Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, King County Councilmembers Dow Constantine and Dwight Pelz, and Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata will be judges at what strikes me as a rather tastelessly marketed event:
Chocolate for ChoiceSo the political action group NARAL will be getting the tacit support of Seattle and King County, whether you want it or not (call it choice). Meanwhile, abortion clinics in the state are referred business from municipal health centers. 28,000 pregnancy terminations are performed in Washington yearly.6,000 square feet of tempting chocolate delicacies
13 Celebrity Judges
1 evening of utter decadence all supporting a woman's right to choose...
Priceless.
No matter how you feel about the issue of abortion, perhaps we can all agree that city and county officials indulging in an "evening of utter decadence" to support it is in very, very poor taste.
(Hat tip: Mary Emanuel)
The elitism and narcissism of such an event calls into question how much attention they're paying to the electorate:
Some prominent Democrats are now beginning to say in public what some of their rank-and-file have been saying in private for some time: this party cannot win at the national level without moderating its stance on the highly divisive issue of abortion. No less a figure than Sen. John Kerry brought this to the attention of a recent Democratic think tank, MSNBC reported, drawing audible gasps from pro-abortion leaders at the gathering. Kerry went so far as to suggest that leaders should "welcome pro-life candidates" into the Democratic Party, a notion which Democratic thinkers hope will have two effects: gaining much-needed pro-life voters, and placating conservatives, thus keeping abortion legal for the indefinite future.Posted by Brian Crouch at February 24, 2005 08:55 AM | Email ThisIt is difficult to say precisely how much Kerry's views on abortion hurt him with Catholic voters, a segment of the electorate he lost by 55-45 percent. But surely it did not help. In particular, his repeated votes against banning "Partial Birth Abortion," a procedure so hideous that even the late liberal Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, once called it infanticide, may well have cost him hundreds of thousands of votes....
...I won't go there.
Posted by: bmvaughn on February 24, 2005 08:58 AM"perhaps we can all agree that this is in very poor taste"
Agreed.
But when the inmates are running the asylum, that's not really the point.
Posted by: Ken Muller on February 24, 2005 09:07 AMHowever, it is a very difficultl issue. I am a conservative, but what most people don't focus on are two important aspects of the debate.
One, since caring for a child is an awesome responsibility, a woman is essentially choosing between her own life and any plans or goals that she may have wanted to accomplish before having a child and the potential of a child's life.
Two, if abortion were outright illegal, their would be a grey market for the procedure that would probably be dangerous and might cause a fair amount of death.
I think we have to agree on some date, fine if its in the first trimester or early on where the potentiality of life is least and make abortion up to that point, legal. Hopefully it will also be rare in that it is always somewhat risky and an event that can carry heavy emotional consequences.
But like many technologies that can not be placed back in to the bottle, abortion is here to stay so we might as well have a sensible policy and discourage it through culture rather than treating it like something that we can eliminate.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 24, 2005 09:37 AM"abortion is here to stay so we might as well have a sensible policy and discourage it through culture"
Sounds good.
Now, why not substitute a word like Pedophilia (or bank robbery, murder, etc.) instead of abortion? See if it still has the same ring to it.
Posted by: Ken Muller on February 24, 2005 09:57 AMAlso, it is irrelevant whether there would be a “grey market” for abortion if it is outlawed. The question which faces society is whether or not abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being. If it is, then nobody committed to morality should allow it.
Finally, since the overwhelming number of abortions is not the consequence of some form of rape, the women who seek abortions (and the men who encourage them) are engaging in irresponsible behavior. That irresponsible behavior should not be excused by committing a greater act of irresponsibility – the murder of an innocent human being.
Are you suggesting that pedophilia, bank robbery, and murder are not here to stay? Of course they are. And abortion has always been here, and is here to stay, too.
The issue is not whether a troublesome behavior exists, but whether society will condone it. And if society does not condone it, will that society's legal system outlaw the behavior?
We could debate it forever. What really upsets me is dragging such an innocent confectionery like chocolate into the fray!
=>Are you suggesting....
Satire.
Posted by: Ken Muller on February 24, 2005 10:14 AMBrian, the headline on your entry is 'dead on'! (pun somewhat intended)
Posted by: Michele on February 24, 2005 10:26 AMI am a political conservative and a conservative Christian. I do not think you can legislate morality, and I do not equate abortion with murder. I know that some will consider me a "liberal Christian," a heretic, or an apostate, but I have no control over what others think. I believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but there are some theological points where I differ from some of my fellow Christians. This is one of those. I think human life begins at birth, others think it begins at conception.
