Friday, February 1, 2013

ProChoice Rationale or Rationalization

So as you know, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice.  A very strange combination to say the least, yet I am comfortable with this position.  I am not in any hurry to legislate morality in this area and force mothers to have kids they do not want. (more in my comments at MPP)  I don't see that being good for the child, mother or society.

Bill Prendercast at MN Progressive has some different rationale regarding his pro-choice position.  "Ditto the fertilized egg/embryo in the first trimester--in my opinion (for the reasons I gave), those things are not yet human beings. Therefore it's the pregnant woman's business as to whether or not to terminate."  MPP Pro-Choice

So what do you think?  Is he using logical rationale or rationalizing his beliefs?

His comments reminded me of fellow deer hunters who say they hunt to get meat, make the roads safer, prevent over population, etc.  While these are true statements, most hunters I go with just enjoy the time outside and the thrill of hunting. Yet for some it is hard to just say I enjoy the thrill of stalking and killing Bambi.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

"...force mothers to have kids they do not want."

Really? That's a pretty enlightened position-- "pro-choice before conception, pro-life after." Is that what you mean?

Or do you want to imply that it is the RESPONSIBILITY that some women are encouraged to try to escape? And please, we legislate morality all the time. Why stick on this one particular piece of it? Do you consider the pro-choice side completely immoral?

J. Ewing

John said...

No... I am "pro-choice before fetal viability, pro-life after unless extenuating issues arise". (ie threatens Mother's health or baby has significant defect) We have been through this before.

G2A Abortion 1
G2A Abortion 2

I like Roe V Wade's compromise. As I said, I am ok with the ending of a human life within the mandate of the law. Definitely more consitent than individuals that are Pro-Capitol Punishment, Pro-Military Action on Foreign Soil, Pro-Life and Anti-Physician Assisted Suicide. Those folks just seem inconsistent regarding their view of the sanctity of human life.

As always, I agree that it is irresponsible of the mother to get knocked up unintentionally in our modern age of excellent birth control measures. However I think it is just compounding the problem and pain to force them to deliver a baby that they are not willing to care for properly or give up for adoption. It transfers the responsibility of their poor irresponsible behavior onto the child and society.

I am not sure I would call the typical Pro-Life people immoral. Their intent is good, however their willingness to use the government to force their will and moral beliefs on everyone seems wrong and too Totalitarian to me. (see Theocratic here Nolan Chart)

Are the Taliban immoral for trying to force their religious beliefs on the other citizens of Afganistan?

Are the holy leaders of Iran immoral for trying to force their religious beliefs on their citizens?

You may like living in one of those Conservative Religious countries... The woman only behaves irresponsibly once... Taliban Execution

Anonymous said...

I suspected you might misread my comment. You said you do not want government "legislating morality," meaning you do not believe they should restrict abortion. The reasonable conclusion is that pro-life is therefore the moral position, and the pro-abortion side is immoral. Would it make you happier if we said we were legislating the "right to life" or preventing infanticide, or considering the adverse effects on health of the mother of an abortion?

J. Ewing

John said...

Not really. I would prefer that government stay out of all these very personal decisions.

Legislation that makes it illegal for Bob to go shoot Billy because he thinks he done him wrong makes sense to me. It is necessary to maintain a viable society.

However legislating what a person does with their own person seems to be a slide toward that Theocracy. Granted the rights of the "infant" are a gray area. However I think the Roe V Wade viability compromise struck a good balance between the rights of the Mother and unborn Infant.

Now as to consistency... Do these "right to life" advocates support or oppose our country's military actions that have killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in conflicts on foreign soil?

And do these "Right to Life" advocates support the government setting rules regarding what we eat, drink, smoke? Or having the government mandate and enforce personal exercise regimens? I mean the poor state of health and rampant obesity in the USA causes far more pre-mature deaths, quality of life issues and societal economic expense than abortions...

So if "right to life" is key, then let's become pacifists with big defense systems on our borders and let's mandate healthy living. That way we won't kill anyone and we will stop suicide by unhealthy living.

I would rather support Roe V Wade, pass Physician assisted suicide laws, keep helping the down trodden in other countries and have my super sized soft drink.

John said...

On the other hand we have what I sense as the inconsistency of Bill's beliefs.

