No. Like the death penalty, this is up to the individual states. To my knowledge, Ireland is one of the only countries that does not have legal abortion, hencce the flock of women that cross over to the U.K. by ferry to have it done there.
It’s fine if you think that Roe was wrongly decided, but you’re talking on a more principal level here. Bricker replied to a question on how to fight the evil of abortion, and one of the steps he saw to achieve that goal. Let’s summarise his position here in his own words:
So, when jsgoddess asks him what steps Bricker thinks should be followed to prevent this slaughter of innocents, these ‘millions and millions of future unborn children’, the second step Bricker envisions is:
Although he does *add *the principled reason that this is a right that shouldn’t be guaranteed on a federal level, his stance is clearly that this is a right that shouldn’t exist at all.
In short, I question his motives and stick with calling him a hypocrite when he talks about making keeping the child the more favorable choice. He clearly wants Roe vs Wade overturned so it can then be more easily banned on the State level. Which means he really wants to take away that choice, because he has clearly stated that:
But why I’m not yet sure. No scientific backup. Nothing in the Bible. Maybe Buddhism?
If abortion of a couple of cells is murder, then War is premeditated murder and so is self defense. An apple blossom is not yet an apple, an egg is not yet a chicken, and a few cells that have human life in them is not a child,the same life is in a mans sperm. It is not a child but under the right circumstances could become one.
There are times when it is self defense for a woman,she is more than a brood mare; and lack of choice suggests just that!
A just war is waged against an aggressor that is bent on doing evil. Self-defense is performed against someone who is attempting to cause bodily harm. In contrast, the unborn is both helpless and innocent. While lethal force may be necessary in certain extreme cases – such as when waging a just war, or to defend oneself against a murderer – the same cannot be said when deliberately taking the life of a helpless innocent such as the unborn.
True, an apple blossom is not an apple – but that’s because it will never become one. Any sixth-grade science student should know that.
As for the egg, one could just as easily argue that a fertilized egg IS a chicken at an earlier stage of development. It does not resemble a fully adult chicken, but by the same token, a tadpole does not resemble an adult frog. Its appearance has no bearing on whether it is a living organism or not.
The discussion should be whether or not the ‘life’ we are discussing is something that is independent of the mother, has more rights than the mother, and has any aspect of a human being that is worth protecting. Not whether two cells have merged and swapped DNA.
The simple fact is that scientists who are testifying here are not interested in science, but in providing evidence. Can you see the distinction? We are talking here about sanctifying human beings. Biological life beings at conception - sure, conception is as good a point as any for defining at least the starting point of the individuality of a new biological entity. A biologist could as easily argue that the life of a hatchling of nearly any species including insects should have rights to life that supersede the first weeks after conception of a human being. Both are equally void of relevance to answering the question of the value of life.
Eager as some seem to be to recognise the value of a few cells, equally meager is their relevant interest for the value development of a human being. The amount of resources that go into carrying a fertilised egg to fruition and then raising that all the way to an independent human being of voting age are enormous, and are a lot more relevant in this discussion. The physical investment that a mother makes outweighs the value of something that has the potential to develop into a human being, UNLESS the mother (and to a lesser extent father) are willing to make that investment.
Whether or not they are willing to make that investment is, however, their decision and their decision alone. You can argue about the point where a life can be sustained outside of the mother, but not before.
Prove it, then. Prove to me that the scientists in question were being deliberately dishonest, and had no interest in real science.
Remember, these scientists were NOT part of some pro-life cabal. Rather, they were individuals who were selected by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to provide expert medical testimony regarding when human life begins. If you claim that these experts were not interested in providing evidence, then the onus rests on you to prove your claim.
And since you assert this to be “a simple fact,” then surely you must have the necessary evidence on hand.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that life does not begin at conception. Let us also imagine that the medical experts in question were secretly part of some pro-life coalition, and that somehow magically brainwashed the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee into selecting them to provide testimony. Let us also assume that they resorted to an elaborate hoax, wherein they digitally manipulated the medical textbooks that they cited, altering them to indicate that conception marks the beginning at life.
