was a right. Fine, but here's where they went wrong: marriage is a public act and since sex and pregnancy is, necessarily, part of the goods of marriage, the sex act and preganancy is, as paradoxical as it might seem, not totally a private act and so doesn't fall under their protection of private acts, per se. They were just cowards, unlike Pope Paul IV, and unwilling to stand up for what is right and good. They caved to the popular sentiments of a sex-crazed society.

Since all authority comes from God and since God does not authorize abortions, then even if Scotus ruled that abortions were Constitutional, that ruling would not be proceeding from a positiion of authority and I am perfectly within my rights to ignore it. Abortions are only granted in this country under an implied appeal to power, not authority. Don't you dare say the Constitution or Scotus can authorize anything like abortion. They simply can't. I'm sorry these distictions are not taught in law school. I suspect they were in the 1800's. They certainly have a long perdigree in Scholastic thought.

The Chicken

This is true during the first few weeks

Baloney. Al, you're upping the ante on language recently (pro-lifers are "the Taliban," and the word "Christianist" is now part of your regular vocabulary). So you're more annoying than I remember your being before. Why add legal misinformation to the mix? Step2's characterization was correct. It isn't just "the first few weeks."

Had they done the right thing,

Aha! Notice, folks, right here: Abortion would have been "the right thing." Isn't that telling? That, by the way, is one of the steps--no, not logically necessary steps, but real ones that really happen--on the road to "choice devouring itself." By the way, IIRC, Al was perfectly fine with the Mr. X story in which a liberal badgered his teenage daughter ("staged an intervention") because she didn't want to "do the right thing" and kill her unborn child. In the end she said, "I don't have a choice." Again, as I recall, Al was the commentator who was okay with this and tried to soften the meaning of, "I don't have a choice." Now we know why. Because killing the "future reprobate" was "the right thing."

On the statutes discussed in the main post, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that they were sometimes (always?) crafted by pro-lifers and that one of their very purposes was to show the absurdity of the pro-abortion position, for the very reasons that Jeff is bringing out. Is this not the case?

Another purpose, of course, was to protect the unborn child at least in such cases as it could be protected. There, however, I've never understood why the pro-choicers didn't simply prosecute the attacker vigorously under the charge of grievous bodily harm against the mother (or the attempt to inflict GBH). Then they could have argued that as far as prosecution goes, the proposed statute was unnecessary and the person would be punished just as much or more for the attack on the mother anyway.

In any event, I've met pro-lifers who advocate the passage of various laws of this kind as a deliberate strategy. I met one very earnest man in an airport one time who believed (poor fellow) that the pro-life cause could be won if we could only get federal laws passed based on unintentional harm caused by industrial substances to unborn children. What really happens is just that the pro-choicers resort to absurdities such as those already discussed. I would guess a significant number of generic pro-choicers really do believe that the child has personhood conferred on him by his mother's choice, which is almost sickening. Just think how the mother could confer and take away personhood ten times in an hour just by being indecisive! Others, like Al, take the "legal fiction" approach--the personhood of the child in such laws is a legal fiction, a legal fiction we engage in because we want to protect the mother in an extra way against the psychological horror of having her...um...fetus killed against her wishes.

......abortion is a right under our Constitution - as it should be.

Since by some extraordinary judicial sophistry the Supreme Court discovered that the Fourteenth Amendment implied a right or at least the privilege to choose an abortion (within the first 3 months of pregnancy), am I correct in assuming that only an amendment to the Constitution could nullify this ruling?

It seems evident that neither strong religious feelings nor moral reasoning gains much traction against the liberal conviction that a right to privacy (or due process) is violated by anti-abortion laws.

Amending the Constitution looks like a very long shot. But perhaps extirpating slavery by a constitutional amendment was also, for a long time, thought to be preposterous?

"Another purpose, of course, was to protect the unborn child at least in such cases as it could be protected. There, however, I've never understood why the pro-choicers didn't simply prosecute the attacker vigorously under the charge of grievous bodily harm against the mother (or the attempt to inflict GBH). Then they could have argued that as far as prosecution goes, the proposed statute was unnecessary and the person would be punished just as much or more for the attack on the mother anyway."

Actually, no. The California law on murder was changed to include fetal protection as the result of a case in which a man brutally attacked pregnant woman (late term) with the intent to cause her to miscarry which she did. All he could be charged with was assault, which carried a far lighter penalty than murder.

Around the same time (I believe) we had the case of a father who took his son in a custody dispute and decided to kill himself and the boy by setting the room they were in alight. He chickened out and fled while the boy was horribly injured but lived. Under the then law he, as I recall, only got seven years. The law was changed.

The Federal fetal protection law was the result of the Laci Peterson murder case (also in California) in which her husband was convicted of murdering her and her unborn child.

Some pro-choice folks oppose the fetal protection laws because they see them as a slippery slope to personhood for the fetus. i tend to disagree and have no problem with the laws. Even though i am on the left, my heart tend not to bleed much and, as with our Confederate traitors, I prefer that the guilty be punished appropriately.

