Heartbeat ad
Through January 26 the Second Look Project is running a compelling radio ad in four of the most liberal U.S. cities: Boston, DC, San Francisco, and Seattle.
The American public doesn’t know this stuff. Here’s the text of the ad, although it’s much better heard:
Faint heartbeat under and throughout
ANNCR: Hear that? It’s the heartbeat of an infant in the womb at six months.
His heart’s beating at about 140 beats per minute. If he were born right now, his chances of survival would be greater than 50%.
But even today, his mother could choose to have an abortion.
The law says it’s her choice.
Each year, more than 18,000 babies who are already in the 5th month of pregnancy are aborted. And it’s legal.
Roe vs. Wade says you can choose to have an abortion for virtually any reason, at any time, right up through the 9th month.
It’s been over 30 years since Roe vs. Wade, and now one in every four pregnancies ends in abortion.
Heartbeat stops.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
some people think that the US should move towards the approach in Europe, which (as I understand it) makes abortion easy and legal in the first trimester and difficult without valid (health) reasons thereafter. Is that a good compromise on this issue? why or why not?
If, as I expect, this would not please you, why does it matter if the abortion is in the first month or the 7th? (and if it doesn’t matter, what’s the point of these ads?)
That’s a good point Hal (and yes, I think it would not please most of us), and it touches on an issue that I think both pro-lifers and abortion-choice advocates need to bear in mind. And that is that pro-lifers argue that abortion is morally reprehensible because they believe that it is the murder of an innocent human being. Period. What I mean is that suppose, for the sake of argument, that the abortion-breast cancer link is very real and that post-abortion stress disorder is also very real. That would have no bearing on whether or not abortion is morally permissible. The action of abortion needs to be judged on the basis of the action itself, not of its consequences. But is ABC link and PASD are real, it gives people pause to think about if abortion really is a good.
Now to the heartbeat issue, the same type of philosophy holds. Suppose an abortion-choice advocate learns that many abortions stop a beating heart and is appauled. So then they say that they believe abortions should be outlawed after a heartbeat is detected and legal before. But then they begin to think whether or not it is a heartbeat that really confers the moral status of human person on a being. So I think it is an attempt to get people to reevaluate their position based on some evidence that HINTS at the humanity of the unborn but does not CONFER it. So to tie it back in with my first paragraph, it seems that the pro-life strategy is to look at abortion and its consequences from ALL angles to try and hit a nerve with ALL people. But ultimately, all those angles are supposed to lead back to the humanity and innocence of the unborn child. I hope that makes sense as far as the point of these ads go. BTW, why isn’t your picture posted yet? :)
Hi Bobby,
Thank you. Very good.
You forgot God love you, Hal. :)
(I love that part)
Also that baby girl of yours is adorable!!!
Hal, I agree with Bobby…i’d love to have your picture up there as well! :)
Thank you, Carla. I must say, my wife and I never grow tired of hearing how adorable our daughter is! God love you, Carla.
@Hal,
The American Constitution is not only the grandpappy of modern-constitutions, it also has a set of ‘human’ … (not ‘person’) rights. Doug balks at this, but being ‘human’ (with attending ‘rights’) predates both sentience and personhood. When the focus shifts from the adult decision makers to the child … the inalienable innocence wins hands down.
In the old testament there is the story of David and Goliath … in the New Testament: it is Christ vs power… The Sanhedrin; + Rome …. +++. For the Christian, the Cross is Life; is Victory …
Geh…a little propagandist, dontcha think?
Erin,
No offense, but just because you think abortion is okay does not mean that simply stating facts about abortion is propaganda.
This reminds me of the time that you said (incorrectly) that historians question that of Jesus ever lived. Plenty of rational folks question one who claims to be divine, but they do not question that the guy was there.
You also didn’t want to believe that Europe will lose 75% of its population by the end of the century even though anyone with a calculator can figure it out in 30 seconds.
Facts are not propaganda. Get rational.
*rolls eyes* Historians DO question Jesus’ existence. And his divinity. It’s a multi faceted area, cherub. And Europe isn’t losing population. You make it sound like a plague. You didn’t make it clear that you were referring to population replacement rates. As soon as that was clear, I shut up.
And personally, I find it a little propagandist. It’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to it. But then, I don’t think that something is a baby until it gets popped out a vagina, and I also think that it makes it sound like it’s so common to have late-term abortions, when they constitute a meager fraction of abortions. This is trying to suck people into the pro-life side by incorrectly representing the facts.
sorry guys you don’t get my photo. Imagine a cross between zeke and Robert Redford. (except with horns)
And Bobby and MK, I haven’t forgotton
Erin,
You think 18,000 late term abortions performed per year is meager?
