Skip to comments.Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)
Posted on 08/20/2012 5:17:54 AM PDT by xzins
Odious remarks by GOP Missouri Senate candidate Cong. Todd Akin about how few pregnancies result from "legitimate rape" have done more than outrage people across the country and doom Akin's bid to move up from the House.
It motivated the Romney campaign - - already trailing among women voters in recent polls - - to distance itself from Akin by assuring voters that Romney and Paul Ryan - - the "Romney-Ryan administration" - - should they win in November, would not oppose raped women's access to abortion.
"Governor Romney and Congressman (Paul) Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.
You'd probably say that sounds reasonable and humane - - except it was just three days ago that PolitiFact devoted a lot of space to this issue and found that while Romney backed abortions in cases of incest and rape, Ryan did not.
And had been an abortion opponent throughout his entire political career - - backing an exception only when the life of the mother was at stake - - thus earning a perfect score from a leading anti-abortion organization on this basic tenet of conservative ideology and practice.
News coverage of Ryans first congressional race in 1998, as well as statements he made to the National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group, show Ryan has taken a stricter anti-abortion view than Romney.
The only anti-abortion exception Ryan favors is situations where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The National Right to Life Committee concurs, based on information the group says it collected in 1998 and 2000 from Ryan as a candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Your analogy is flawed. Nobody is depriving the kidney patient of their life, or right to it, they will simply die in the natural course of events, barring some action that can’t be legally compelled of others.
Putting that aside, I see your point, but it is simply not sufficient to say there are other rights to take into account, and then wash your hands of the matter. There are means for determining which rights take precedence, and if we apply those tests, then the child’s right to life does trump the rights of the parent that could be construed to conflict with it in nearly every circumstance. The only way you can make a logical case to ignore that is if you simply say that the child is not a person, and therefore has no rights.
How about we make sure the cases were real rape or incest by making sure the perp was arrested and prosecuted??
I know the left would never go for that
Please define murder.
I’m sorry, did you confuse me with someone who has patience for childish semantics games? You know darn well what murder is, and if you don’t, there are plenty of dictionaries available on the interwebs.
The principle here is that individuals in our society do not have an obligation to give of their bodily resources to help others survive, especially when they bear no responsibility whatsoever for the predicament of the person in trouble. This principle has been pretty consistently applied and respected in American law and tradition. It's the reason there is no forced organ or blood donation and women aren't forced to carry unused lab embryos to term.
In the case of a rape pregnancy, it seems to me that the victimized woman seeking an abortion has a very strong case. She had nothing at all to do with the creation of the embryo she now carries, so shouldn't this principle apply to her? Isn't she justified in seeking to end the violation of her rights? The only way for her to cease the use of her body by the embryo is to have an abortion. The innocence of the baby is not relevant in this scenario, just as the innocence of unused embryos is not relevant to their situation.
>> Im sorry, did you confuse me with someone who has patience for childish semantics games?
Well, yes, I guess I did figure you had both the patience and intellectual honesty for a detailed discussion; you’re playing god, therefore I figured you would be more god-like in your character.
Guess I was wrong. Sorry about that.
“She had nothing at all to do with the creation of the embryo she now carries, so shouldn’t this principle apply to her? Isn’t she justified in seeking to end the violation of her rights? The only way for her to cease the use of her body by the embryo is to have an abortion.”
Yes, and that is the crux of the matter, that the only way she can hope to assert that right is to kill the baby. Her free exercise of her rights is in direct opposition to the child’s free exercise of his rights. That’s why it is not sufficient to simply assert that she has a right. Yes, she has a right, insomuch as that right doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.
Since they are in conflict, it’s not a clear cut case, and a compromise must be made, to accomodate the rights of both parties, or a subordination must be made if there is no compromise possible. In this case, there is no compromise possible, since the child cannot live unless the mother is restricted from exercising unfettered rights over her own body. One or the other party’s rights must be judged to take precedence over the other.
That’s where the argument for the mother’s rights breaks down. In almost every circumstance, the harm caused to the mother by giving precedence to the rights of the child is vastly inferior to the harm caused to the child by giving precedence to the mother. Only in the circumstance where the mother’s own life is being threatened by having her rights subordinated can one make a reasonable argument that giving her precedence is the correct judgement.
Not playing God, just calling it as I see it. If you want to argue that abortion is not murder, then just come out and say that, instead of playing games, trying to bait me into some obvious trap you think you have laid.
>> If you want to argue that abortion is not murder, then just come out and say that
I believe that *almost all* instances of killing another human being are murder. However, I believe that there are exceptions to that generality — as, apparently, do you. I further believe (although you may not) that those exceptions cross all categories of killing, including abortion.
