As a matter of fact, it is. Abortion is legal THROUGHOUT pregnancy.
Technically, late-term abortions are only allowed for the “health” of the mother – just general “health,” which is not limited to life-threatening situations. In addition, “health” has been defined in exceedingly broad terms, to include even the emotional state of the mother. Thus, as long as some physician claims that the mother’s emotional state would be adversely affected by the birth, the pregnancy can be terminated by law.
So in practice, abortion on demand is legal throughout all nine months.
I’m not describing RU486. Basically, this is a super dose of birth control pills (marketed under trade name “Plan B” (you gotta love that name). It DOES NOT abort pregnancy (like RU486). Instead, it prevents pregnancy after someone has had unprotected sex.
JThunder: *Technically, late-term abortions are only allowed for the “health” of the mother – just general “health,” which is not limited to life-threatening situations. In addition, “health” has been defined in exceedingly broad terms, to include even the emotional state of the mother. Thus, as long as some physician claims that the mother’s emotional state would be adversely affected by the birth, the pregnancy can be terminated by law.
So in practice, abortion on demand is legal throughout all nine months. *
You consider that getting a doctor to diagnose a serious pregnancy-related threat to one’s life or health that justifies a post-viability abortion is easy enough to qualify as “abortion on demand”?!? Where on earth did you get that idea? Do you imagine that a woman nine months pregnant can say to her OB “Gosh, Doc, I feel kind of depressed about having this baby and I don’t think I really want to” and s/he’ll cheerily respond “Oh well, in that case, let’s get you an abortion”?! I think you may have been reading a little too much Operation Rescue propaganda.
Apropos of which, I think that all this talk of a point “X” before which a fetus/child has no rights at all and after which it is endowed with rights is kind of missing the breadth of the spectrum of fetal protections and the right to choose abortion. As pregnancy progresses, a fetus changes from being an initially undetectable part of its mother’s body to being an independently viable separate individual, and the increasing restriction of abortion rights during the course of that progress reflects that. Prior to viability, a woman has a more-or-less sovereign right to choose an abortion (in theory; in actual practice, contrary to JThunder’s ideas, it’s often extremely difficult). After viability, on the other hand, the state is considered to have a “compelling” interest in protecting the fetus and abortion is no longer an option, except when diagnosed by a physician as necessary to the life or health of the mother, which the state also has a compelling interest in protecting. But viability isn’t some clearly defined, uniformly predictable transition that’s the same in every pregnancy; it doesn’t represent some instantaneous endowment of the fetus with “rights”, it’s just a point on the spectrum of change in the state’s degree of responsibility towards the fetus as it gets closer to being a fully rights-bearing individual. Arguing about whether the child “gets” rights all at once at the instant of conception or the instant of birth misses this important and subtle issue altogether.
Equally unhelpful, I think, are assertions such as that a baby ten days before birth is “no different” from a baby ten days after except for being “physically located” in its mother’s uterus. A baby before birth, even shortly before birth, is still in some ways part of its mother’s body; talking about the uterus as though it were just a crib that someone happened to lay the baby down in misses that point. A woman is not just a receptacle for an embryo, and an embryo or fetus is not just “housed” in a woman’s body. You can’t just whisk the fetus from place to place in a thought experiment without simplifying away a lot of the biological reality, which is why I think Pius XII’s—sorry, Father Pacelli’s—OP is probably just a fantasy.
I vaguely recall reading about artaficial womb technology being tested on a goat (or something). Has anyone else seen any references to research into artaficial wombs?
I suppose it’ll be like most advances in medical technology: They’ll test it on animals until they feel they know enough to consistently produce healthy babies, then seek volunteers for human trials, perhaps women who want a baby but for whom something went wrong (ectopic pregnancy, etc.).
Whether or not it is arbitrary most certainly is an important question. But I think we need to back up here, as we are getting side-tracked. You remember I said:
“Laws vary from state to state, but I am morally certain that they all have laws requiring that abandoned children be cared for in state facilities. I see no reason the law should discriminate between children abandoned in the usual way, versus those abandoned via the termination of a pregnancy.”