Sandy – compared to the amount of live births and first trimester abortions? Uh, yeah.
“Imagine a cross between zeke and Robert Redford”
You stud, you!
“I don’t think that something is a baby until it gets popped out a vagina..”
——————————————
Erin, what about those babies that get their head stuck coming out (like my newborn son)…do you consider them babies only after they get unstuck?
Erin,
How is telling people that something that is happening misrepresenting it?
You can roll your eyes at a meager fraction who constitute thousands of people. It is a meager fraction of a huge number. 20,000 is not a few. It is far more than die of any number of diseases that get major attention and funding.
0.1% is a meager fraction, but if 300,000 folks fell ill this weeked and died from some illness or terror attack, no one would be telling people to shut up because it is just a meager fraction.
I think you are trying to suck people into the pro choice side by calling 20.000 people a meager fraction instead of what they are, 20,000 people. I think calling 20,000 people a meager fraction is propaganda.
If the number is 20,000, just say 20,000. Why hide behind vague descriptions like meager fraction? Maybe because most people know that 20,000 is not a small number especially when it is helpless children.
As for replacement rate, what do you think that means?
The replacement rate determines what the total will be in the future. If you have 700 million now and do not replace them, in the future you will have none. If you only replace some, then you will have fewer. In the case of Europe a lot fewer.
Historians do not doubt that Jesus or Buddha, or Muhammed or Confucious ever lived. They doubt certain accounts about them but not that they existed.
Pip, was just complaining about the pathetic state of science education in public schools, but I think it is a dearth of critical thinking not to mention basic math reasoning and intellectual honesty.
“I don’t think that something is a baby until it gets popped out a vagina..”
Woe betide all those C-section babies out there … ;)
Erin,
You think 18,000 late term abortions performed per year is meager?
Posted by: Sandy at January 25, 2008 1:06 PM
Sandy – compared to the amount of live births and first trimester abortions? Uh, yeah.
Posted by: Erin at January 25, 2008 1:10 PM
And it is really meager compared to the people who die from starvation.
But that doesn’t make it okay!
The number of people who died on 9-11 was much smaller but that doesn’t mean their lives don’t matter just because they are only a meager fraction.
Killing even one innocent person is wrong.
I don’t think that something is a baby until it gets popped out a vagina,
Posted by: Erin at January 25, 2008 12:58 PM
My brother calls this kind of reasoning process:
” I think therefore it’s true ”
Justifying whatever you want based on nothing more than that you want it. We are all born with this kind of reasoning ability. Even my one year old can do it. It takes education to deal with reality. It also takes honesty.
I don’t think that something is a baby until it gets popped out a vagina
Whatever rationalization gets you through the day, Erin.
Hippie, just Google historicity of Jesus. There are TONS of people who doubt that Jesus existed, historians included.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#11
A fetus without a functioning central nervous system is not a person.
YOU think that it is. YOU think, therefore it’s true? That argument goes for both sides. I may not be right, but I’m pretty sure that I am. You may not be right, but you’re pretty sure that you are. Subjective morality, ftw!
Check out the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth . Under the title “Jesus as myth” the last line says “Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.” So much work has been done on the historical Jesus. The works of current modern scholars such as D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Ben Witherington III, J.P. Moreland, Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce, and many many others have irrefutably shown that Jesus was an historical figure. Even the ultra left wing group The Jesus Seminar admits that Jesus was historical. Those scolars who deny it are on the extreme fringe. If one denys the historical Jesus, one should also deny the existence of Caesar Augustus, Homer, and pretty much all figures from ancient antiquity.
*wince* Wiki, Bobby? Really?
Bertrand Russell was on the forefront of denying Jesus’ historical existence. Romans were notoriously scrupulous record keepers. Gospel accounts constantly clash with documented history. There are NO accounts of Jesus from anywhere near the period when he was supposed to have lived. The nearest account is from Josephus, at least 200 years after his supposed existence, and didn’t start being used by apologetics until 400 BCE, when it’s contended that the documents may have been forged.
Erin, The sentence that I quoted from the wiki article referenced the works of Bruce, Herzog, and Komoszewski, scholars not to be easily dismissed. I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure Josephus was a second century historian, which would only be at most 100 years after Jesus. But again, if you simply dismiss his works, there are many other works you need to dismiss as well. The documents concerning Jesus are written very, very close to the time he lived compared to almost all documents of ancient antiquity. We also have the writing of the Roman Tacitus who mentions Jesus. The gospels, Paul’s epsitles, those are historical documents. Then there are the writtings of men like Igantious of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Irenaeus of Lyons, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome. All of these men (except Eusebius) were first and second century witnesses to Jesus of Nazareth.