>> Not playing God, just calling it as I see it.
Fair enough. Then how *do* you see it? In your human condition, of course, since you’re “not playing god”.
In other words, as I asked before, I’m interested in *your* definition of murder. Of course I can look it up on the interwebz — but I’d like to know *your* definition.
Depriving another person of their life with intent, absent just cause or due process.
>> Depriving another person of their life with intent, absent just cause or due process.
1) Please define “Depriving another person of their life”. Literally, or functionally? IF as you claim I’m seeking to lure you into a “trap”, this one is the easiest. Fall in so I can go to bed. :-)
“with intent” is clear to me.
2) Please define “just cause”
and this one is important:
3) Please define “due process”
You're making the assumption that the life of an innocent child is more precious to society than the bodily integrity of an innocent woman. I would argue that this is not true, since we don't have a history of forcing even parents of dying children to donate blood or organs to save their lives. You can certainly argue that it should be, but it has not been, traditionally.
“Please define Depriving another person of their life. Literally, or functionally?”
Oh, come on. We’re talking in the context of murder here. Causing someone to not be alive anymore... making them push up daisies... sending them to the great beyond... what exactly are you looking for?
“2) Please define just cause”
Being able to demonstrate that you were within your rights in taking such an action, or conversely, not prohibited from taking such an action. In the case of murder, this pretty much boils down to asserting the right of self defense, in one form or another. You could cite a lot of other causes, but you’d have a hell of a time arguing that they were just.
“3) Please define due process”
Due process is a panoply of legal rights and protections that are owed to a person by the state, which the state must adhere to in order to make judicial judgements against a person in a just manner. If you want a specific list of all the components of due process, well, you’ll have to go to the dictionary for that.
Now, I said “absent just cause or due process”, since one applies only to the state. You or I, as individuals, don’t have to provide anyone with due process in order to justifiably kill someone, but the state must.
“You’re making the assumption that the life of an innocent child is more precious to society than the bodily integrity of an innocent woman.”
No, I am not making that argument or assumption. I make no appeal to the value that society places on someone’s life or bodily integrity. I am making an appeal to the inherent, natural rights that both parties in the dispute have claim to. They don’t derive these from society, so really, society has nothing to say in the matter of any importance. The society could be China, which places less value on the lives of children, or some society that places greater value on them, and the argument would still be exactly the same. Morality and justice don’t change depending on the standards or prevailing attitudes of the populace.
When discussing what American law should be regarding this issue, it's important to consider the broader application of our society's traditional respect for the bodily integrity rights of its citizens. All I'm saying is that, in other areas of American law, the interest of protecting innocent life is routinely subjugated to other important interests, out of respect for personal liberty. A rape exception to an abortion ban is more than justifiable, in my opinion, when you take this into account.
Now, if you wish to make the case that a raped woman has an obligation to save the embryo forcibly implanted in her womb anyway, you have to realize that there will be inevitable consequences to personal liberty generally, when the logic behind that argument is applied to other issues. I would expect that a country with such a law would be very close to mandating blood, marrow, and organ donation. After all, in a society where the protection of innocent life is the preeminent state interest, how could it be any other way?
>> Oh, come on. etc
Hey, I’m trying to help YOU by being persnickety about the “deprive someone of their life” thing. You’ve opened up a whole can of worms with it.
Wouldn’t locking someone away for their entire life in some sense be “depriving them of their life”?
Wouldn’t forcing a woman to cancel her plans for college in order to raise the spawn of a rapist, in some sense, be “depriving her of her life”?
If you WANT to go down that path together, fine — I guarantee it won’t bolster your argument, but we can.
Otherwise, why don’t you drop that wordy phrase and just use the word “kill”. We both know and agree what that means.
So your definition of murder becomes:
“To intentionally kill a human being, absent just cause or due process.”
“Wouldnt locking someone away for their entire life in some sense be depriving them of their life?, etc”
No, of course not, especially since you are asking me for a definition of MURDER, which you already know the definition of, and you know it doesn’t include any such things.
“So your definition of murder becomes:
To intentionally kill a human being, absent just cause or due process.
Yes, fine, whatever. Will you please get to your point already?
“I don't give a rat's ass what the majority thinks about murdering babies.”
YOU may not give a “rat's ass” about what the majority thinks, but in a representative democracy, it's kinda important. At least if you want to actually have any hope of changing laws. The Court's ruling, Roe, presents a major barrier to providing legal protection to unborn children. At all. But there are ultimately ways around Roe.
Getting around the fact that roughly only about 20% of voters believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases will ultimately prove much more difficult in the long run. You can't change the law through democratic processes if the new law that you propose is opposed by 80% of folks.