How does this justify abortion on demand? Quite simply, it does not. The vast majority of abortions occur at least eight weeks after conception. So even if life does not begin when the ovum is fertilized, that is simply a minor point in the whole abortion debate. It does nothing to justify the pro-choice cause.
I didn’t say they were being dishonest, I said that they were there not to perform science, but give evidence. But I formulated badly, perhaps, when I said that their only interest was giving evidence - many of them are also interested in science of course. But they weren’t called for the scientific task to determine whether or not abortion should be legal and until which date after conception, but to provide evidence that conception is biological life’s starting point.
But don’t play a fool, JThunder. You can read clearly from my post that I myself agree that conception is a valid starting point for a biologicially individual entity.
Which is a relatively unimportant part of the discussion whether or not abortion should be legal. Yes, in biology, life begins at conception. But life in this context means the same as the life of even one-celled organisms.
Please read my whole post before you restate yours, because a discussion where you keep posting copies of yours without reading mine and I keep posting replies with copies of mine without reading yours isn’t very productive. I try to read yours and respond to them. Please endow me with that same favor.
You have conflated “repeal Roe v. Wade” with “take away choice.”
If Roe v. Wade is repealed, that will not make abortion illegal. It will simply return the option to the states.
Get it now?
Roe v. Wade simply creates a federal constitutional right. If you remove that right, it does not criminalize abortion. It just removes abortion from the federal sphere.
Oh, I had to share this little nugget. Because in a discussion on abortion, it *is * relevant.
The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic **men’s fraternal ** benefit society that was formed to render financial aid to members and their families
Lofty goals but dodgy principals? Or is there a good reason why this is a men’s fraternal? A successful businesswoman or congress-lady not good enough?
Sure. By changing PERCEPTION about abortion. Remember that this is how this discussion evolved: what is the propoer reponse for a person who believes abortion is murder, but sees it going on every day, made legal? The challenge is to show others that your view is correct - that abortion brings more harm than good.
As long as abortion seen as an unalterable matter of right, there won’t be much in the way of serious questioning. If it’s a matter for every state legsilature to decide, then some states will permit it with heavy restrictions, and some will permit it with very few restrictions, and some, perhaps, with almost no restriction. And everyone will be able to see for themselves what scheme yields the best results.
How is that about denying choice? That’s about showing people the honest results of the different options. That’s about giving people legitimate and informed decisions about how abortion policy affects society.
To give evidence on scientific matters! Of course they were not there to conduct experiments in front of the Senate. However, they were called to provide expert testimony on matters within their own scientific field, and that is what they did.
Which is exactly what they did, and which is exactly the point I was addressing. I was addressing monavis’s claim that life does not begin at conception. According to expert medical and scientific testimony, it does.
OF COURSE these scientists were not their to determine whether abortion should be legal or not. That’s not the role of evidence. Evidence (such as expert testimony) is used to guide decisions of morality, ethics and law. The scientists in question provided expert testimony, not the final judgment – and that expert testimony is at odd with what various pro-choice SDMBers claim.
As I pointed out earlier, I was addressing the point that monavis made. “Don’t play the fool,” you say? Perhaps you should heed your own advice.
If I were a member of some other pro-life group that included women - as many do - my answers would be the same. The fact that I happen to be a member of a group whose membership is restricted to men has nothing to do with this debate. If ALL groups opposing abortion were men-only, then your objection would be valid, perhaps. But since there are many groups with co-ed membership that take precisely the same stance I am espousing, how is my particular membership in a single-sex group relevant?
Notwithstanding that objection, I’ll answer your question.
When you ask if a successful businesswoman or congress-lady is not good enough to join, you insinuate a whole slew of sly hints and suggestions. You suggest that we judge our potential members as “good enough” or “not good enough” somehow. You suggest that there’s a value judgement attached to occupations or financial or political success that we would somehow value; that even if an ordinary, run-of-the-mill female were found lacking, our supposed hypocriscy is laid bare when we reject a successful businesswoman or congress-lady, as these are traits we somehow especially prize in our male members.
Needless to say, none of that is remotely close to the truth.