Per Erin:
“I don’t think that something is a baby until it gets popped out a vagina”
and again,
“A fetus without a functioning central nervous system is not a person.”
Erin,
So a fetus with a functioning central nervous system is a person?? But a baby 1 minute prior to delivery is not a person??
Please explain.
Gospel accounts were not eyewitness accounts. Also, there’s something significantly off about an early Christian writing history to try and verify their religion.
Roman census documents have no record of Jesus.
Prior to the adoption of Catholicism, there were several sects of ‘Christians’, which included those that believed that Jesus had never existed in the flesh, but as a merely spiritual entity. Philo, the most prestigious historian of the time of Jesus, didn’t say anything about him. Nothing. And he got into a lot of stuff about conflicts between Pontius Pilate and the people of Judea, too. He personally knew SEVERAL figures present in the Jesus story. And yet, no account of Jesus was ever found, in spite of the fact that Philo’s works are nigh perfectly preserved. The Gospel of Mark shows definitive signs of allegorical fiction, very much like Aesop’s fables. All of the other gospels rely on Mark. All non-Christian references to Jesus were introduced either later by Christian scribes, or were originally based on Christian claims, making them definitively objective.
Sandy- my person philosophy lies on two basic premises- that a woman has a right to her own bodily autonomy, and that without a functioning central nervous system, there is no consciousness, and thus, no individual entity. Before near the end of the second trimester, there is no real functioning nervous system. Brain death is often considered the end of life, sometimes more so than circulatory termination is, and therefore, before that exists, there can be no real life. Even once this individual entity becomes sentient, it’s still usurping the bodily autonomy of it’s mother, which she is free to take back at her will. That’s just what I believe is right.
Well Erin, unfortunately I must go now, but I would refer anyone who would like a very easy-to-read nontechnical account of Jesus’ existence and resurrection to read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. He interviews 13 scholars about Jesus. Those who would like a MASSIVE account of the historicity of Jesus, the rssurection, and the reliability of the gospels to the scholar N.T. Wright’s 3 volume (planned 5 volume) “Christian Origins and the Question of God” work. This is a scholarly work ad nausea. Talk to ya later, Erin. God love you.
Erin,
A few questions.
Where did you learn of the bodily autonomy concept as it relates to abortion?
How and when did you decide you were pro-choice?
The thread about illegal abortions taking place in Spain profiled clinics where babies were being aborted way into the 2nd and third trimester. If the Spanish laws prohibit late term abortions, do you still support the woman’s right to abort illegally using your bodily autonomy argument?
Why did you decide the baby you aborted was a girl and why did you give her a name?
Sandy- I have been pro-choice for pretty much as long as I can recall. I don’t remember ever making a conscious choice.
Bodily autonomy is an argument that I became familiar with and agreed with when I began to actually become active as a pro-choicer. Seeing as late term abortions are against the law, no, I wouldn’t advocate aborting illegally, especially because of the dangers it could present to the woman. I would, however, be lobbying very hard to get that law changed.
I had a passing fancy. When I was little, I named EVERYTHING. Rocks, my bike, EVERYTHING. It just happened. As for thinking it was a girl, it was just something intuitive. I had a sense that it would have been a girl. *shrugs*
Erin, quickly just RE: Jesus.
I think its widely held that historically speaking his name would have been Joshua (though I’m unsure), and I’m fairly sure that was a common name at that time. I think there would be a surplus of research to be done there, not a deficit.
As for whether he is truly a historical figure or not, I think its fairly widely accepted that he did exist. As for his divinity, what he meant by his remarks, and how he is portrayed in the Bible is an entirely different matter.
As for records, they could very well have been lost or destroyed. How often in history has that happened?
Thanks, Dan. :)
If, as I expect, this would not please you, why does it matter if the abortion is in the first month or the 7th? (and if it doesn’t matter, what’s the point of these ads?)
Posted by: Hal at January 25, 2008 9:35 AM
*************************************************
Hal, I know I’m not as hard-lined as most of the pro-lifers you were aiming at, but I had rather an abortion occur in the 1st month than the 7th if it has to occur. An embryo cannot feel pain as can a fetus, and of course a fetus has a good chance of surviving if born after 7 months’ gestation.
A fetus without a functioning central nervous system is not a person.