The key phrase is “abandoned children”. A child that is still in it’s mother’s womb clearly has not been abandoned, hence they don’t figure into this discussion. What I had in mind, primarily, was this: Occasionaly a botched “abortion” performed past the point of viability will result in a live birth, ie a living breathing child completely outside of, and separate from, it’s mother. This is extremely rare, but it does happen. If you don’t believe me I will dig up a cite. In any case, I was asserting that a child like this must be treated by the state the same way it is compelled by law to treat a live abandoned child, and not simply discarded as “medical waste”. Do you disagree?
PS: I wonder if you could do me a little favor, and break up your posts into paragraphs instead of having one long one. I don’t say this to be snarky or sarcastic; I just personally find it really hard to read a post like your last one. TY
Kimstu, I don’t mean to minimize the trauma that an overwhelming majority of women who get abortions go through, but is it your position that the “health” exception is never abused?
This is a little bit of a misstatement. The “compelling interest” language comes from the Supreme Court. The SC has allowed the states to restrict abortion after the 1st trimester, but it has not compelled them to do so, although most do.
Correct. However, there is an exceedingly simple way to determine if a given fetus is viable. Remove it from it’s mother’s womb. If it lives, it’s viable. If it dies, it’s not.
And why not? I’m not saying that ALL abortionists would respond that way; however, it is hardly unreasonable that some of them would – ESPECIALLY since they’d have a vested financial interest in performing these abortions.
Besides, the abortionist would probably argue their case in stronger terms. Instead of claiming mere depression, he/she could always claim that the birth would result in “severe emotional trauma” or somesuch language, rather merely feeling “kind of depressed.” By law, such a “diagnosis” is sufficient to justify a late-term abortion.
As evidence, consider the emergence of partial-birth abortions. The AMA has emphasized that there are NO circumstances under which these procedures are medically necessary, yet they continue to be conducted on a routine basis. The only way to justify this procedure, in keeping with current law, is to abuse the exceedingly broad definition of “health.”
In other words, because Doe v. Bolton has defined “health” in ludicruously broad terms – encompassing the mother’s mere emotional state – abortion on demand is effectively legal throughout pregnancy.
The floating variable of viability for X, which you seem to endorse, has advantages and disadvantages. It allows the circumstances of a pregnancy to be judged, but it does nothing to protect the woman from the judge—not all doctors will judge the circumstances objectively and in the same light. Doctor A might say viable but Doctor B might say not viable.
As for missing the subtlety of the issue, which I think is you’re way of say we’re not being entirely objective, I should hazard to point out that you may not be entirely subjective either. You may have an agenda, the protection of women’s rights, though I can’t empirically prove it at this time. Weird Al Einstein almost certainly has an agenda, the saving of fetuses. I will admit to my agenda, the reduction of live births to slow and decline population growth.
This is the first time I’ve heard botched abortion enter into the discussion… reminds of me of old joke back in the early and mid seventies. A man walks into a bar with a coathanger in his head. The bartender says, “Hey, man, what’s wrong with you?” “Nothing. I’m a botched abortion.” The joke was real big in elementary school a few years plus/minus the Row vs. Wade ruling. Anyway…
You know I’m going to disagree. I’ll take your word without a cite that there are rare occasions when a botched abortion results in a live birth. Two words can sum up the situation: KILL IT.
I sometimes wonder if pro-lifers live in the same reality I do…obviously not. An abortion is provided by an OB/GYN. They really don’t care if they are doing a c-section, a vaginal birth or an abortion - although I would guess that as human beings, no one “LIKES” doing an abortion any more than they would “like” doing a masectomy. (Maybe if Pyrrhonist were an OB, but he has a little different take than most people I’ve come across) The OB would get paid more for a c-section. And OBs aren’t crying for business - my neighbor is looking for a new OB/GYN and can’t find one taking new patients on our end of town. And yes, some OBs “specialize” in abortion, but few make abortion their sole practice. And the few that do, pay a steep price. If we compensated abortion providers for the personal risks they take, no one would be able to afford an abortion - when the reality is that it is generally a rather inexpensive procedure.
(Let’s see, I can bill for approximately twelve pre-natal visits, two followups, plus delivery - and there could be complications that would push any of these numbers up, or one pre-abortion consultation, the abortion, and the follow-up. Hummmmm, where will I make more money).