However, I think that abortion does often occur because of personal irresponsibility. Abortion is repugnant to me personally, and I find no reason whatsoever for partial birth abortions. From what I understand, partial birth abortions never occur because the live of the mother is in jeopardy. I think partial birth abortions should be banned. It is the most barbaric medical procedure I have ever heard of. I do not think that any federal, state or local government should be funding Planned Parenthood, or any abortions. There are severe restrictions that I think should be placed on abortions, stem cell research, cloning, and medical research in general. Whether to abort or not, when legal, is a decision that will ultimately have to be made by a woman and her doctor, and not by a male such as myself.
Now, you can disagree with the premise that there IS such a time in a pregnancy, and I'd be happy to argue the point with you. But until you prove your point of view correct (that conception itself creates a protected human life), you cannot equate all abortions with infanticide, robbery, or any crime whatsoever.
Posted by: srogers on February 24, 2005 11:10 AMWhat do terms like "fair" and "rights" mean if not in a moral framework?
And this, I think just an ill-considered statement, and not your real belief: "I think human life begins at birth"-- I am sure you would not approve of an abortion at 8 months, 28 days.
How about 7 months, 28 days? 6? 5 months?
What do you think of the idea of calling a fetus a life after she grows a central nervous system? Or has her own blood supply? Or is capable of showing automonous response, or reaction to pain?
Please take some time to consider the ramifications of these ideas before you reply.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on February 24, 2005 11:13 AMFurther complicating the issue is that a lot of people attach religious significance to conception and believe that this is when a soul comes into a human being, etc. But many people are not at all religious, and we should not be expecting these people to view the physical reality of human reproduction through a religious lense. And that is why there is a separation of church and state. As a side note, I'm also staunchly against our increasinly leftists government trying to shut down everything religious. It should simply be left alone.
I'm not advocating the obviously trivial analogies proposed here of stealing, etc.
What I am saying is that in order to deal with the consequences of this technology that is widely available, we have to set legal boundries that allow for all aspects of the issue and then abide by those boundaries. That's why a sensible approach is to pick a date within the first trimester and base legality of abortion on that date.
Abortion is not going away any more than nuclear warheads are going away. It's best to deal with the issue than to try and bury it which is what many staunchly anti abortion folks want to do. On the other hand, late term abortions are frankly a cop out and quite disgusting. A woman who does not want a baby should be able to make this heavy decision early on in the pregnancy.
One thing is for sure though as Orange Rich notes; the reason we are so divided on so many issues is the bipolar extremism of our de facto two party system. We never get to debate on an issue by issue basis on merits but are instead lumped into a camp on either side. I believe this is a lot of the reason why the Democrats are failing. If you take the sum total of the issues, it's very hard to find a person who is left on every issue. There are many more people with a stance that is moderate leaning right if you add up the sum or their views. Thus, as long as the Democrats try to gain favor by floating extremists like Al Franken, Michael Moore, etc. they further alienate the average person.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not someone who would personally get myself into the situation where I would need to worry about abortion, nor do I think that it is a "no big deal form of birth control" as extreme leftists do. I'm simply stating that there are pragmatic concerns and that we have to look at the whole picture. As conservatives, we should not expect to ram a staunch zero abortion policy down the throat of a wacky liberal any more than we are willing to accept slipshod, no authentication elections run by partisan operatives to be common place.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 24, 2005 11:23 AMYou say, “I do not think you can legislate morality…” and you then say, “I think partial birth abortions should be banned.” You cannot have the latter without the former, so you have given us inconsistent statements.
As a technical matter, “morality” is a system of right and wrong. That being the case, EVERY law is a statement of societal right and wrong. If you cannot legislate morality, then consistency dictates anarchy. To one person, stealing is immoral, wrong, etc., and to another, it is the just distribution of goods. Why should the former prevail over the latter?
Saying, “I do not equate abortion with murder” is not an argument. Besides, the argument over the beginning of human life was not the topic of my post. I was commenting on Jeff’s incoherent principle for leaving abortion alone. Also, implicit in your “I do not equate abortion with murder” statement is an admission that you too would ban abortion if you believe it to be murder. That was precisely the point of my last post.