Posted by: Erin at January 25, 2008 2:24 PM
How about my friend who died Tuesday after a stroke. She didn’t have a functioning central nervous system for the final week of her life. Was she no longer a person?
The whole person argument is a semantic game.
Human beings are human beings and have their rights inherently. They don’t have to do anything or be anything other than just be human. It is the basis of a just society. When anyone is denied, it is unjust.
Also, a fetus does have a functioning central nervous system because his or her heart beats, she or he has brain activity and can move around on his or her own, unlike my unfortunate friend who just passed away.
Okay funny story. My toddler crawls on the dog till the dog growls because the dog doesn’t want to surrender his spot on the sofa. Now my toddler is on my lap while I type and he just started growling at my husband because he doesn’t want daddy to pull him off my lap and take him to bed.
As for those who say Jesus (or any other major historical figure) never lived, all I can say is there are the flat earth folks and those who deny the holocaust, deny we ever went to the moon and a host of other nonsense conspiracy theories! I have to agree that you can find literally anything on the internet.
I need to put my little spud in bed.
Have a nice night.
I think that’s a fair assessment about Jesus, Dan. His name would have been said “Yeshua” but the American version would be Joshua.
Erin,
YOU think that it is. YOU think, therefore it’s true? That argument goes for both sides. I may not be right, but I’m pretty sure that I am. You may not be right, but you’re pretty sure that you are. Subjective morality, ftw!
Posted by: Erin at January 25, 2008 2:24 PM
I think a fetus is a human being based on science, fact and evidence. Got any evidence that he or she isn’t human till born?
If he or she is a baby five minutes after birth, then he or she was a baby five minutes before birth. Not from my opinion, but from empirical evidence.
That is not subjective morality. It is observation.
Your assertion that a baby wasn’t a baby till after birth is contrary to observable events. It is based on nothing. It is like saying the sun isn’t really there if you can’t see it.
Hey Sandy. Based on my reading, it seems to me that the only arguments that philosophers generally accepte in favor of abortion-choice is the human being vs. human person distinction and the argument from bodily autonomy. So I think Erin puts forth probably THE argument that really needs to addressed by pro-lifers (I mean this in contrast to a good 90% of abortion-choice arguments which ALL beg the question as to whether or not the unborn is an intrinsically valuable human person.) That’s how I see it anyway. God love you Sandy.
To clarify above, I meant that Erin mentioned BOTH bodily autonomy and the human being/ person distinction.
human being vs. human person
Many languages do not have as many words that mean person or human, etc. This is a feature of English. You can’t construct these arguments in many languages.
I believe they are the same thing.
WOW! This has been one of the best discussions we’ve had here in a long time…I hope we don’t just forget about this thread. I wish I had been in on it.
Keep it going!
Erin,
It is murder
Erin,
Go to http:\\www.priestsforlie.org\images
VMaybe you have not allowed yourself to see the “real” results of tearing apart “fetuses”. View the pictures of aborted baby parts. Legal or not, look at these images, it is undeniably murder. If you can’t see that then you are being blinded by alterior motives. There is no noble explanation for the horror. The courts will change eventually and women will NOT be allowed to kill these children. You support killing children when you support PP. And you will be held accountable. Those are living babies with eyes, nose, brain, heart, arms, hands, spines, feet, toes. Why do you think it is o.k. to support killing them just because they are still in the womb? There is NO rational explanation except to put yourself in denial. Don’t be a coward.
Go to http://www.abortionno.org This is a video of an actual first trimester abortion. Be forewarned though, it is basically a snuff video.
Begin by educating yourself out of the denial that it is not a baby until birth. I thought the goal here was an educated and informed decision.
PP should include this video as a part of comprehensive education of the abortion procedure. Promote education of these images and people could not deny it is murder.
Question for you:
Do that those arms and legs and head magically became body parts of a baby once they are sucked out of this girl?
I had the slashes in the wrong direction on that first url. It should be
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images
Do that those arms and legs and head magically became body parts of a baby once they are sucked out of this girl?
Good question, Truthseeker!
Planned Parenthood tries to censor pro-life ads
Yesterday I spotlighted 1 of 2 pro-life ads sponsored by the Second Look Project running on radio stations in liberal cities including the worst, San Francisco. Dawn Eden of Dawn Patrol just sent me this email alert from Planned Parenthood…
Although we would love for Erin to watch the videos and see the photos I doubt that she will. If she does, she may not see what we hope. Denial is a powerful thing. Denial will keep her from seeing the horrifying truth that she had her little girl killed. It is estimated that 5-7 years from an abortion a woman starts to question what she has done. That held true for me.