I try to call things as I see them and, if we suddenly see a buch of Christianist and Taliban-like folks elected to office (as in 2010) and they start running amok with all sorts of evil policies, I will find myself having to use the terms more often. When (if) folks come to their senses and kick them out I will happily use the terms far less.

The California law on murder was changed to include fetal protection as the result of a case in which a man brutally attacked pregnant woman (late term) with the intent to cause her to miscarry which she did. All he could be charged with was assault, which carried a far lighter penalty than murder.

But I have to admit that I still don't get that. "Brutally attacking a person" is a lot bigger a deal than "assault." My strong impression is that laws usually recognize levels of assault and battery based on the degree of harm, which in the case of an intentionally caused miscarriage would be huge, even to the mother.

am I correct in assuming that only an amendment to the Constitution could nullify this ruling?

Alex, the Supreme Court could overturn the ruling. That's the most realistic solution at the moment, although a human life amendment might be viable down the road. Recent polls are showing the American public has a pro-life majority again for the first time in decades.

Had they done the right thing, my friends would be bucks up a small fortune and the world would be down a reprobate - so no lo, the noble fetus from moi.

I see. It was foreordained that this one child would end up a criminal because ... why? ... because he was adopted? Because his biological mother and father (who did not bring him up but merely chose to let him live) were unwed high school dropouts? Talk about not thinking things through. I would ask you to carry this monstrous belief to its logical conclusion when it comes to adoption in general, but you won't do it. I would also ask whether we can assume, from this point forward, that you do not believe in free will. But nevermind, you're not going to answer that one either.

(I'm still waiting for your answer to my question about Tod's proposal - the idea that a fetus has real personhood if the mother values it as such, but does not have real personhood if the mother does not value the fetus as such. Seriously, I'd like to know what you think about that. Just for the record. Is that too much to ask?)

Of course, your belief that this adopted young man should not have been born is even more monstrous and short-sighted in its many dark implications. But as an atheist, I suppose, you need a god-substitute, and it might as well be you, huh?

I was the child of an unwed mother placed for adoption. One wonders what Al thinks I was fated to be. Maybe I get a pass because I'm a girl and therefore presumptively have fewer innate criminal inclinations.

Maybe I get a pass because I'm a girl and therefore presumptively have fewer innate criminal inclinations.

Or maybe you don't get a pass, Lydia. Al is probably just too polite to say it here.

Now we know why. Because killing the "future reprobate" was "the right thing."

Why stop with future reprobates? Why not kill present reprobates? Oh, no, because that would then make al pro capital punishment.

am I correct in assuming that only an amendment to the Constitution could nullify this ruling?

Or the Court reversing itself, or the other branches of government basically ignoring the Court (which would be a practical nullity rather than a legal one). All of which seem to be longshots at the moment. But that doesn't mean you give up fighting.

Some pro-choice folks oppose the fetal protection laws because they see them as a slippery slope to personhood for the fetus.

That is because those laws obviously are slippery slopes. Maybe you think that this one time conservative Republicans really were trying to help out liberal Democrats. Also, Lucy has a football for you to kick Charlie Brown.

Jeff,

You wrote: "[T]he Supreme Court could overturn the ruling. That's the most realistic solution at the moment, although a human life amendment might be viable down the road."

I'm not sure about. The Supreme Court doesn't have the last word on the Constitution. The three branches of the federal government are co-equal. The president and Congress not only have the authority but the obligation to render an unconstitutional ruling by the court as a dead letter. If the president abuses this authority, Congress can impeach and remove him. If the Congress does, the president can veto any bill it passes. The people can always vote them all out of office.

This is as it should be, because the people are the sovereign, and so have the final say on the Constitution. To concede that power to the Supreme Court is to concede our sovereignty to it. So all we need are elected officials willing to exercise the authority they have under the Constitution to dispose of Roe v. Wade and its progeny. We don't have to wait for a generational change in the court's make-up.

Even though i am on the left, my heart tend not to bleed much and, as with our Confederate traitors, I prefer that the guilty be punished appropriately.

Your statement presupposes both guilt and justice as real features of the world which have their being outside of the human mind. Your statement further presupposes treason, a still more enigmatic concept wanting for a ground in nonmaterialist metaphysics. On the evidence of your past discussions, your philosophical system cannot produce these concepts as an ineradicable part of reality, so we are left to suppose you are either an imbecile who cannot observe brute contradiction, or a hustler who is, most fundamentally, insincere.

Paul, I have come to the same conclusion. A few times, in fact - it's just that I keep forgetting about it. It's that streak of sanguine in my temperament (believe it or not). I've noticed that you and Lydia have it too.

Then they could have argued that as far as prosecution goes, the proposed statute was unnecessary and the person would be punished just as much or more for the attack on the mother anyway.

One, not all states have carefully graded assault statutes. Some do, some don't. The number of degrees of aggravation can vary widely. But if you commit aggravated assault on one person, that's just a single crime. Committing an assault (or a homicide) on two people results in two crimes: the second felony has large ramifications for sentencing. It will 1) increase the sentence called for by the applicable guidelines by making the defendant a repeat offender, 2) thereby making early release more difficult. Also, take a gander at the sentencing statutes in California: I'm sure the permissible range of assault sentences includes a very low number. The minimum for murder one, on the other hand, is probably at least twenty years. That's a huge difference.

