Abortion's shades of gray (by Michael Medved)

Townhall.com ^ | October 24, 2007 | Michael Medved

[Diamond]

In this way, I maintain my personal religious views that life begins at conception, while still acknowledging that there are other americans who don't embrace this religious view as I do.

That the beginning of one's life is at the beginning, i.e., conception is not a religious belief. It is an incontrovertible scientific fact.

And for me, under those secular laws a life does not begin at conception -- but at viabilty -- because it is at that point the fetus becomes a whole and separate being distinct from the mother and therefore a unique individual deserving of all the protections and rights afforded to every other person living in this great nation.

Rights do not come from laws. They come from God, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. "Laws" that abrogate the inalienable right to life are null and void. They are no laws at all.

Further, the notion, whether in "law" or not, that viability marks the point at which a pre-birth human being becomes a whole and separate being distinct from the mother and therefore a unique individual, is ontologically and biologically absurd.

Cordially,

[phillyfanatic]

I agree and I think only Rudy can give the Hildabeast a run for the money especially in Ohio, Pa., NJ, Mich., Ca., Nev. aaaaaaaand Fla.

[Diamond]

The legal concept of "personhood" is found throughout the Constitution which uses the term "person" numerous times and declaration of Independence (All "Men" are created equal") in a way consistent with the definition at that time. "Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" (as opposed to corporate personhood) was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat" http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

Constition.org is wrong about the defintion of "person" at the time of the founding. The word "person" was considered at that time to be synonymous with "human being":

Noah Webster, The American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) defined "person" as: "An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child."

William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England, 129 (Christian ed 1807), indicates:

"An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have n estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born."

Some annotated editions of the Commentaries go on to note: "But as it respects the rights of others claiming through the child, if it is born dead, or in such an early stage of pregnancy as to be incapable of living, it is to be considered as if it never had been born or conceived. 2 Parjes C. R. 35." Blackstone, 1 Commentaries, 94 n 13 (Chitty ed 1870). See also Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 162, 93 S Ct 705, 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973) ("[U]nborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth."

Cordially,

[HamiltonJay]

Don’t try to reason with these guys, they are not swayed by logic or reason.

Dobson et al, are chopping off their noses to spite their faces, and they are going to learn that, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not speak for most black people... Dobson and ilk like him and his apostles do not speak for most Christians.

There are only 2 outcomes if they stay on their 3rd candidate or stay home path.

1) They split the conservative vote enough that Hillary becomes president and watch what they claim to be their most important issue become completely decimated and entrenched by their enemies for the next 20-40 years as she stacks the SC with radical leftist feminazi drinking kool aiders.

or

2) They don’t manage to do this, are shown not to have the political clout they believed they did, and are left on the sidelines as their party shows it no longer needs them to win elections so are left out of any influence on the party.

Both scenarios are horrible for these groups, and would not serve their long term stated goals in the least, in fact it would harm them greatly.

They don’t seem to understand, or are completely tone deaf to the pragmatic realities of Politics.

[HamiltonJay]

Actually the Pope is not against the Death Penalty, the Vatican’s concerns and criticism over capital punishment have always been on its implimentation and application, or unfair execution their of... the church has never declared the death penalty intrinsically immorral.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

[Democrats] consider "a woman's right to choose" a sacred guarantee in the Constitution

I must have missed that. Where exactly is that?

[Diamond]

As tragic as it is, the reality is that almost every American alive now either has made the decision to have an abortion or knows someone who has -- if the majority are like me, the women I know who have had an abortion did so only after much soul searching and concluding that they were not in a position to have a baby at that time.

Correction: They already had a baby whom they decided to kill with an abortionist.

here on FR, both of us are called "Lefties" because we support keeping abortion legal in the first trimester. So be it. Thankfully most of the voters in this nation have to deal with "life on Life terms" and all the curveballs that entails -- few of us have the luxury of living in the simple Black and white theoretical world of the conservatives here on freerepublic.

Easy for you to say. You've already been born. Unlike your sibling, whom your mother had killed, I'm sorry to say.

And what does "thankfully" mean? To whom are you giving thanks for these deaths? Why do you say "tragically"? What's tragic about it, since you're giving thanks?

Cordially,

[Revenge of Sith]

“I hear HE’S pretty conservative.”

Both supporters and detractors would agree to that Pope John Paul II was to the left of the pre-Vatican II popes, who all defended capital punishment. Benedict XVI is generally considered to be to the right of John Paul II and he hasn’t spoken out against the death penalty. When Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, he made it very clear in a 2004 letter to US bishops that Catholic teaching does not forbid war and capital punishment.

[Swordfished]

Consistency is a bugaboo of small minds.

That's a nice quote that applies in some limited circumstances, but in general it doesn't comport with reason.

One would think people with very sharp moral stands would be interested in wielding it with some responsibility --> consistency.

[TigersEye]

Your phrase "direct experiences of mind" is a bullshit way to express what everyone else calls "faith" or "belief".

Your attitude is arrogant and immature. There is nothing bullshit at all about what I said. If someone tells you the stove is hot and will burn and you've never touched a hot stove you might believe it and have faith in what they say. If you touch a hot stove you have a direct experience of it and faith and belief are irrelevant. Then you know what "hot stove" is beyond any doubting or need for belief.

But just because God tells you to do something, or some higher power imparts some great knowledge to you -- doesn't mean that the secular laws of this nation , which defines facts empiracally -- will agree with you.

First of all no God or higher power has imparted anything to me. Ever! Secondly I never said that secular law ought to agree with me because I said it should. I was answering your presumptious misinformation about Buddhist views.