Actually, Ken was under no obligation whatsoever to prove his belief about the beginning of human life because that wasn’t the topic of his post. Ken was replying to Jeff’s post which relied upon a misguided principle. You cannot consistently argue that the inability of society to totally eliminate some practices obligates society to allow those practices.
Posted by: Skeet on February 24, 2005 11:34 AMLet's be more clear then. Abortion is not murder. An embryo, zygote, fetus, etc. is not a separate full human being.
You can indeed argue all you want at what point a developing bunch of cells beceoms a human being, and then pass laws from that point, but if you were to take the embryo or zygote from a woman shortly after conception, it would not be a full human being.
Don't confuse the potential with the actual.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 24, 2005 11:42 AMWhy is stealing a “trivial analogy”? Why should your views about stealing be imposed upon those who disagree? If I believe you’ve got too much of the goods things in life and seek to alleviate you of those things, why shouldn’t I be able to?
Let’s use another analogy which might offend you. There were and are people who do not believe blacks are full human beings (look at your copy of the U.S. Constitution). As a consequence of that belief, they considered slavery to be a legitimate exercise of their God-given rights. Many pro-slavery arguments are similar to today’s pro-slavery arguments. If you believe blacks to be full human beings, then don’t own slaves; nobody is requiring you to own slaves; don’t impose your morality upon me; my property my choice.
If human life begins at conception (there is no other place, biologically speaking, for it to begin), and if society deems the killing of innocent human life to be murder, then abortion IS murder and it should be outlawed. That is not a theological argument, it is a logical one.
What objective criteria, Jeff, do you use to define human beings? When you speak of various “views” on the issue, you’re referring to subjectivity. The only objective way to define human beings is the genetic code. We are what we are because of the human genetic code. We look and act the way we do precisely because of it, and conception is the only point to which we can objectively point and say, “This is the beginning of human life.” EVERY other standard imposes subjectivity.
As I stated before, you cannot consistently argue that we should allow abortion simply because it will not go away.
Some people think celebrating and fund raising through chocolate is a good thing. Others do not.
A pre-born child is just that - no matter how far along a woman is ... once she is pregnant, she is a mother for life. That she and society feel fit to kill that life within her and tell her that it is "choice" is a lie that needs to be corrected.
One can argue that the woman should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, and if she does then she deserves to have the consequences of death...how loving is this? Those who are pro-woman certainly do not feel this way - or do they?
What is NARAL's gain? Money - plain and simple. Dry up the money from abortions and they will no longer have an income or a screaming board.
Seattle needs to wake up and smell the death that abortion brings.
Stealing and Racism are trivial analogies because they are easy to objectively define. It's easy to define stealing and say that stealing is wrong. And of course it was wrong to define different rights and status in society to those whose skin color was determined by geographical location of their ancestors. I admit that it is difficult to objectively determine exactly when a group of cells becomes a human. However it is wrong to say that just because something is living that it is human. There is no awareness or feeling in an embryo. And Skeet, currently society has decided that there is an objective difference between a developing embryo or zygote and a fully born infant. We currently have a defined boundary, and I believe we need to better define that boundary at an earlier point in the pregnancy that is much more agreeable to all.
I'm not saying that this makes it any easier for those who have a strong religious connection to conception or a belief that all pregnancies should result in babies, but I am saying that there is a point at which the living cellular material that is growing and dividing is not yet human. And I'm saying that not all people have a moral or religious association with conception, nor should they be required to by government.
I happen to agree that Seattle's programs to make abortion common place are a poor use of our tax dollars and government gone awry. And I also agree that the decision to have an abortion is a very emotional and difficult decision because we all know that the developing mass of cells has the potential to become a full human like all of us.
But we also know that there are unfortunately a lot of humans out there that are unwanted by their own parents and treated very poorly. And there are humans that grow up to become huge social problems because of the incredibly bad environment in which they were raised. A mother that truly does not want a baby is not a benefit to anyone.
Abortion is not an easy concept to accept, but that certainly does not warrant its absolute dismissal either. That's the problem with the agressive anti abortion movement is that is leaves no room at all for rational choice considering the enormous implications for an existing human life and possibly for many other existing human lives. Don't forget that indeed many lives have been lost just to protect the freedom of rational choice that we enjoy, even if at times those are extremely difficult choices such as abortion, euthanasia, etc.
