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 Ryan’s 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 ...
>> Depriving another person of their life with intent, absent just cause or due process.
Thank you.
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.”
OK?
“Wouldn’t 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.”
OK?”
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.
sitetest
“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.
sitetest
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.
sitetest
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.”
That's nice.
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.
sitetest
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.”
should read:
“...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.
sitetest
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.