He states that the fetus is not a human life in the first trimester, so it is okay to discontinue life support via abortion. (ie stop feeding the fetus)

I wonder if he is also against ventilators, feeding tubes and other high tech medical devices for injured or ill people.

I mean is someone in a coma on life support that much different than the fetus developing in the womb who is on life support?

Pulling the plug in both case stills a human heart.

Laurie said...

I view the embryo (from fertilization until about 8 weeks) as a developing human being that does not have the right to keep developing. Or maybe the mother has a greater right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in its early stage rather than being forced to carry the baby for 9 months and go through labor.

If it were up to me I would vote in favor of shortening the window where abortions are available. Sexually acive women should be knowledgeable enough to realize their are pregnant quite early and a few weeks to make the decision on whether or not to abort the embryo seems reasonable.

(sorry if this post twice the first time it didn't appear)

Anonymous said...

The weird thing about this debate is that while pro-life people may be against abortion, substantively, they don't disagree with pro-choicers. Neither side, for example, believes abortion should be a crime.

I know that pro-lifers are against abortion, but I have a great difficulty in finding out what they are for. Since they don't believe abortion should be a crime, what sanction do they advocate? That women who get abortions should be sent really angry letters from the governor?

--Hiram

John said...

A couple additions from my FB acct...

"Interesting view John. I have to admit, I always get frustrated when people have the view that 'life' begins somewhere between conception and birth. I have a hard time with that argument. For me, there is no logic in picking a point somewhere between. I can see arguments for conception and birth holding some logic, but nowhere in between. For me it is simple, the most logical point at which life begins is at conception. With no conception, there can be no life. This makes sense to me as the most basic requirement to determine life. As such, since murder is already illegal, for me so is abortion. For me this is not a moral issue but a logical one!" DH

"I agree that life does begin at conception. I mean cells definitely start to grow and multiply. I am just not sure if it is a human at that time. If it is not a human, then it isn't murder. I think Roe V Wade made a logical compromise with the viability argument." G2A

"Whether it is the discontinuation of cell development or "mercy killing' because the Parents are not ready, I am okay with that it should be the Mother's call. Not our governments." G2A

John said...

Hi Laurie,
Long time no hear from. My thought is that "Sexually Active" women should be smart enough to use birth control or keep their legs closed. Yet that does not seem to be the case here.

My guess is that most of these girls that unintentionally end up pregnant are not the smartest, most mature or most responsible females you will meet. I am betting that ignorance, fear and/or denial will carry many of them into month 3 with no problem...

Laurie said...

I did a bit of quick research and learned that 60% of abortions take place in the first 8 weeks. To increase this percentage I would make abortions after this pt much more expensive. I would also make abortions after 4 months only available when there were health complications for the mother or fetus. Right up to the pt of viability seems like too big of window to me

As for Hiram's pt, maybe prolife people think women who die or have serious health problems from a back alley abortion are getting what they deserve. I expect in places where abotion is illegal there would be fewer abortions and the punishment for having one would be a hefty fine.

John said...

Now wouldn't that rising fee scale be extremely biased against the poor girls. The ones that are least capable to support and raise a child. I don't think that would fly with your fellow Progressives.

Hiram's comments confused me. Ironically we are watching Dirty Dancing and just passed the part where the female dancer had the illegal abortion that went wrong. She refused to go to the hospital for treatment because she knew they would call the police.

Wiki Fetal Viability
Wiki Abortion in America
Wiki Abortion by Gestational Age

John said...

Here is an interesting summary:
Guttmacher Summary of Abortion Laws

Anonymous said...

What difference does this speculation about when life begins where no positive measures are advocated? If abortion isn't to be a crime, what's the point of legislating about it

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram where are you getting this opinion that the Pro-Lifers do not want to punish the Doctor and/or Mother?

The person seems to summarize it well.
Abort 73 Crime

Anonymous said...

"Hiram where are you getting this opinion that the Pro-Lifers do not want to punish the Doctor and/or Mother?"

From extensive arguing that they do. I used to argue that point all the time, that the abortion argument was about under what circumstances we should imprison our mothers our sisters, our daughters, and invariably I would be told that wasn't the case that I was creating straw man arguments, or just arguing talking points. And since those responses were so consistent, at some point, I made the decision to believe them and so I reached the conclusion that all prolifers wanted was some sort of systematic sanction; an angry letter from the secretary of state perhaps. And really I can live with that.

--Hiram

John said...