And Lee Anne, unfortunately there is nothing loving about this debate. I'm sure you are a perfectly wonderful person, but I don't know you and you don't know me. It's really not about love. What we are trying to define is the societal rules for a very intense technology that is a reality that we must address.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 24, 2005 01:04 PMI asked for an objective definition of human life and you gave me a subjective one. Arguing that “current society has decided” does not give us anything objective. If your *opinion* validates your argument, then everybody else’s opinion validates theirs. If that is the case, you have no logical basis for demanding they subordinate their opinion to yours.
Having a “current society has decided” standard, you immediately question it by saying, “…I believe we need to better define that boundary at an earlier point…” If that is the case, Jeff, you are talking about the difference between a tonsillectomy and murder. Your standard does not give us an objective basis to prevent murder and your solution is to look the other way when it occurs. No rational person can accept that.
You say stealing and racism are trivial analogies because they are easy to objectively define, but that was not at all my point. Of course they are easy to define or I would have provided a dictionary definition. The point is when you argue we cannot (or should not) impose morality, you contradict yourself when you would use the force of law to prevent stealing and slavery. If I think robbing from the rich and giving to the poor (Democrat candy stick) is good, then who are you to throw me in jail or kill me for doing just that? If I believe there is nothing wrong with racism, what gives you the right to tell me what I can do with my own property? If I do not believe blacks are human beings, why should I adopt your admitted subjective, non-specific standard?
Jeff, you have no problem imposing YOUR morality, but you object when somebody else does the same thing. You have not offered any logical foundation for allowing what you have acknowledged is the killing of a human life and have justified it solely because you personally believe, and “current society” believes, *that* life is not a “full” human being. Pretty shaky line between murder and clipping your finger nails
You can indeed argue all you want at what point a developing bunch of cells beceoms a human being, and then pass laws from that point, but if you were to take the embryo or zygote from a woman shortly after conception, it would not be a full human being.
Don't confuse the potential with the actual.-Posted by Jeff B. at February 24, 2005 11:42 AM
Sorry Jeff, but one judge DISAGREES with you:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/23/colb.embryos/
Judge rules frozen embryos are people
"In Illinois, the judge explained, a fetus qualifies as a deceased person for purposes of the Wrongful Death Act. Furthermore, said the judge, "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb." For this conclusion, the judge cited another Illinois law that specifically finds that an "unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person."
Your writing is just full of pseudo-intellectualism. Example:
"There were and are people who do not believe blacks are full human beings (look at your copy of the U.S. Constitution). As a consequence of that belief, they considered slavery to be a legitimate exercise of their God-given rights."
That is simply idiotic. The Constitutional paragraph in question states that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, [including Bound apprentices] three fifths of all others." This was a compromise arrived at when the Southern states wanted ALL of their slaves to be counted (resulting in MORE representatives) and the northern states wanted NONE of the slaves to be counted (resulting is FEWER reprentatives for the southern states). It had NOTHING to do with whether a black person was a "whole human being," and the history of slave labor in Europe and the Colonies is far more complicated and, frankly, disturbing, than just a belief that it was the "God-given right" of white people to own black people.
Please, Skeet, get a clue; read some history and biology.
Stefan, I can, as you requested initially, agree that state sponsorship of a NARAL event is obnoxious and in poor taste - after all, the pro-choice position taken by NARAL is every bit is illogical and emotionally based as the rantings of the "life begins at conception" crowd evidenced here. The difference is, if you argue for "choice" AFTER the point where a human life begins (regardless of whether it is at conception, 12 weeks, 3 months, or whenever), you are indeed condoning something so similar to infanticide that the difference is insignificant. That's a BIG difference.
Posted by: srogers on February 24, 2005 03:02 PMLacing argument with name-calling is not something I would consider “intellectual.”
Asserting my argument is “opinion” does nothing to advance your position. A human being has a complete genetic package. Neither the sperm nor egg can be so classified and would never be considered a “human being.” Human beings are everything encoded in their genetic structure which is instantiated at the moment of conception. This is not opinion, it is biology.
Your “minimum level of Human characteristics” which includes “cognizance” is as you have acknowledged, subjective. At best, then, your argument is tu quoque. Even if “my” standard is subjective, there is no question whatsoever that with your standard you can never say objectively that the procedure called abortion is not murder. If an error is to be made, it should be in favor of life, not a subjective standard which you admit. It will be observed, however, that there could be no human characteristics recognized by society without a complete genetic package.