I've been following polling on questions related to abortion since about 1990. In that time, the percentage of folks who would legislate to ban all abortions has held pretty steady, even while the percentage of folks willing to call themselves “pro-life” has increased, and the percentage of folks willing to prohibit abortion except in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother and severe fetal abnormality is something around 60%.
The 14th Amendment route, or something that looks a lot like it, might be such a way. If done properly. If imposed by executive fiat, it really would cause a constitutional crisis. If imposed by the courts, it would be the bizarro-Roe, and doomed to the failure that Roe enjoys.
However, I believe that legislation that defined unborn children as human persons, and that took the question of the personhood of unborn children away from the jurisdiction of the courts, would open the way for laws that would provide protection for the unborn, to greater or lesser degrees. I also believe that we're not too far off from electing enough pro-life legislators that we could realistically pass such legislation.
But we're kidding ourselves if we think we'll get majorities in both houses of the federal Congress to vote for such a law if it wasn't understood that the law wasn't somehow constructed to permit abortions in extremis, that what people generally think of now as the extreme cases wouldn't find room in the law.
Why wouldn't we get majorities to vote for such a law that didn't make room for these "extreme" exceptions? Because you wouldn't get enough votes in Congress for such a law. And you wouldn't get the votes in Congress, because 80% of folks would oppose the law and thus not vote for folks who would vote for it. It would make passing Obamacare look like a walk in the park! A picnic! A day at the beach!
I'm all for banning all abortions. No exceptions. Not even in cases where the life of the mother is imminently at risk. As a Catholic, I firmly avow that one may never directly, intentionally kill an innocent human being, and abortion is just that.
But I kinda doubt I'll get a really big bandwagon going to support an abortion law that just bans all abortions, even in the extremely rare cases where the mother's death is imminent. So, I'll need to settle. I'll need to compromise.
Do you believe abortion should be banned even when the mother will die without an abortion (no matter how rare this circumstance may occur)?
How about you, xzins? No exceptions, even in the case of imminent death?
If you join me in my “purist” views, congratulations! But we may be very, very lonely, the three of us. We can hold our “purist” views until we die. I skeptical that the United States will ever change its laws to accommodate those views, at least, not in my lifetime.
So - what should I do? Give up? Curse America for her injustice toward the unborn and move on? No, I'd rather continue to fight for what is possible to achieve for now, then fight on to win more in the future.
So, until Roe is overturned, I'll count as pro-life anyone who works to overturn Roe. Once Roe is gone, I'll count as pro-life anyone willing to severely restrict legal abortion legislatively, say, to restrict it to cases of rape, incest, life of the mother. Once that's accomplished, once there is a rough consensus in our society that abortion is generally wrong, and should be prohibited in all but the worst circumstances, I'll count as pro-life anyone willing to restrict legal abortion further, prohibiting it in cases of rape and incest.
If I'm still on this earth, then I'll count as pro-life folks who understand that abortion is NEVER permissible, and should be entirely banned in law in all circumstances.
You want to climb the entire staircase in one step. I just don't see that our legs are long enough to do it.
“When discussing what American law should be regarding this issue, it’s important to consider the broader application of our society’s traditional respect for the bodily integrity rights of its citizens. All I’m saying is that, in other areas of American law, the interest of protecting innocent life is routinely subjugated to other important interests, out of respect for personal liberty.”
Yes, but the reason that is true in other areas, is that in those areas, there is either no direct conflict between the rights of the two parties, or there is no conflict that can’t be resolved by a compromise amenable to both parties. For example, in the example of organ donations, etc, that you keep bringing up, there is no conflict at all. As I said before, the person needing the transplant’s right to life isn’t interfered with in the least if they do not receive a new kidney, since they will simply continue to live out their natural lifespan unimpeded. Not providing someone with the means to extend their life is simply not equivalent to depriving them of their life.
Another case that that is much more germaine to this situation would be Good Samaritan laws. Under those laws, you can be forced to provide assistance to another person to help preserve their life or well-being, even if that inconveniences you or requires use of your resources that the other person would normally have no lawful claim to. The reason those laws are just is because in this conflict, the harm caused by obligating the Samaritan to try to help is usually quite minimal, while the harm caused to the party in distress if the Samaritan is not obligated to help can be extreme, to the point of death. Therefore, the proper resolution of the conflict is to say that the rights of the party in distress temporarily take precedence over the rights of the Samaritan.