Your statement presupposes both guilt and justice as real features of the world which have their being outside of the human mind.

Paul Cella is a Cartesian? I just lost a huge amount of respect for him.

Paul Cella is a Cartesian? I just lost a huge amount of respect for him.

Huh? I mean, _I'm_ a Cartesian in certain respects, so you can lose respect for me, if you want, but I don't see anything Cartesian about that statement. I suppose one might say vaguely Platonist, or even just Christian!

"Seriously, I'd like to know what you think about that. Just for the record. Is that too much to ask?"

No, not at all. Not much. What's the point? We're looking at this from different points of view. Just to give you perspective, in my universe, Michael Vick would still be in prison, if he was lucky enough to still be alive. While our incarceration rate for non-violent crimes is ridiculous and counter-productive, I'm rather merciless when it comes to violent criminals and I'm not specist hence personhood isn't all that relevant. Fetal protection laws fill a gap and allow for extra counts, period.

You all are coming at this from an attitude towards abortion that i just don't have.

"Maybe I get a pass because I'm a girl and therefore presumptively have fewer innate criminal inclinations."

An interesting observation. Turns out that the birth parents of the lad in question had two more children - a boy and a girl, both of whom they raised. Though they are both drop outs, the mother went back to school and is sort of normal; the father is a hopeless reprobate. The girl is in college and doing fine; both boys though raised in totally different social environments, a couple thousand miles apart, are basically peas in a pod and like the birth father - useless.

"Unwed" alone isn't dispositive. Unwed, teenaged (barely 16, in this case), and disposionally unable to complete high school likely indicates contributions the gene pool could do without.

The universe is impersonal and will go along just fine without any one or, for that matter, all of we Plains Apes, so what I would have advised any given person decades ago is irrelevant. In spite of your destructive politics, you seem to be a good enough citizen so all's well that ends well, I guess.

Paul, from time to time I browse the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and it seems that for every beautifully constructed system and sub-system, there are folks with the same intellectual chops as the originators who come up with all sorts of disagreements.

Now, regardless of what I believe, water is still wet and the sun sets in the west. Philosophy and theology can provide all sorts of useful insights but notion that one has to understand, on a molecular level, why the water is wet before one dons a raincoat strikes me as shallow and silly.

I understand your seeking solace in second the third order things but I see no reason to so distract myself except out of occasional idle curiosity. And as I have further observed that your and Jeff C's focus has distracted you to the extent that you all have come to provide aid and comfort to your natural enemies, these obsessions are perhaps dangerous to the common good.

If General B. took an oath to uphold the Constitution and he violates that oath with cannon fire, he is a traitor and should be hanged - no further contemplation needed.

We just ran a ten year economic experiment. We cut taxes and ran deficits when Keynesian theory indicated we should be running surpluses. The results are in. Keynes wins and yet you all will do back flips to get around the obvious. Tell me again why I should be impressed with your third order concerns?

Oh, and I think Paul, Titus, and Lydia have just made my point on the usefulness of philosophy.

I see no reason to so distract myself except out of occasional idle curiosity

For once a question is answered.

Women who have abortions don't do it out of "malice" to the fetus,but out of desperation for the most part. Furthermore, the extremely rare cases of others
deliberately killing a fetus out of malice are done when that individual can see that a woman is pregnant.
The vast majority of abortions occur before a woman is even visibly pregnant.
If our government could or would change the adverse socio-economic conditions which cause women to seek and obtain abortions, there would be far fewer of them here.
Abortion is a tragedy,not a crime. Eliminate the poverty which is the root cause of so many abortions, and you eliminate abortions,(for the most part).
This is why Europe is the continent which has the world's lowest abortion rates, except for the poorer countries of Eastern Europe which were formerly part of the Soviet bloc. Germany,Austria,the Netherlands,Belgium, Switzerland, and Scandinavia
have such extremely ow abortion rates because there is a secure safety net for people,and little poverty.
America will never achieve these conditions unless it becomes more like Europe, but conservatives don't wan't "socialism" in America. Yet they have the nerve to demand that abortion be made illegal.

Mr. Berger,

Do you have a source for this interesting claim:

"...poverty which is the root cause of so many abortions,"

?

In addition, how about a source for your claim that "Europe is the continent which has the world's lowest abortion rates". Compared to South America? Africa? Muslim countries?

Reasons given for abortion worldwide. Financial worries were the second most common reason given.
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Europe, excluding Eastern Europe, definitely has the lowest abortion rate among areas where abortion is legal. Among regions where abortion is illegal, Europe (sans Eastern Europe) is still estimated to have a lower abortion rate than any other continent and any other region except parts of Africa, but those rates are based on guesstimates by the World Health Organization about the number of illegal abortions. So the data on that is uncertain, to put it mildly.

First post (Tod) is spot-on. Unfortunately, that logic will lead to things like euthanasia (hey grandma, no one values you anymore, so you've got to go).