Other topic - Emergency contraception:
Pro-lifers, believing that life begins at conception, are not really fond of a method that creates an inhospitable environment for a fertilized egg. For this reason, they aren’t very fond of birth control pills either, which inhibit ovulation, but then also make the endometrium too thin to support a pregnancy, so IF there is a released egg, implantation won’t occur. These are “abortion” to many pro-lifers just as much as a “partial birth abortion” (a horribly missued and not very accurate term).
Salon recently had an article on this, but I’ll let you search their site and find it if you are interested.
Not so. My concern here is the principle of equality under the law. In fact I do not believe that human life is sacred, although I do not take quite the same attitude towards it as you do.
<snip>
You know I’m going to disagree. I’ll take your word without a cite that there are rare occasions when a botched abortion results in a live birth. Two words can sum up the situation: KILL IT.
**
[/QUOTE]
You haven’t answered my question. I understand perfectly well, from your previous statements, that you have no problem with killing the child in this scenario, as you would have no problem killing a child born the normal way.
However, whether you like it or not, the law forbids you from killing a child born in the normal way. If you do, you will be prosecuted for murder. The same law does not protect a live child that is the result of a botched abortion.
I asserted that for the law to discriminate in this fashion is unconstitutional, a violation of the guarantee of equal protection of the laws in the 14th amendment, and I asked if you agreed. Understand, I am not asking you if a law against killing babies is desirable; I alrady know your feelings on this matter. What I am asking is, given that the law exists (like it or not), is it constitutional for it to discriminate in this fashion?
So you’re not pro-life? Well, I surprised. I’ve been blindsided before and I’ll be blindsided again.
Well, I do have a problem with a murder rap and jail time, but I’m just persnickety about those things. I don’t advocate illegal killings.
Just for the sake of clarity, I think this is the passage from the 14 Amendment in question:
If this is not it, please post the appropriate quote.
I don’t see where a fetus beyond viability or a botched abortion fits into the scheme of “citizens of the United States.” A fetus has not been “born,” so it can’t be a citizen. A botched abortion, under the jurisdiction of law, can be determined not to qualify as being born.
The final phrase, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” seems to be the crux of your argument. As I interpret the law, a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Canada are entitled to equal protection of the law within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Here is a slight twist. Now suppose a Canadian crosses the border with his dog. The dog would be entitled to equal protection of the dog laws with in a jurisdiction of the United States. What ever laws and protections an American dog has would apply equally to a Canadian dog when it is in our country. (I’m assuming that a dog is allowed to cross the US/Canadian Border, but there may in fact be some restrictions to canine crossings, but the principle would apply in any case.)
However, the laws that would apply to dogs are not the same laws that would apply to people. When you claim that the fetus is entitled to equal protection under the law, you seem to be granting it the same protection as a citizen or person. Why?
The onus is on you to prove the fetus is either a citizen or person. Otherwise the only equal protection it is entitled to is as fetus and the laws the apply to fetuses.
Well…no, but that’s splitting hairs…you appear to be advocating changes in the law to make killings that are now illegal legal.
That looks like the 14th amendment to me.
Ahhhh, and here we get into the tricky business of defining the words in the constitution. This is more often the fodder for gun control debates…haggling over the definition of “militia”, “well regulated”, “arms”, etc.
The key here is how we define the word “born”. I don’t have the dictionary on hand, but I am fairly certain it would define “birth” as the process by which a child in its mother’s womb exits that womb.
Most births are accomplished the traditional way. When there are medical complications, sometimes labor is induced artificially; sometimes the child is “born” via c-section. In fact that’s exactly how it happened with me.
As I understand it, surgical abortions are done by inducing labor, or otherwise drawing the fetus out through the birth canal, or by c-section. The fundamental difference is that the mother does not want the child.
The objective physical facts, however, are the same. All different forms of birth, and all different forms of abortion, involve the fetus exiting the mother’s body.
Hence, your distinguishing of abortion and birth, in this context, is a chimera. A live child that is the result of a botched “abortion” has, by any objective rendering of the facts, been born. Hence it is a citizen, entitled to the equal protection of the laws, as per the 14th amendment.