Now, this doesn’t mean you must drive around looking for people to help; the laws only come into play when a situation arises that creates the conflict that it addresses. That is why your hypothetical “forced organ donation” scenario is ridiculous. There is no actual conflict between parties that would create a need for such a law to resolve the conflict. If I forcibly removed your kidney, then I would be infringing on your right to life, but simply not providing you with my kidney does no such thing.
“Now, if you wish to make the case that a raped woman has an obligation to save the embryo forcibly implanted in her womb anyway...”
No, I wouldn’t make that case, since we are not going to charge her with a crime in the case of a miscarriage. She doesn’t have to save the child, she simply has to refrain from killing it. Exactly like we expect everyone else in society to refrain from killing each other without just cause.
“After all, in a society where the protection of innocent life is the preeminent state interest, how could it be any other way?”
The state interest doesn’t even enter into the equation, as I said before. We could live in a state of anarchy, and the just thing to do would not change. When Cain killed Abel, for example, it was not murder because the state said Abel’s life should be protected, since there was no state. It was murder because Abel had an inherent right to life, which Cain deprived him of unjustly.
I'm not sure that you understand "life of the mother" arguments by Catholics. I believe it was freeper Salvation who explains it best.
If there is a medical procedure needed by a mother to save her life, that procedure can be taken, and if it puts the life of the child in jeopardy, then that is a "life of the mother" exception. It is not, "I'm feeling suicidal if I don't get rid of this baby.", so therefore, I can abort the baby. In that 2nd instance there is a direct killing of the baby. In the first, the baby might die as part of a life-saving procedure.
The bottom line is the difference between direct killing and attempting to preserve all lives possible. I am, of course, in favor of any effort to save mother and child.
So, in every case, I am in favor of trying to save the life of the baby. You could almost call my position "pro-delivery". I'm in favor of delivering the child and not directly killing it. If it dies as a result of honest attempts to save it, then that is not an abortion actually. Abortion ALWAYS kills first with no other questions asked. Abortion dismembers, pierces skulls, sucks out brains, destroys with chemicals, etc. There is no effort whatsoever to save life.
“I'm not sure that you understand ‘life of the mother’ arguments by Catholics.”
My friend, I'm not sure YOU understand “life of the mother” as it pertains to Catholic moral theology and the question of abortion.
“If there is a medical procedure needed by a mother to save her life, that procedure can be taken, and if it puts the life of the child in jeopardy, then that is a ‘life of the mother’ exception.”
Not if that medical procedure is a direct, intentional abortion. An "abortion," as defined, is not necessarily dismembering or otherwise killing the unborn baby before delivery. An abortion is the premature delivery of a child, whether intended or unintended, who will die outside the womb. Here is wikipedia's first paragraph on the topic of abortion:
"Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy."
I agree that when we speak about "abortion," we usually do mean to suggest that the end goal is the death of the baby. But in that most abortions take place well before "viability," whether the baby dies directly at the hands of the abortionist, or dies from an inability to survive outside the womb is considered a distinction without a difference to those who believe in "a woman's right to choose."
Nonetheless, intentional delivery before the child can survive is an induced abortion, whether one kills the child directly in the performance of the procedure, or waits for the child to die from an inability to survive after delivery. From the perspective of Catholic moral theology, there is no difference. Inducing premature delivery of an unborn child who is absolutely unable to survive outside the womb falls under the rubric of "abortion."
In fact, from a Catholic perspective (and in my own view, from a medical perspective), delivery a viable baby and killing him or her before or during delivery technically wouldn't be abortion, per se, but rather, just ordinary pre-meditated, garden-variety murder. The specific species of murder would be infanticide.
I'm not a doctor, and so I can't describe a particular situation that might give rise to a direct, intentional abortion that would be required to save a mother's life.
In fact, I've read that many pro-life physicians argue that such circumstances never arise. Then, someone will present such a case, and the pro-life physician will say something along the lines of, “Well, yeah, but in that particular case, maybe something else might have been done, and besides, even if an abortion was the only way to save the woman, that almost never happens.”
But let's say a woman is four months pregnant and continued pregnancy is, for some reason, no longer consistent with continued life for the woman. There is no treatment that will permit her to live and also not kill the baby. And, in fact, there is no treatment that will save her life and only indirectly kill the unborn child.
The only procedure that will save the mother's life is the immediate removal of the unborn child from the mother's womb.
How frequent are these circumstances? I've heard some folks say that they just don't exist. I've heard others describe particular circumstances wherein the dilemma is just so. I'm not competent to decide who is right and who is wrong. But, logic tells me that with seven billion folks in the world, it probably does rarely happen that a woman will die without removing her unborn child from her womb.