Per the link I posted, it seems you are correct and incorrect...

The punishments for the women would be smaller than those for the Doctors, yet they would exist if history predicts the future.

And worse yet, mostly questionable Doctors would take a chance doing abortions and risk going to jail. That couldn't be a good thing for our wives, sisters and daughters...

Anonymous said...


The punishments for the women would be smaller than those for the Doctors.

So this is about imprisoning women. All those nice, seemingly caring folks were lying to me. I am so disillusioned.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Can I just agree with Laurie? We wander into religious realm if we start defining when a fetus gets a "soul" because science tells us it is a human baby at conception. That is when the unique DNA is established. And when it becomes a "person" is defined in law (right now, at birth, but could be changed any time) but science keeps reducing the point at which this "person" can live independently of the mother. It therefore makes a lot of sense to reduce that point at which abortions are available without restriction to the first trimester or less.

I go back to the unique solution from a court case in the southeast, somewhere. The judge ruled that, since abortion was legally available up to the point of viability that, after that point, a woman had implicitly contracted with this other "person" to bring them to term if possible. A solution based on contract law, consistent with Roe v. Wade, medically sound because abortions after that point are more dangerous than birthing, and setting out the legal markers.

I know there are some who are "pro-life" who believe there should be no abortions, no time, for anybody, starting at conception. They are rare. If you include exceptions for life and health, rape or incest, and gross fetal deformity, you have a majority of the population. If you exclude abortions for sex selection, partial birth, economic reasons, and a few others, you get to an overwhelming majority who are "pro-life," and those advocating any abortion, for any reason, at any time are few. Yet those few seem to carry the argument all the time.

I find it curious that you can't find a logic in the pro-life position, at any point, yet you think that "pro-choice" extremists can be permitted to stymie the majority and craft law to their liking? You want consistency? How about being opposed to the unnecessary taking of innocent human life? Tell me, are those who are pro-choice also defenders of every war and of the death penalty, or does such a demand for consistency only apply to one side of this debate?

J. Ewing

John said...

If the majority of Pro-lifers would agree to and actively support a woman's right to have an abortion in the first trimester, that would be great !!! (which we have shown in the links above is the current state)

Unfortunately most of the laws that are proposed and passed are about making it extremely challenging for a woman to get an abortion at anytime. They even fight against a morning after pill... Which is used ASAP.

Then of course we are willing to fund building countless drones and bombs that kill "innocent" people, and yet folks freak when they think their tax dollars may fund first tri abortions.

And don't even get me started on all the furor that has been going on regarding something as common sense and responsible as birth control. And I have to link to it again... MP Every Sperm is Sacred

Remember that this post started with me questioning the consistency of a Pro-Choice advocate. Did you read Bill's arguments and my comments?

I think Quakers and other Pacifists are probably the most consistent Pro-Life citizens. They seem to be truly opposed to the unnecessary taking of an innocent human life?

Both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice folks often seem to assign varying values on the value of a "human life" depending on their own political agenda.

The Pro-Choicers often rail against foreign wars and capitol punishment. While the Pro-Lifers often lobby for foreign wars and capitol punishment.

There is nothing wrong with this inconsistency, I just thought it was worth discussing.

Anonymous said...

From now on, when asked about contradictions, I think I will quote Walt Whitman:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

--Hiram

Laurie said...

I don't fell inconsistent at all in my anti capital punishment, anti war, pro limited choice views. Abortion does end the life of a developing human being, but I think it is a choice women have the right to make early in their pregnancy, as carrying a pregnancy to term and going through labor is no small thing to demand of women.

Out of curiosity I checked out the development of an embryo at 8 weeks and learned it is about the size of a kidney bean. At this stage I do not grant it full human rights.

John said...

Hiram,
I like that quote. It describes us humans well. It takes a lot of work and focus to align those multitudes, and most aren't interested in undertaking the effort.

Laurie,
To me that kidney bean is a human being on life support and I am ok with the mother having the right to pull the plug. Just as I am ok with family pulling the plug in other situations.

It is critical that the Mother / Family be given the right to evaluate the consequences and make the call. Whether that human is 8 gestational weeks or 65 yrs old...

I would rather they had been responsible earlier, but there is no sense in punishing the kid for the parents error.

Anonymous said...