As to the Constitution, your rebuttal again misses the point. The slaves were legally recognized by the supreme law of the land as less than human. If you have read Roe v. Wade, the justices in the majority claimed to make no pronouncement regarding the actual personhood of the fetus, but the legal effect of their decision makes unborn children less than “full” human beings (unless, of course, those unborn children are killed in a criminal – excluding the mother -- act). It could not be otherwise because one cannot legally kill an innocent human being. The main point your rebuttal missed was my observation that neither you nor anybody else can argue the illegitimacy of moral imposition while practicing it yourself. I’m not referring to its ad hominem form; I’m referring to the argument.
Thank you for suggesting I should read more history, but I suspect you meant it as an insult rather than a concerned desire I broaden my education. Suffice it to say, that history is replete with pro-slavery apologists who questioned the “full” humanity of blacks and other minorities (such as Indians) and have (and do) continue to use that “rationale” to justify racism, slavery, etc.
It is beyond legitimate argument to lace your posts with name-calling and if you continue to do so, I will not reply to your messages. Do not take that, however, as acquiescence; I simply prefer respectable argument.
You say: Asserting my argument is “opinion” does nothing to advance your position. A human being has a complete genetic package. Neither the sperm nor egg can be so classified and would never be considered a “human being.” Human beings are everything encoded in their genetic structure which is instantiated at the moment of conception. This is not opinion, it is biology.
Yes, but so what? Humans have a full complement of genes, zygotes have a full complement of genes, ergo, zygotes are human. That's a logical construct all right, but its not necessarily true. As I said before, its only true if having a full complement of genes is the ONLY characteristic of humans.
You say: Your “minimum level of Human characteristics” which includes “cognizance” is as you have acknowledged, subjective. At best, then, your argument is tu quoque. Even if “my” standard is subjective, there is no question whatsoever that with your standard you can never say objectively that the procedure called abortion is not murder.
Yes I can, and I did in my post. Once a developing embryo does exhibit human characteristics, then aborting it would be very similar to murder (murder is, by definition, the premeditated, impassioned, or criminally negligent taking of another person, and the person is defined in legal codes, sometimes including unborn fetuses who are sufficiently developed), and the similarity grows as the pregnancy progresses.
You say: As to the Constitution, your rebuttal again misses the point. The slaves were legally recognized by the supreme law of the land as less than human. If you have read Roe v. Wade, the justices in the majority claimed to make no pronouncement regarding the actual personhood of the fetus, but the legal effect of their decision makes unborn children less than “full” human beings (unless, of course, those unborn children are killed in a criminal – excluding the mother -- act). It could not be otherwise because one cannot legally kill an innocent human being. The main point your rebuttal missed was my observation that neither you nor anybody else can argue the illegitimacy of moral imposition while practicing it yourself.
First, you're just wrong about the supreme law of our land ever having "recognized" slaves as less than human. Sorry. Just wrong. We can debate that at another time, but I have plenty of evidence and a legal degree to back it up.
Second, I've read, studied, discussed, and argued about Roe v. Wade in far greater depth than most people have. The court did not make unborn "children" into "less than human beings." By using that term (children), you are just assuming the correctness of your argument, that a fertilized egg is a child. The court made a determined and monumental effort to balance strong competitive issues (right of privacy and protection from an overreaching government vs right to life and state protection of life), and it all came down to when life begins, so we're back to our initial disagreement. You have to define what human life IS in order to discover when it begins.
Third, I did not rebut any imposition of morality, nor do I wish to impose any morality on you. I want the State, and the Republican party, to base its policy regarding when an abortion is and isn't legal on purely rational arguments and not on your or anyone else's Faith, or on a fictitious "right to choose" that supercedes a sufficiently developed fetus's right to live.
I believe that up to the age of viability (and that is changing all the time with new technology) that abortion ought to be legal, without question (except for under-age girls, that should require consent of at least one parent or guardian like any other medical procedure). Beyond the age of viability (when a fetus could survive outside the womb) there should be a very good reason why an abortion would be allowed, and I would say health of the mother is about the only reason I'd accept. Cases of rape and incest can be dealt with long before reaching the age of viability, unless some sort of duress prevented it (i.e. Dad knocks up daughter, and keeps her locked in a closet for 6 months).