We accept male pratical Roman Catholics eighteen years of age and older, in communion with the Holy See. Our membership decision is based on religion. we wouldn’t accept a successful Episcopal businessman or congressman. Or even a senator! On the other hand, we will happily induct a struggling day laborer, an unemployed artist, or a poor seminarian, as long as he’s a male Roman Catholic. The reasons for this requirement may be found in the organization’s history: we were founded to provide a mutual aid society in a time in this country when Catholics were routinely and openly discriminated against.
Today, there is both a traditional and a practical reason to continue our membership scheme as it stands. The traditional should be obvious. The practical relates to our insurance operations. We can now legally restrict our insurance to members and their spouses and retain our current tax classification. If we were to admit woemn, we could no longer operate in that way. To offer insurance to a person, they would have to join. Our market surveys have shown conclusively that making that change would reduce the number of insured that we have. That is, not enough women would join to offset the loss of spouse-insured.
This dishonest and off-topic jab of yours suggests to me your complete inability to understand and carry on a relevant debate, or, possibly, your complete lack of confidence in the merits of whatever position you are advancing. Either way, it’s disgraceful.
But if you had the choice (!) of making abortion illegal in your state, you would vote to support making that illegal, and not preserving the right for women to make this choice on their own, right?
Everyone will be able to see for themselves what scheme yields the best results?
Not really. We have enough info. Abortions have been illegal before. And there is also plenty of data on how abortions are legal now. There is also plenty of evidence on which people are most likely to have abortions, or which people suffer most from teen pregnancies, and so on.
Much more sensible would be to strive for making sure you have a country where each unwanted child can be taken care of properly. You’ve stated this as your first step. Stick with that, it is ambitious enough in itself. Keep the choice, and prove you can do it.
Right now, you fail to do so even for the wanted children so you have your work cut out for you, but if you achieve it, then I predict abortion will drop without the need for additional legislation and taking away the right of mothers to make informed decisions about their own lives - if only because people will be better educated, fewer groups in society are being left behind in terms of education (whether that’s their own fault or not) and so on.
For the record, can you state for me again on what grounds you hold abortion to be murder? Is that because you think conception being the start of biological life, this automatically means that a human being is killed during abortion? And do you, on principle, believe that a newly fertilised egg has the same rights and same value as a fertile 18 year old woman?
Asking someone to heed his own advice is always the worst excuse to ignore it.
You say the start of life, but the scientists your cites quote talk about the biological start of a human individual. Were you to call for ‘evidence’ on whether or not a sperm cell is alive or dead, or whether a female egg is alive or dead, or whether a stem-cell is alive or dead, or whether a skin cell is alive or dead, you’d get equally relevant answers. You could have recognised this in monavis post, you can only have willfully ignored such and related comments in mine.
However, a newly-conceived human being (or, if you prefer, a newly fertilized egg) does not have the same rights and value as a fertile 18 year-old woman.
All human life is valuable. But circumstances may place some lives into situations where they have less value than others.
Consider a plane that’s been hijacked, 9-11 style, heading for the Sears Tower in Chicago. The military should shoot down that plane before it reaches the city. This is the correct decision, even though the passengers on the plane have done nothing wrong. Some of those passengers may even be women. Some of them may even be fertile. Some of them may even be 18.
Through no fault of their own, these passengers were in a situation in which the proper moral course was to kill them. But we don’t look at it that way. We don’t intend to kill them. We intend to stop the plane from killing countless others. The death of the passengers is an unintended, secondary effect of our intentional, moral action.
Now let’s turn to our newly fertilized egg. This is a human being. If you suggest he or she should be killed simply for the convenience of the new mother, I disagree.
But if the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother, we’re in a different situation. Now it may make sense to terminate the pregnancy to save the health of the mother. Our intention is NOT to kill the child – that’s an unintended, secondary effect of the necessary medical procedure to save the mother’s health.
Because the baby depends on the mother, but the mother doesn’t depend on the baby, the balance must necessarily tilt heavily towards the mother’s interests. So no, the two sets of rights and values are not equal. As long as the mother must risk her body and health to carry the child, her body and health is entitled to great care and deference.