"At this stage I do not grant it full human rights." -- Laurie

I agree. But neither do I claim it has no rights at all. I do not think his/her life should be taken as a means of birth control, or convenience, or sex selection. I believe a woman should be fully informed of what the procedure involves, the risks, the possibility of psychological problems afterwards, and so on. I don't think things like "informed consent" and a 1-day waiting period as obstacles, but rather opportunities to make an INFORMED and careful CHOICE. I just cringe when I hear some of these "pro-choice" people berate women who choose NOT to abort their kids.

Yes, most abortions occur early, but that doesn't mean they should be cheap and easy, because there is a potential human life at stake.

To answer the question as posed, I think the most vocal pro-choice people are rationalizing the killing of "inconvenient" children. Or they are racists.

J. Ewing

Laurie said...

J-

I am surprised that you do not take a stronger prolife position and that we have a fair amount of agreement on this issue.

Now I am curious about what information a pregnant women might be given in places where the law requires informed consent. I think there is a natural, built in waiting period between the time a women makes an appt and when she actually gets the medication or abortion procedure. I know a prochoice argument against a waiting period is that it is an unecessary hardship for women who have to travel to get an abortion, if it requires them to do an over night stay somewhere.

Anonymous said...

Not big on how many angels can dance on a pin analogy. What I want to know is how many years in prison should a girl who has an abortion serve?

--Hiram

John said...

What sentence would a distraught Mother get if she put a pillow over an infant's face and smothered it to death?

The mother is distraught, takes action, and stills a human heart. Is this different or similar?

Bill Cosby's quote... "I brought you into this world and I can take you out." seems related. For your enjoyment.
Bill Cosby on Parenthood

Anonymous said...

What sentence would a distraught Mother get if she put a pillow over an infant's face and smothered it to death?

That's homicide which by statute could be a number of different crimes. You can see them in the Minnesota Statutes. Abortion was not historically regarded in law as a homicide, so the question seems to me to be irrelevant.

So back to my question.

How many years should a girl serve in prison for having an abortion?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Typical "informed consent" laws require that the woman be given information on the development of the fetus, the risks both of the operation and the risks of childbirth, the risk of mental health issues (i.e. regrets), the alternatives (adoption) and how her specific health condition might affect those risks. That last, of course, requires an exam immediately prior to the operation, and thus the 24-hour waiting period that usually accompanies the informed consent law. The sometimes-rightful objection by the pro-choice community is that pro-life legislators take it upon themselves to spell out the exact wording of this information. I don't think that is right. But I guess I'm not convinced that an "abortion doctor" (if an MD at all) would give unbiased information, either. Your idea of making the decision very quickly in exchange for having it be more legally and socially acceptable is a good one, I think.

I am strongly pro-life, just pragmatic. I don't believe that the abortions themselves, although racist in their practice and destructive of our collective morality, are the biggest problem. It is the moral rot that causes so many of these pregnancies in the first place. (Also the problem with our schools, according to G2A).

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

So how much jail time should a girl who has an abortion served. It's been suggested on this board that abortion is murder, a capital offense in many states. Should a girl who has an abortion be executed?

--Hiram

John said...

MN Sentencing

Here it says not more than 40 yrs... I assume that would be ~10 yrs jail time.

But remember, I am ok with the current state. So a Pro-Lifer will need to answer what the punishment should be if abortion was not legal, and a woman attained one.

Anonymous said...

So your pro-life friends think your daughter should serve 25 years in prison if she has an abortion. Think about that the next time you see some tearful young woman on one of those pro-life talk show; that the guy interviewing her so sympathetically, thinks she is a criminal and wants to send her to prison for a quarter of a century.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I think it is enough to sentence her to 4 months probation BEFORE an abortion, assuming she wants one after 20 weeks and can show no compelling reason to have it. (IOW, she would have to get court permission, otherwise it's illegal and a special penalty could be attached to that law-- I would say 2 years suspended if she doesn't get pregnant again.) That (4 months probation) was the verdict in the court case I referenced. The woman was required to stay off drugs until the baby was born and, if not, she would be locked up until delivery. Harsh, perhaps, but it ought to be a far more exceptional situation than it is.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

I think it is enough to sentence her to 4 months probation BEFORE an abortion, assuming she wants one after 20 weeks and can show no compelling reason to have it.

the statute says 25 years. I am a bit confused here, a crime is generally something you do, not something you don't do, although there are things like conspiracy.