Somewhat contradictory to these beliefs, I also believe that if a woman is pregnant, at any stage from 1 day to 9 months, and she is attacked or abused, that the attacker should be charged with two assaults.
I justify this dichotomy in my mind by giving first priority to the will of the mother. As long as the mother is solely capable of supporting the child inside, i.e. without her womb no amount of medical technology could keep the child alive, she should have the ultimate say as to whether or not she continues to support that child. Once the child can survive without the mother, she should lose that option because the child is capable of being an indipendent person at that point. However regardless of the potential for independence, an attack on the mother absolutely should count as an attack on the child, because at that point in time, the child is absolutely dependent on the mother to survive.
I don't even stray into the arguments surrounding when life begins, or fetus vs. baby. To me, it's a human being from day 1, even if it is just microscopic cells. However I base my decision on whether or not abortion should be legal on whether or not that human being has any chance at all of surviving without it's mother. Because it is currently impossible for any devloping baby to survive without it's mother up to a certain point, I have to say that it's the mother's choice up to that point as to whether or not she wants to keep supporting the baby.
You've asked "Is a zygote human? Does it have the "potential" to become a snake or a bird? Is it not alive? It's certainly not dead.
Whether a zygote is "human" is not the relevant question. The question is, is a zygote a human being? Of course it is "human." All of your cells are "human". This one cell, the fertilized egg, has the potential to become a human being, and only a human being (not another animal), but that doesn't mean that it is a human being before it becomes one.
As you say, it is alive; so is every other cell in your body. But they are not human beings. So really what you are saying is that the POTENTIAL for a fertilized egg to grow into a human being is what MAKES it a human being. That's like saying that since a ball I hold in my hand has the potential to fall on the floor, it is on the floor.
And that's "Why . . . "life begins at conception" [is] an extreme, illogical and emotional position.
Its true, as you say, that Biology tells us a fertilized egg is human and it is alive. But Biology does not tell us that it is a human being and it is alive.
I agree completely with the rest of your post to Jeff. You descibe an abortion of a fetus that is long past the develepmental stage of a zygote, or a blastocyst, or even an early embryo, and long into the period where I would argue that the fetus's right to live supercedes any concern of any other living person unless that person is the mother who has been told that due to some kind of complication, her life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated.
Posted by: srogers on February 24, 2005 06:42 PMBut the real reason I'm bothered is that Stefan has often expressed pro-choice stance in this blog, whereas I am pro-life. So that means you're REALLY not paying attention.
Is it really so hard to notice who wrote the post? Is it not clear enough?
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on February 24, 2005 08:23 PMI think you misunderstood me about the issue of potential life. It is what it is -- a human life. It's potential as a human life was reached when the sperm and egg met and began dividing because that's when life begins--it's called conception. Seems pretty logical, straighforward and unemotional to me.
I'm sorry but the cells in my body are not human life. They are what they are -- skin cells, blood cells, etc. and they have reached their potential as cells.
It's totally relevant whether a zygote, (or an embryo, fetus, newborn, adolecent and adult for that matter) is human because that is the crux of this whole argument. Will some human life be destroyed, killed, experimented on because it is not considered human or a human being?
Posted by: Mary on February 24, 2005 10:17 PMI used to waiver a bit about the whole "what if she was raped" question. Not any more. When a rapist is caught, they don't ever say "Where are his children, we have to kill them". A crime was committed, but the baby should not have to pay with his life. Take the money currently being shelled out to kill 28,000 babies a year and house those raped women like queens until the birth - at which point, the woman can "choose" whether she wants to keep it - or let someone else.
Another point - at which point does the zygot have it's very own unique identifiable human dna (seperate from mom's)? Oh - yeah - conception. Hmmm.
Posted by: Julie on February 24, 2005 11:08 PMAs for your historic reason for being annoyed, I can sympathize - but I have to plead ignorance. I became addicted to this blog only recently during the initial counting of votes in the governor's race. My hat is off to both you and Stefan, and to the other contributors to SP; of course we all don't always agree, but I love having a place to go to participate in the "marketplace" of ideas that the press should be but isn't.