If secular law defines things empirically then why would it ignore the empirical findings of science? The fact that life, completely and uniquely individual life, begins at conception is beyond scientific theory. It's an established observable fact.

Since both religious and scientific views agree that life begins at conception what system of thought and logic is secular law founded on that defines a "person" differently and why do you accept it? Our Constitution was based on the principles expressed in the DoI and proceeds from that. It was not based on popular consensus or secular philosophies of law. Here are the relevant passages that define the direction and purpose of the Constitution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

The basic principles of U.S. Constitutional law are right there. "all men are created equal" Religion and science agree that 'men' are created at conception. "with certain unalienable rights" Rights that exist whether they are recognized by government or not and cannot be taken away or given away. "that among these are Life, ..." Life is an unalienable right to be protected and the two arise together created as one. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..." There is the only principle set forth for instituting government which is a set of secular laws. Government is not established on the basis of protecting secular laws and vague legal concepts like 'personhood.'

It is your right and your freedom to subsume your faith to the rationalities of secular legal-speak. If that is a compromise of conscience you are willing to make that is your choice. If you are willing to put your conscience on hold until society has evolved to see sanctity in life you are free to. You speak of others leading the way to that higher view of life but I doubt that your lukewarm balance between conscience and the temporary secular reality of the day will be inspiring many to follow you there. You aren't there so following you won't get them to that higher view.

I fully understand the pragmatism of political compromise but my personal view of the reality of taking innocent life is not subject to diplomatic alteration. Why should I concede my understanding of life to a secular definition that has no basis other than its own existence in law? Why should I concede my understanding of the founding principles of our nation to legal definitions that don't logically proceed from those principles?

I know when life begins the way I know a hot stove burns. I consider life to be sacred because I know it is clearly unique in each individual and irreplaceable. That is neither belief and faith nor knowledge it is my POV. A POV I have held with no known beginning. I know that taking life is negative and harmful because I know that actions have consequences. My faith in that rests solely on directly seeing that conditions have causes through my own personal observation, analysis and examination. Belief is not even a question here.

I know when life begins, I know life is unique and irreplaceable and I know that taking it is harmful and negative. I choose to view life as sacred based on that knowledge. To agree with anyone else that their views have as much validity as mine is a moral relativism I am not willing to participate in.

My understanding of the legal definition of 'murder' is the taking of innocent human life. I see no compassion in altering my definitions of murder or human life in order to spare someone else's feelings. I don't go around pointing an accusing finger at anyone in order to condemn them but I have no room in my heart or mind to agree with exuses for doing what is clearly a great evil.

[TigersEye]

As an atheist I would tend to agree with you, but at the point of the first mitosis.

OK. I'm glad you agree with me in any way. ; )

How long after conception is the first mitosis?

[TigersEye]

To be consistent they must either support the death penalty for mothers or be against any death penalty in all cases.

Pure non-sequitur nonsense. The law has recognized gradations of guilt and punishment for the taking of life for thousands of years in hundreds of secular legal systems. Our own system allows for variations in punishment for 1st degree murder as decided by the conscience of judge or jury.

You are inconsistent by ignoring that.

[TigersEye]

That is not to say the definition can't be expanded -- and both women and minorites are now considered full persons in the eyes of our laws.

IOWs there is no Constitutional basis for accepting the current secular legal definition of 'personhood.' The relevant term in the DoI regarding the advent of 'personhood' would be 'created.' We now have the scientific means to unequivocally say at what moment the life of "Man" begins and what defines a life as uniquely "Man" and individual. The current legal definitions regarding life in the womb are as arbitrary and contrary to common sense as those which excluded women and blacks. Among others.

Slavery and women's suffrage weren't ended by people who were unable to clearly state what the evil was.

[Sadecki]

Constition.org is wrong about the defintion of "person" at the time of the founding. How so?

They said, "Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" (as opposed to corporate personhood) was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat"

and you quoted Noah Webster who said, "Noah Webster, The American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) defined "person" as: "An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child."

Noah webster doesn't mention anyting about the unborn. He says only that the term "person" should be "applied alike to a man, woman or child."

Which is exactly n line with what constitution,org said about he common law definition of "person" at the time the Constitution was writted\n.

[MEGoody]

To be consistent they must either support the death penalty for mothers or be against any death penalty in all cases.

I've always felt that women who abort should be punished in the same way a woman would be who hired someone to kill her husband (or any other family member).

[Sadecki]

And what does "thankfully" mean?

Meaning that thankfully most people in this nation are not as intolerant, insensitive, callous, and filled with hate as yourself.

And frankly, if you had called my mother a murderer for having an abortion after a rape ("Unlike your sibling, whom your mother had killed,) t my face -- I would have punched you out. And you would have deserved it.

[Sadecki]

We now have the scientific means to unequivocally say at what moment the life of "Man" begins and what defines a life as uniquely "Man" and individual. The current legal definitions regarding life in the womb are as arbitrary and contrary to common sense as those which excluded women and blacks. Among others.

They've never been arbitary at all -- not even those that excluded blacks and women before Constitutional amendments changed their status.

Prior to that, such designations were ruled by precedent. It took a bloody civil war to change the precedent which had deemed blacks as something less then full persons under the law.

But the bar to extending personhood to a zygote is higher even then for women and blacks. Because while legally, blacks and women did not enjoy personhood under the law, there was no doubt that they were conscious, alive, unique, human beings.

On the other hand, to make the leap and believe that a zygote is just as much a fully formed, conscious, aware, unique individual as the parents that provided the 2 cells -- the sperm and the egg -- is a leap that I believe requires religious faith. And I just don't believe such a leap is possible in a nation of secular laws.