Does anyone ever have a compelling reason to have a child who maybe isn't the king of England. Children, it seems to me, are always pretty much of an option.

==Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
I assume you have some point to your recent questions and comments, though I am not seeing it.

What punishment would apply if a Mother smothered her 1 month old?

I mean she has the option to make another one... Just like Bill Cosby's father said.

Anonymous said...

We're talking about law that hasn't been written yet. No one has a penalty for a mother and doctor killing an unborn child. Some states have an added penalty for killing a pregnant woman, though. So my proposal is that the law restrict abortions after 20 weeks to ONLY those who show a compelling reason to have one. If she continued otherwise, she would be locked up for child endangerment or some such, and the unborn child in "protective custody." The doctor might also be penalized, but I'm inclined for some reason to ignore that part of it for now.

J.

John said...

That was why I found this so interesting. Abortion is legal yet murdering an unborn child is very serious. (ie up to 40 yrs) I am not sure when this statute would be applied? Maybe if a baby dies during a mugging? Or the Mother hires someone to beat her up and force a miscarriage? And does it only apply after viability?
Murder of an Unborn Child in the Second Degree

And I assume smothering an infant may be even worse. So why again would you push for such light penalties if abortion was illegal. I'm confused.

Anonymous said...

We're talking about law that hasn't been written yet

Exactly my point. And the question to ask is why hasn't it been written? Why don't you see model legislation making abortion a crime on pro life websites? Why was the decision been made not to be specific on these issues? But credit is due here. There does seem to be a willingness to admit that what we are talking about is the imprisonment of our daughters for 25 to forty years. And as I say, remember that when pro-life advocates speak movingly about the effect abortion has on women, that their solution is to lock those women up in prison.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

The reason we haven't passed penalties for abortion-on-demand, but have for more obvious forms of child murder like shooting them, or partial-birth abortion, is because the pro-choice people go apoplectic at any law (including partial-birth) which limits their "right" to do what is wrong.

J. Ewing

John said...

Hiram,
Again... What punishment would you apply if a Mother smothered her 1 month old?

Anonymous said...

What punishment would you apply if a Mother smothered her 1 month old?

I have no problem with the current criminal statutes on the subject. It's not an issue on which I have given much thought. It's not a question that is relevant to the abortion debate.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"The reason we haven't passed penalties for abortion-on-demand, but have for more obvious forms of child murder like shooting them, or partial-birth abortion, is because the pro-choice people go apoplectic at any law (including partial-birth) which limits their "right" to do what is wrong."

I rarely concern myself with the possibility that others might go apoplectic in reaction to my views. I figure that's their problem not mine. But I do appreciate the concern expressed here for my mental well being from people who want to imprison our daughters for having an abortion.

==Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Now don't be chicken to actually go on the record regarding an issue, and of course it is incredibly relevant.

From your squishy answer, I'll assume you approve of giving a Mother 25 to 40 years for smothering their 1 month old infant.

So what punishment would you support if she smothered her 1 day old infant, or had the baby and left it in a dumpster?

Finally, what if she was 6 months pregnant and hired someone to beat her up to induce a miscarriage and let the baby die? Please note: This is well past the "viability" date that the Supreme Court has declared as when the baby is a "living human".

Are these situations different to you? If so why? If not, you apparently support a 25 to 40 yr punishment for all of them? Is this correct?

Anonymous said...


Now don't be chicken to actually go on the record regarding an issue, and of course it is incredibly relevant.

I thought we were talking about abortion, not murder or various types of manslaughter. Degrees of homicide raise all kinds of issues, about which I could go on at length, which is why people avoid me at parties. But since abortion isn't regarded as homicide, it seems to me I should just resist the invitation to bore everyone silly.

--Hiram

John said...

So you want hard answers from us and are unwilling to give any... Very interesting...

To probably more than half of us Americans, abortion is legalized murder, Look how sensitive even Laurie is to the age of the fetus. And then there is me that sees it as so, yet is okay with it. And even you run from the complexity.

Don't confuse Pro Choice with people thinking abortion is just flushing some cells. Many just think the freedom of choice matters more. I hope God agrees when judgement day comes...

Anonymous said...

So you want hard answers from us and are unwilling to give any... Very interesting

How is what I want relevant to the discussion? It isn't about me. As for hard answers, I am content with the criminal code which gives them very specifically. Pro-choice people aren't, so I want to know what they propose. And in fairness, now we know. They want to send our sisters and our daughters who have abortions to prison for 25 to 40 years.