Thus Spoke Supreme Court Justice Weird Al Einstein! :rolleyes:
If you read the Amendment it is clear that the “born” or “naturalized” citizen is subject to the jurisdiction of law. Subsequently, he can be approved or denied based on legal proceedings and definitions. The Constitution is a much more subtle document than decisions being determined on how the OED may define “born” or “birth.” Just because Botchy the botched abortion could be said to have been “born” by dictionary standards does not necessarily mean that is the correct interpretation of application of the law. The law does not now favor your interpretation.
Also, read this phrase very carefully “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The State can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property with the due process of law.
Consider that a late term abortion is only permitted by law in certain circumstances. The law states that in cases of a botched abortion the output of the woman’s womb may be terminated. This covers the due process of law: Botchy can legally be deprived of life, liberty, or property.
I don’t understand what you are saying here: “he can be approved or denied”. Approved or denied what?
I don’t understand what this sentence means either.
This is not an interpretation of the law. It is an interpretation of fact. That “Botchy” has been born is a fact, not a law. And I am aware that the law does not favor my interpretation. My entire argument has been that because of this, the law is unconstitutional, in violation of the 14th Amendment, as it does not extend to “Botchy”, a person who has been “born” by any dictionary definition, the equal protection of the laws.
Yes obviously, but “due process of law” refers to court proceedings. A court can deprive you of “life, liberty, or property”, but only after due process, ie a fair trial. “Botchy” never got one of those.
Citizenship. It can be granted, approved, or denied in accordance to the law. The law determines what is or is not “born” onto citizenship, not the dictionary. If the law determines that this that or another method of “birth” does not legally constitute being “born,” then citizenship does not follow.
For the third and final time, I’m going to ask you to prove that a fetus or Botchy is a person. Your entire argument is moot unless this supposition is proved and accepted.
Botchy doesn’t need one of those. Under English Common Law, from where The Due Process of Law is derived, Botchy (even if he were considered a person under the law) would have been granted the opportunity to defend himself through his legal guardian—who agrees to the termination. The Due Process of Law does not mean a fair court trial, only that the law can’t go behind your back to make decisions or rulings against without your knowledge.
Yes, but if the law governing how citizenship is “granted, approved, or denied” is discriminatory, then it is unconstitutional. In laws governing naturalization, for instance, the government cannot decide that only white immigrants can become naturalized citizens. My point is that for the state to grant citizenship to a living child that comes into the world the normal way, and not grant it to a living child that comes into the world through a botched abortion, is discriminatory in a similar fashion.
Let me get this straight. The state may, if it wishes, pass a law that states c-sections are no longer a recognized method of “birth” and thus, that persons born via c-section (like me) have not really been “born” and are not citizens? This is ridiculous on its face. The state cannot arbitrarily change, through the passage of laws, what the definition of words in the constitution are. If it could, the constitution would be meaningless. The state could pass a law stating that “religion” is henceforth to be defined as “a type of jelly donut”, and then happily go on its way sending tax dollars to (insert name of popular church here).
Where on earth did you get the idea that the burden of proof is on me? It is not. The burden of proof is on you to prove that “Botchy” is not a person.
Let’s try this: You have in front of you two newborns. One is “Botchy”. One is Baby Jane Doe, the result of a normal birth. You are not told who is who. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is some fundamental and inherent difference between these two individuals such that it is justifiable for the law to discriminate between them to the extent that one is a citizen fully protected under the law, and the other can be thrown into the incinerator without a second thought.
Mind you, I am aware that you have no compuction about killing either of them, but what is at issue here is not what you want, but how to apply the law in a non-discriminatory fashion. Oh yes, and I intend to start a new thread expanding on this little thought experiment, so stay tuned for that.
Again, I am not sure what your meaning is here. It is pointless, I think, to talk about “Botchy” being able to defend himself, when current law provides for no such thing.
??? I quote from the definition in the very source you provided…you couldn’t have missed it, it’s the first sentence: “A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair…” Bolding mine. And while we’re on the subject, your source also defines Due Process as “…a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.” Going back to the thought experiment I just gave you about the two newborns, how on earth is it not “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious” to say that one of the two is a citizen, and the other can be discarded as “medical waste”?
Again, it is pointless to talk about a “decision or ruling” in our debate, as no “decision or ruling” has been rendered by any court of law as to “Botchy’s” fate.