If the direct, intentional treatment for the woman is something that will have as a secondary effect the death of the child, it is generally accepted by most Catholic moral theologians to be morally permissible. Chemotherapy or radiation for cancer. The direct, intended effect, the thing that saves the woman, is the killing of cancer cells by the treatment. Removal of a diseased body part - say, an inflamed fallopian tube, or a cancerous uterus. The direct, intended effect, the thing that saves the woman, is the removal of a diseased body part. Most moralists are on board with these.
But if the direct, intentional “treatment” for the woman, the thing that actually saves the woman, is removing the baby from her womb to save her life, if that inevitably results in the death of the baby (which, at this time, removal of a baby of gestational age of 16 or 17 weeks would be), it is morally impermissible.
I once speculated that perhaps if the baby were not yet sufficiently matured to survive outside the womb, perhaps his or her death could be counted as a secondary, not-intended effect of the primary effect of saving the mother's life. If every effort were made to deliver the baby alive, and to try to help him or her survive outside the womb, even though such efforts would prove futile, perhaps this would be morally acceptable. However, I read some years back the answer to a “dubium” posed thusly to the Vatican, and the answer came back in the negative. If the “treatment” for the woman's survival is direct removal of the unborn child who is most assuredly unable to survive outside the womb, then the “treatment” for the woman is the direct, intentional killing of the child.
And thus, is impermissible.
Are you on board with this "purist" position? I am. Prohibition of abortion, even in these extremely rare circumstances, is my ultimate goal.
I've already written that.
“’Not if that medical procedure is a direct, intentional abortion’
“I've already written that.”
You seem to think that “direct, intentional abortion” only covers those procedures where the baby is killed before or during the delivery of the baby.
As I explained, even if the abortionist delivers the baby entirely intact, if the procedure is performed prior to any chance for viability, and it is certain the baby will die, that, too, is an abortion, and is not permitted, at least for Catholics.
Terry Schiavo is an interesting case in that her parents were prevented from by the court from using any normal method to maintain her life. They were forbidden to feed or hydrate her by hand to keep her alive.
So, not only did the court end all artificial means of preserving her life, but they also forbade even humane considerations.
They clearly are guilty of directly killing her.
So, my concern if the young woman who is going to have an abortion no matter what anyone says. In short, a killing is going to take place. I consider it a far better option to attempt to deliver that baby — no matter the stage — and attempt to keep it alive rather than allow a direct killing.
Who knows what medical advances could be made given that incentive?!
Terry Schiavo is an interesting case in that her parents were prevented from by the court from using any normal method to maintain her life. They were forbidden to feed or hydrate her by hand to keep her alive.
So, not only did the court end all artificial means of preserving her life, but they also forbade even humane considerations.
They clearly are guilty of directly killing her.
So, my concern is the young woman who is going to have an abortion no matter what anyone says. In short, a killing is going to take place. I consider it a far better option to attempt to deliver that baby — no matter the stage — and attempt to keep it alive rather than allow a direct killing.
Who knows what medical advances could be made given that incentive?!
“So, my concern if the young woman who is going to have an abortion no matter what anyone says. In short, a killing is going to take place. I consider it a far better option to attempt to deliver that baby no matter the stage and attempt to keep it alive rather than allow a direct killing.”
So, in other words, you'll permit induced abortion (induced delivery before viability with no current hope of survival for the born infant) in law to save a woman's life as long as the killing of the child occurs inevitably, as along as the killing occurs solely as a result of the premature delivery.
"Who knows what medical advances could be made given that incentive?!"
Who knows indeed? But we DO know that should a woman procure such an abortion of a child of, say, three months' gestational age TODAY, or TOMORROW, or the NEXT DAY, whether the abortionist dismembers the baby or not, the baby will have died from an induced abortion. The child is not spared his or her life by some unknown, future medical advances. He is killed by an induced abortion.
Congratulations. You have accepted an exception.
That is no different than any rescue plan, Site, in a dire situation.
I guess we could just allow the drowning victim to sweep away down the river. We could say, “Nothin’ we coulda done.”
Or we could risk someone/something in an attempt to rescue the person.
I assume you are being naive on purpose.
“...to save a woman’s life as long as the killing of the child occurs inevitably, as along as the killing occurs solely as a result of the premature delivery.”
“...to save a woman’s life as long as the killing of the child, which is inevitable, occurs solely as a result of the premature delivery.
“I assume you are being naive on purpose.”
No. I'm entirely serious.
“I guess we could just allow the drowning victim to sweep away down the river. We could say, ‘Nothin we coulda done.’
I would rather liken it to there being two people in a water craft in raging rapids that no one could swim through to safety, a craft that can clearly hold only one person and bring them to safety, and one person decides to throw the other overboard, to save her own life.