Mary, I agree that conception is a nice, easy, bright line with which to define the beginning of human life. However, I just can't buy it. I spent a great deal of time in college with microscope looking at human cells including fertilized eggs, blastocysts, and early embryos. I took photomicrograghs of them, I drew them, and I watched them do the things they do. I wish I could share that experience with you, not that I am sure it would make a difference. But for me, there is no way that the cells I observed were human beings. They were human in that they had human DNA, and came from a human body, but that's all of the human characteristics I saw. I just don't understand how the destruction of these cells, unlike any others, can be equated with murder. To me, it requires a belief in something (a human spirit that enters the cell?) that is not evidenced scientifically, but believed in religously. I can respect your right to believe that, and still argue that it shouldn't form the basis for public policy in a state where government is not, by law, based on any religion.
Julie, yes, we have had this debate before, and I remember enjoying your intellect. I agree with your point about rape - I think its irrelevant to the issue at hand. In my opinion, once an embryo has reached the stage of development that it has become a human being, the only exception I would make to allow a mother to abort the child would be if her life were in danger. I know, as you previously made me aware, that this restriction is routinely circumvented in Washington, even though our statutory language seems quite clear. I think it would be a lot easier to gain the political power to end that tragic charade if the Republican party would focus on that issue alone, and not on banning abortions from the moment of conception on.
And you can call me Steve - srogers was a moniker that stuck to me at work some time ago because I signed engineering drawings as S.Rogers.
Goodnight all.
Posted by: srogers on February 24, 2005 11:58 PMMy myriad responsibilities took me away for a while, but I’m back, if only momentarily.
Since you are incapable of identifying the aspersions you cast in my direction, I shall not waste your time or mine pointing them out to you. Your follow-up post was admirably devoid of the name-calling of the previous post. Whether it was by accident or design, I thank you.
I’m rather thick-skinned and I can take a lot more than you dished out, so it’s not a matter of my sensitivity; it’s a matter of propriety.
You say my position identifying conception as the beginning of a human being is a
“…logical construct all right, but its not necessarily true. As I said before, its only true if having a full complement of genes is the ONLY characteristic of humans.” All human characteristics are the consequence of the genetic code. You wouldn’t have any characteristics to examine if you didn’t have a complete genetic package. The code is the biologically necessary prerequisite for human existence and every human characteristic is a manifestation of the code. Since the code is what makes human beings what they are and since the code is instantiated at conception, the ONLY objective starting point is conception.
You then curiously argue you can “objectively” call abortion murder if that act meets the criteria you describe. This is what you wrote:
“For you to say that this is an objective definition of the beginning of human life is just your OPINION based on your subjective definition of what a human life is. It is no more objective than my definition of the time when human life begins as that time when the developing embryo attains the minimum level of Human characteristics that allow society to recognize it as human life, and for me, that includes some amount of cognizance…”
You cannot consistently call my standard an “opinion based on [my] subjective definition of what human life is,” then say of what you offer, “It is no more objective than my definition…” and then turn around and assert you can “objectively” call abortion murder if it fits your subjective opinion about it. Since you have called your own standard an opinion and subjective, you have eliminated, by your own sword, objectivity.
As to the Constitution, you insist it never recognized slaves as less than human. If you mean the words “slaves are less than human” are missing from the Constitution, then I agree. However, I know of NO black person who is an intellectual, pseudo-intellectual, liberal or conservative, who would not consider being called “three-fifths” of non-free persons dehumanizing. That’s the difference between legal text and legal effect. The legal effect (now changed by subsequent amendment) allowed the ownership of human beings and counted for representative purposes three-fifths of those who were not free. If you don’t think that’s dehumanizing or legally putting them on a lower plane of humanity than others, then were talking different languages. Also, please advocate the repeal of the thirteenth amendment and support a census which counts only three-fifths of non-whites and watch the reaction you get.
We could go on and on about the law and decisions like Roe v. Wade, but that wasn’t at all the point of my previous posts. Arguing these specific legal issues is tangential and misses the crux of my argument. I was arguing it’s inconsistent to be opposed to imposing morality when that’s all law ever does. Jeff called stealing and racism “trivial” issues and I countered that they were not because laws prohibiting them involve moral decisions which are imposed upon those who disagree. If you’re against imposing morality, then you’re an anarchist. Whether or not you agree with me about the Constitution or Roe v. Wade is irrelevant because that wasn’t my point.
No, no, no, and no. If it were solely up to me, I would hesitate to approve an abortion, except for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. This would probably be more a decision based on my own negative emotional response to abortion, rather than an intellectual or spiritual understanding of the beginning of human life.