Whoa, that stinks! With a plot that bad, implausible, ludicrous, and polemic it might just have a chance in Hollywood. Of course, as an important, plot development you forgot: Julia and Danzel with steal one of child and “adopt” it. The child is an extra super-genus, of course, and very good looking, naturally.
Like Phoenix Dragon, I think the deliberate misrepresentation of the medical procedure and hiding the true intent of the doctors would mean that an abortion was never preformed. ECEO would be in a heap of a lot of trouble.
But to address that main question, whether a botched abortion is a human with the rights and privileges of a citizen, I think it is important to allow the law to make that determination from the intent of the doctor and patient, and not an arbitrary and very rare occurrence of a live birth from a late term abortion
Sorry for posting the above message in the wrong area. :o
Nobody else sees it that way. The law must define a child born through a botched abortion as person before it can be discriminatory.
The constitution can and must be interpreted. Botched abortions were not in the scope of 1866 mentality when the 14th Amendment was written. It must be interpreted: Should “born” as used be interpreted in included botched abortions? Legal experts so no.
Not so. The law does not recognize Botchy as a person. You’re saying the law should. The ball is absolutely in your court.
I’d call an expert in the field to make that determination, as there would be damage or other evidence done to Botchy during the procedure, then charge the doctor who didn’t follow standard produce by not terminating Botchy immediately for malpractice. One of the main differences between the two is that Botchy was legally supposed to have been terminated. The failure to do so was a crime. I’ll let doctors and lawyers argue the rest of the differences.
**
There is no unfairness, nothing arbitrary, and nothing capricious about terminating a botched abortion. The mother decided to have a medical procedure. It is a legal procedure. In the rare cases resulting on a live birth, the proper procedure approved by law is termination. You keep claiming that it is unfair because Botchy is a person, but show no proof that it is a person. This is begging the question: you simply assume that the conclusion is true.
BTW, I’ll be out of the country this coming week, until July 9th, away from computers, internet, and email, and so will be unable to respond to any reply. My silence will not be a concession.
Ummm…what??? Not that it’s relevent to our debate, but every poll I’ve seen indicates that a majority of people are opposed to partial birth abortion, which is an obvious step down from what we are discussing here.
I do not see the logic of this at all. Does the law have to define an African-American as a “person” before it can be discriminatory? Or is a law that defines only white individuals as “persons” discriminatory, because of the way it determines who is and is not a person?
Well, duh. Of course they weren’t. It is likely that abortions period weren’t on anyone’s mind when that was written, seeing as how abortions were illegal back then.
Do they? I am surprised to hear that any “legal expert” has directly addressed this issue at all, much less come to that conclusion. I am going to have to ask you for a cite here.
I though I made this clear in my thought experiment. The law should so recognize “Botchy” because he or she is in no meaningful way distinguishable from a newborn that the law does recognize as a person.
So the thing that makes “Botchy” not a person is the fact that he shows outward evidence of physical trauma??? This is getting bizarre. Sigh Ok, how about this. “Botchy” and BJD, instead of being newborns, are now both six months old. “Botchy” will no longer show outward evidence of trauma. Take it from there.
A doctor can be charged with malpractice in such a case??? Cite?
Even more unbelievable. Cite?
What differences? I have been arguing through this whole thread that there are none. So I repeat, what are the “rest of the differences”?
Oy. Now we’re getting into Monty Python territory. “Yes it is. No it isn’t.” I have taken great pains to demonstrate how it is “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious”. I ask you again, what manner of comparing “Botchy” to a conventional newborn, that results in “Botchy” being strangled and the newborn being made a person is not “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious”???
Again, I am surprised to hear that a law deals with this specifically, and again I must ask you for a cite.
Deep Sigh And once again, it is you who must prove that “Botchy” is, as I said before, in some meaningful way distinguishable from a newborn that the law does recognize as a person.
So noted. While you are away, please consider this question carefully, as you seem to avoid it whenever I bring the subject up: If it is not unconstitutionally discriminatory for the law to declare that “Botchy” is “medical waste” while Baby Jane Doe is a person, would it also not be unconstitutionally discriminatory for that same law to declare that only individuals with white-colored skin are persons, and those with dark-colored skins are not?