The only way of saving her own life was by directly killing another innocent human being.
“Or we could risk someone/something in an attempt to rescue the person.”
If you induce an abortion in the first trimester, or generally, even the first 16 - 18 weeks of pregnancy, you're not putting “someone/something” at risk. There is no risk involved. You are killing someone (not “something”). There is no RISK of death, there is the CERTAINTY of death.
That is the exception that you accept: If an induced abortion is the only way to save the life of the mother, it is permissible, SO LONG as the abortionist makes sure that the inevitable killing of the child occurs solely as a result of the abortion, itself.
I understand. Most pro-lifers make some exceptions to the general rule that abortion must be prohibited in law. Some folks draw the line at rape, incest, severe abnormality. You're a bit tougher - you're at, life of the mother.
I don't agree with any of you, ultimately. I really am the “purist.” No abortions. At all. If the baby is gonna die as a result of inducing premature delivery, it should be against the law.
But I'm under no illusions that most folks agree with me, and that we'll have such laws any time in the near future. Or even the not-so-near future. And I'm willing to outlaw the 96% of abortions where we CAN get majorities of folks to agree.
I disagree, of course.
If two people are in the boat, it’s not YOU and those 2. It’s the mother and child in the boat, and she’s preparing to throw the child overboard, and has indicated that she is definitely going to do so.
What are your options at that point? Prevention or rescue are the only ones that I can see.
The pro-life movement has been operating on the prevention side when it talks about outlawing this or that or even gradually raising awareness so that more and more abortions are restricted. Nothing wrong with prevention.
During those efforts, however, 54 million babies have been killed. And the killings proceed at a pretty quick pace.
A little rescue is in order.
“I disagree, of course.”
About what? That the exception should or shouldn't be made? Of COURSE we disagree on that.
If that's our point of disagreement - you believe that abortion is acceptable to save the life of the mother, I don't - then there's little need to go on.
I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise. I'm merely pointing out that you're not quite the “purist,” either. The difference between you and pro-lifers who accept abortion in cases of rape is a difference of degree, not kind.
“During those efforts, however, 54 million babies have been killed. And the killings proceed at a pretty quick pace.
“A little rescue is in order.”
Which is why I would TRULY be delighted to get to a legal regime that prohibited abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, as that would RESCUE 96% of babies who would otherwise be aborted, and that is a legal regime that would be accepted far more readily than prohibiting abortions even where women become pregnant as a result of rape.
Here's a quote from an essay by Ramesh Ponnuru (someone, by the way, who agrees with me on the issue of abortion - they're ALL unjustifiable, even to “save a woman's life"):
“A combined 59 percent of men said that abortion should be legal either in no circumstances or in only a few; 56 percent of women chose those responses.”
It is at least POSSIBLE to get to a legal regime that is actually endorsed by a majority of Americans.
Even there, it may still take years and years to get to that point. We haven't even hit the first major legal milestone - overturning, vacating or otherwise vitiating the effects of Roe.
To get to the point where YOU'D be happy might take an extra few decades. Or more. In the meanwhile, babies are dyin'.
So, c’mon over and join the crowd: The actual majority of Americans who would actually accept prohibiting in law 96% of abortions!
Actually, I've been saying otherwise. Where have you been?
That is the prevention side of the equation, which I endorsed.
I also said there should be a rescue side that operates as well, given that you are saying any progress in prevention "may still take years and years to get to that point."
Apparently, you aren't enamoured with there being any rescue side of the abortion equation.
Now we're retreading ground.
I'm not sure you read completely my admittedly-long post at 271. It reviews the medical meaning of the word “abortion,” as well as the meaning in Catholic moral theology.
Briefly, an induced abortion (we're not speaking about spontaneous abortions, often termed “miscarriages”) is the induction of delivery of an unborn human being prior to viability.
Viability, of course, means the ability to live outside the womb.
But just to clarify, here's the circumstances:
A woman is pregnant. Gestational age is well before there is any hope of survival outside the womb for the unborn child. The woman will die if pregnancy continues.
Someone (I'll call him “the abortionist”) induces labor, but is careful to deliver the child intact. The child, being of a gestational age that precludes living outside the womb, no matter what medical intervention then-currently available, dies.
Does xzins accept this as moral or immoral? Does xzins think this should be legal or illegal?
This implies that your objection is that the woman seeking the abortion is acting to kill the embryo. I would agree, she should not have the right to strictly kill it, but she has full right to remove it from her body, to stop it from using her womb against her will. If the embryo is simply removed from her womb intact and set aside to continue out its natural life for as long as it can, would this satisfy your concern?