I watch quite a bit of the coverage of the March for Life coverage on TV. There is lots of signage that says "Abortion hurts women". Pro-lifers want to hurt women too.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Let me put it this way. Since I am not proposing a change in the status quo, I don't have a burden to be specific about changes I am not proposing. Now if you are asking me changes in abortion policy I would make outside the criminal context, I have a multitude of them. There are all kinds of ways we support and reinforce the decision to carry through a problematic pregnancy. But pro-choicers don't seem to want to talk about that. At those March for Life rallies, I saw no signs and heard no speakers advocating universal health care, or paid family leave for both parents, and for both natural and adoptive parents. I have no panaceas, I don't have any detailed legislation with respect to this stuff, but I am fully prepared to be pretty specific about a variety of ways we can reduce the number of abortions in America and construct an effective pro life agenda.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Here is an example of how a bishop dealt with these issues.

How do you think he did?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Forgot the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUTPhZmkIDI

John said...

So let me understand, you are against punishing law breakers if they are someone's sister, daughter, mother, brother, father, son, etc. So who would you punish when they break the law or intentionally harm another human being?

My point is that I don't think the ProLifers want anyone harmed or imprisoned. (ie mother or fetus) They want Mothers to bear the responsibility for their actions (ie getting pregnant), bring their children to full term, deliver them and then raise them well or let another caring couple adopt the child. (ie not act irresponsibly and take the child off life support)

To paint them as people that just want to imprison women seems irresponsible and incorrect. Granted that would be a possible result if the law changed and women chose to break the law, however it is certainly not their goal.

Fetus 0 to 8 wks
Fetus 8 to 40 wks

So looking at the pictures in the linked docs. When to you think it changes from scraping out some cells to ending the life a human? (ie irrespective of legal or not)

Anonymous said...

PMFBI, but again you have to clarify what the basis for your "point of change" is. Legally, the child does not have full rights until they completely leave the birth canal alive (though the ban on partial-birth abortions gives them a bit more rights, just a bit earlier). Scientifically, they become a unique human life at the point of conception. Legally, according to SCOTUS and its "penumbras and emanations," it achieves some rights at the point of 20 weeks, "viable" or not. The pro-life moralists hold to the scientific standard, and the pro-choice absolutists scream at anything less than the legal "citizen" definition. Our highly-moral President voted 4 times to allow the killing of babies born alive after a botched abortion.

The pro-choice people are rationalizing, because there is no rational basis for saying that there is not another human life involved in the "choice." To what degree the two lives must be weighted OUGHT to be a moral decision not dependent on the law, but we don't seem to want to be governed by moral precepts any more.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

My point is that I don't think the ProLifers want anyone harmed or imprisoned. (ie mother or fetus)

And neither do I. So where is the disagreement? Instead of building jails for our daughters, why not work together to establish a positive agenda which would make it easier for mothers to have babies?

I genuinely don't think pro-lifers are as cruel as their policies. It's just that in their concern and their focus on their issues, they rarely, if ever, think about what the consequences of some of their positions are. Clearly, the good bishop hasn't.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Scientifically, they become a unique human life at the point of conception. Legally, according to SCOTUS and its "penumbras and emanations

I don't see how science is relevant to issues like the length of prison terms. Science doesn't really tell us whether a girl who has an abortion should do 25 years or 40 years in prison. Science offers us no satisfactory reason why someone's daughter should do a long prison term in one state for something that might not even be a crime in the next state over.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
When to you think it changes from scraping out some cells to ending the life a human? (ie irrespective of legal or not)

Anonymous said...


When to you think it changes from scraping out some cells to ending the life a human?

Why are you asking me? Do you think I am possessed of some special merit or insight that gives me the right to send a girl to prison for forty years? I wish I had your confidence in my judgment.

--Hiram

John said...

I ask because you are the only one of us who hasn't shared an opinion on that particular question.

J & DH believe a human life begins a conception, Laurie and I land in the ~12 week range and Hiram declines to answer.

I am not asking you about throwing girls in prison. I am asking when you believe a fetus becomes a human being?

Anonymous said...

I ask because you are the only one of us who hasn't shared an opinion on that particular question.

It's outside my area of expertise.

--Hiram

John said...

It's a personal opinion, not a fact. No expertise required.