Skeet If you cannot legislate morality, then consistency dictates anarchy.
Perhaps I misspoke, which I do often. Laws should be based on a moral code, but the existence of a law does not thereby make anyone moral. Morality is an individual choice. Laws make actions legal or illegal.
Skeet so you have given us inconsistent statements.
Yes, Skeet, I probably have. I wondered about that too. This is not an easy topic for me, and should not be easy for anyone. Reason and emotion are hard to separate when it involves human life or potential human life.
You are probably right about me being off topic as I am often guilty of that, also.
On topic: The chocolate contest is in extremely poor taste.
Did I just read what I think I just read?
We all actually agree on something?
Posted by: Julie on February 25, 2005 09:23 AMMary, sorry for the latest of my reply, as I just read your post. I realize most people have moved on to other discussion threads by now.
When I stated "a woman and her doctor" I was referring to her regular health care provider (hopefully she has one) and not a doctor that routinely performs abortion.
I do try to be honest, and objective, when my emotions allow.
As a proud member of Washington State’s affiliate of Naral, I already enjoy our annual event, upon which you have seen fit to comment. Your objections will make the confections taste just a bit sweeter this year:
“Chocolate for Choice
6,000 square feet of tempting chocolate delicacies
13 Celebrity Judges
1 evening of utter decadence all supporting a woman's right to choose...
Priceless.
So the political action group NARAL will be getting the tacit support of Seattle and King County, whether you want it or not (call it choice). Meanwhile, abortion clinics in the state are referred business from municipal health centers. 28,000 pregnancy terminations are performed in Washington yearly.”
Naral routinely receives the explicit support of Seattle’s and King County’s elected officials, so having their tacit support comes as no surprise. Given those constituencies’ long history of pro-choice voting (see below), one would expect their politicians to follow. If we live in a democracy, that is. (Perhaps therein lies your objection?)
Since a female citizen of the United States has the constitutional right to a legal abortion on demand, and since terminating a pregnancy remains safer than carrying it to term, I sincerely hope that our civic institutions keep our citizens informed of their rights, and that our health departments give proper medical advice. Any other course of action would truly waste our tax money, in a downright dangerous manner.
“No matter how you feel about the issue of abortion, perhaps we can all agree that city and county officials indulging in an ‘evening of utter decadence’ to support it is in very, very poor taste.”
The form of Naral’s announcement parodies a well-known advertisement, and the word “decadence” has become a cliche for selling chocolate, so each reader should bring a sense of humor to it. Persons without a sense of humor should go elsewhere.
“The elitism and narcissism of such an event calls into question how much attention they're paying to the electorate[...]”
Washington state’s electorate has repeatedly supported a woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade, in 1973, did not de-criminalize abortion here; the voters had already done so in 1970, via Referendum 20. In 1991, we codified Roe via Initiative 120. (Shortly thereafter, in a colossal example of irony-- almost as delicious as chocolate itself-- one Dino Rossi publicly bemoaned passage of this Initiative, but expressed relief that it had passed by a very small margin. At Chocolate for Choice, perhaps we’ll exhibit our videotape of him doing that!)
“[...] But surely it did not help. In particular, his [John Kerry’s] repeated votes against banning "Partial Birth Abortion," a procedure so hideous that even the late liberal Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, once called it infanticide, may well have cost him hundreds of thousands of votes....”
In 1998, Initiative 694 would have banned late-term abortions in Washington State. Receiving a 57% ‘No’ vote statewide, it lost in King County by almost exactly a 2-1 margin. Again, should King County politicians ignore their constituencies’ strongly-held views on this-- or any-- topic?
Given Washington State’s long and consistent history of pro-choice voting, it is our state’s anti-choice politicians who deserve the lectures you have here delivered!
Well, I’m off to an evening of tasting delicious aphrodisiacs, in the company of hundreds of women, each of whom knows how to prevent an unintended pregnancy. Have a good time at your abstinence-only Bible study night, or whatever it is that you people do for ‘fun’. And please do read the Fourth Amendment sometime-- not only is the pro-choice side popular, but we’re right as well!
SINcerely,
Patrick McArdle
Pro-Choice Voter
The opinions expressed belong to the individual writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of Naral Pro-Choice Washington, or any other members of that organization.
Posted by: Patrick McArdle on March 2, 2005 11:12 PM