Another case that that is much more germaine to this situation would be Good Samaritan laws. The reason those laws are just is because in this conflict, the harm caused by obligating the Samaritan to try to help is usually quite minimal, while the harm caused to the party in distress if the Samaritan is not obligated to help can be extreme, to the point of death. Therefore, the proper resolution of the conflict is to say that the rights of the party in distress temporarily take precedence over the rights of the Samaritan.
Yes, but Good Samaritan laws do not apply to the donation of bodily resources (blood, organs). Again, the state has generally respected the bodily integrity of the people. Giving blood can be a fairly simple process and be minimally inconvenient, but no one, that I'm aware, is required to give blood.
Now, this doesnt mean you must drive around looking for people to help; the laws only come into play when a situation arises that creates the conflict that it addresses. That is why your hypothetical forced organ donation scenario is ridiculous. There is no actual conflict between parties that would create a need for such a law to resolve the conflict. If I forcibly removed your kidney, then I would be infringing on your right to life, but simply not providing you with my kidney does no such thing.
I have to say, I honestly do not see a legitimate conflict between the raped woman and the embryo. The woman, who existed first, was forcibly impregnated. The embryo is now using her organs to survive. How can the law require her to continue to allow the embryo to grow inside her, using her bodily resources and putting her body through the normal stresses and health complications that often accompany a full term pregnancy? This burden can, in no way, be seen as minimally inconvenient and is a clear violation of her bodily integrity.
The reason I continue to bring up organ donation is that a law such as you propose would raise the bar so radically as to what innocent individuals in society should be expected to provide other individuals in need that it could conceivably affect all of us (and should, if we're to have a fair application of the principle). If a rape victim is required to help the embryo, why shouldn't you or I be required to help the kidney patient down the street? We're not responsible for his predicament, but the woman is certainly not responsible for that of the embryo either.
” If the embryo is simply removed from her womb intact and set aside to continue out its natural life for as long as it can, would this satisfy your concern?”
No, since that act is itself an act of killing, unless the child is old enough to survive outside the womb, and even then, it would be a crime to let the child die due to neglect.
“Yes, but Good Samaritan laws do not apply to the donation of bodily resources (blood, organs).”
No, and I didn’t mean to imply that they did. I’m simply offering that as a good example of a law where you may be obligated to subordinate your rights to the rights of another, even though the conflict arises of no fault of your own. You didn’t cause an injured person to appear on your doorstep, and you didn’t plan your day around dropping everything to help them, but it is still the just thing to do, and in some cases, the legally obligated thing to do.
“I have to say, I honestly do not see a legitimate conflict between the raped woman and the embryo. The woman, who existed first, was forcibly impregnated. The embryo is now using her organs to survive. How can the law require her to continue to allow the embryo to grow inside her, using her bodily resources and putting her body through the normal stresses and health complications that often accompany a full term pregnancy?”
The conflict is pretty simple. The child has an inherent right to life, regardless of how it got here. The woman has rights as well, which she may be impeded from exercising while she is pregnant with the child. She cannot “unimpregnate” herself in order to remove the impediment; it can only be done by killing the child, or by waiting for it to be born, or miscarried naturally. So, if the woman wants to exercise the option of killing the child, it creates a direct conflict with the child’s right to life.
“This burden can, in no way, be seen as minimally inconvenient and is a clear violation of her bodily integrity.”
The burden doesn’t have to be minimally inconvenient. It merely has to be less of a burden than deprivation of life, which pretty much every conceivable harm or burden is. I’m sure if you put the choice to the woman: carry the child to term, or we can kill YOU, she would choose to carry the child. That alone demonstrates her inconvenience or harm is less than the harm that abortion would inflict on the child.
“The reason I continue to bring up organ donation is that a law such as you propose would raise the bar so radically as to what innocent individuals in society should be expected to provide other individuals in need that it could conceivably affect all of us (and should, if we’re to have a fair application of the principle).”
I’m not proposing anything radical, in fact, I’m not proposing any new law at all. I’m simply advocating just application of a law that has been in effect, pretty much since time immemorial, in one form or another: thou shalt not kill. I’m not saying the rape victim needs to go to the OB/Gyn every week, or take all her pre-natal supplements, or get a nursery ready. Just don’t kill the baby, since we are not allowed to go around killing people because we feel like it, or because they inconvenience us. The application of that law, in this special circumstance, may be more burdensome than usual, but it isn’t anything radical or novel that could lead to the kind of legislation you are worried about.
“If a rape victim is required to help the embryo, why shouldn’t you or I be required to help the kidney patient down the street?”
No, because this isn’t about making a law requiring forced charity or aid. It’s about having your rights abridged in order to minimize the harm caused by the rights of two persons being in conflict. There is no conflict between you exercising your rights and the kidney patient exercising his.
No, the act is simply intended to remove the being currently using the woman's organs. The fact that it will die without the woman's body is unfortunate, but is not something that she can remedy without enduring an unacceptably taxing, and traditionally unrequired, physiological burden. The fact that medical technology cannot help the embryo is not the woman's fault, and can therefore not be considered neglect.
The conflict is pretty simple. The child has an inherent right to life, regardless of how it got here. The woman has rights as well, which she may be impeded from exercising while she is pregnant with the child.
This may be your view, but that has not been the tradition of this country in any other area besides pregnancy by rape. I can think of no other case where someone is, or has been, compelled by the state to provide physiological life support to a being for which they have absolutely no responsibility.
Just dont kill the baby, since we are not allowed to go around killing people because we feel like it, or because they inconvenience us.
We are allowed to kill people when they present a direct threat to us. A forced pregnancy, created entirely without any kind of invitation, is a particularly aggressive form of physical assault (one that lasts for 9 months and could cause the woman any number of health problems). The woman is more than justified, according to our traditions of personal liberty, to have the being effectuating the assault removed from her body.
Its about having your rights abridged in order to minimize the harm caused by the rights of two persons being in conflict.
The woman, a person with rights who existed before the embryo, is in a state of being, essentially, assaulted by the embryo. Again, the law allows use of force in cases of self-defense. If that force ends up being lethal, one is still generally justified in using it, if it is necessary to stop the assault. So, I still fail to see how your position is consistent with our traditions regarding personal liberty and rights of self-defense.
“No, the act is simply intended to remove the being currently using the woman’s organs.”
You can’t divorce the procedure from the killing of the child, which is a direct and inevitable consequence of it. Otherwise, I could say, remove a ladder that a workman was using, causing him to fall to his death, and I would not be guilty of murder. All I was intending was to remove the ladder!
“The fact that it will die without the woman’s body is unfortunate, but is not something that she can remedy without enduring an unacceptably taxing, and traditionally unrequired, physiological burden.”
An “unacceptably taxing” burden is simply not a just cause to kill another human being. If that is the logic that you want to follow, then you are one step away from euthanizing the eldery and handicapped. In fact, if you go back and read some eugenics publications back from their “golden age”, you’ll find plenty of references to “unacceptable burdens”.
“This may be your view, but that has not been the tradition of this country in any other area besides pregnancy by rape.”
It really doesn’t matter what the traditions are, but I’d still say you are wrong on this point. Our legal system has very often used the exact same type of arguments when judging cases of conflicting rights. In fact, I’d posit that it is the most often used method of determining those cases.
“I can think of no other case where someone is, or has been, compelled by the state to provide physiological life support to a being for which they have absolutely no responsibility.”
Of course you won’t find any specific instances which match up exactly with this one, since this is a unique situation that has no exact parallels. There is no other situation I can think of that would create a conflict of rights which matches the one created by this one in such a way to demand a similar judgement. However, that fact in no way detracts from the validity of the judgement, nor is there any reason to expect it would.
“We are allowed to kill people when they present a direct threat to us.”
Indeed, we are allowed to kill people in those situations.
“A forced pregnancy, created entirely without any kind of invitation, is a particularly aggressive form of physical assault (one that lasts for 9 months and could cause the woman any number of health problems).”
Hold your horses there. A physical assault is a pretty specific thing. You can’t simply call a pregnancy, wanted, unwanted, or forced, a physical assault, anymore than I can call a horse a donkey, and expect other people to accept that. An assault requires an attacker, as well as intent. Who is the attacker here? The rapist? The baby? If it’s the baby, then where is the intent? If it’s the rapist, then what is the baby, a weapon? This is a pretty huge leap of logic here that I’m not willing to accept.
Also, the principle of self defense is restricted by the idea of lawful or necessary force. You do not have a right to simply kill anyone who makes you uncomfortable, or may pose a threat to you. There must be an actual threat or actual violence that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their lives, if you wish to exercise a wilfully lethal level of self defense. A reasonable person does not consider a normal pregnancy a threat to their life, so your appeal to lethal self defense fails on that standard alone.
Force her to have the baby as if shes someone whos opinion doesnt matter at all? Certainly not.
Kill the baby as if the baby’s opinion doesn’t matter at all? Certainly not.
So God won't judge you for the unemployment rate, but God will judge you for someone else's "taking a life without due process"?
Yes, my vote says “I side with this man” or it says “I don’t side with this man.”
Yours does, too.