I am praying hard for you, Erin.
Seeing as late term abortions are against the law…
Posted by: Erin at January 25, 2008 5:20 PM
Uh, no they aren’t. As Jill has repeatedly said Roe V Dalton (?) made that clear.
And as far as the Gospels go we know at least 3 of them were written within a short period of time after Christ. Mark was a companion of Paul. He transcribed the stories of Paul, who was there.
Erin,
Seeing as late term abortions are against the law…
Somebody needs to tell these folks…
Late Term Abortion Clinics
Manhattan, New York
Parkmed
800 Second Avenue, 7th Floor
Manhattan, New York 10017
(800) 346-5111
(212) 686-6066
http://www.parkmed.com
Visit Mini Site
Los Angeles, California
Family Planning Associates
601 S.Westmoreland
Los Angeles, California 90005
(213) 738-7283
http://www.fpamg.net
Visit Mini Site
San Jose, California
Choice Medical Group
2365 Montpelier Drive
San Jose, California 95116
(800) 554-3512
(408) 272-9244
http://www.ChoiceMedicalGroup.com
Wichita, Kansas
Women’s Health Care Services – Late Term Abortion
5107 East Kellogg
Wichita, Kansas 67218
(800) 882-0488
(316) 684-5108
http://www.DrTiller.com
info@drtiller.com Visit Mini Site
Atlanta, Georgia
Atlanta Surgicenter, Inc.
1113 Spring Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
(800) 282-1046
(404) 892-8608
http://www.AtlantaSurgiCenter.com
info@atlantasurgicenter.com Visit Mini Site
Atlanta Women’s Medical Center
235 West Wieuca Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30342
(800) 877-6332
(404) 257-0057
http://www.atlantawomensmedicalcen...
Visit Mini Site
Washington DC, Washington DC
Washington Surgi Clinic
2112 F. Street NW, Suite 400
Washington DC, Washington DC 20037
(202) 659-9403
http://www.WashingtonSurgi-Clinic.com
washsurgiclinic@aol.com Visit Mini Site
Houston, Texas
Aaron Women’s Clinic and Surgical Center
6430 Hillcroft, Suite 115
Houston, Texas 77081
(800) 392-6251
(713) 771-Help
http://www.TexasAbortionInformatio...
Dallas, Texas
Abortion Advantage
1929 Record Crossing
Dallas, Texas 75235
(800) 255-7393
(214) 630-3333
http://www.AbortionAdvantage.com
Visit Mini Site
Manhattan, New York
A Westside Womens Medical Pavilion, P.C.
1841 Broadway (W. 60th) suite #1011
Manhattan, New York 10023
(800) 725-6098
http://www.NYAbortion.com/location...
info@nyabortion.com Visit Mini Site
Erin,
I may not be right, but I’m pretty sure that I am. You may not be right, but you’re pretty sure that you are.
The difference is that if we are wrong, nothing is lost. Whereas if you are wrong, you murdered your daughter. And supported the murder of millions of other children. Are you really willing to take that chance? Are you that sure of yourself. Do you ever wonder whether or not you might be mistaken?
Grah…GUYS! In SPAIN! I was referring to Sandy’s question. I know late term abortions aren’t illegal in the US.
Also, I’ve seen videos and pictures. They don’t really bother me any more than watching any other kind of surgical procedure does.
Erin,
Oh. Sorry.
@Erin,
“The American Constitution is not only the grandpappy of modern-constitutions, it also has a set of ‘human’ … (not ‘person’) rights. Doug balks at this, but being ‘human’ (with attending ‘rights’) predates both sentience and personhood. When the focus shifts from the adult decision makers to the child … the inalienable innocence wins hands down.
In the old testament there is the story of David and Goliath … in the New Testament: it is Christ vs power… The Sanhedrin; + Rome …. +++. For the Christian, the Cross is Life; is Victory …
Posted by: John McDonell at January 25, 2008 10:40 AM
—————–
Geh…a little propagandist, dontcha think?
Posted by: Erin at January 25, 2008 10:41 AM”
I have to agree with you, but only for a while did I think propaganda was inherently ‘bad’, but after finding out what the word actually means, I don’t mind it at all. This site is not only a home involved in the abortion debate, but it helps many Christians understand he profoundness of their faith. Some of what I write is to encourage openness to express themselves.
Too often, many folks take a reductionist’ stance and claim to accept only the provable as truthful. To which one asks:’Does your mother love you?’ “Of course, you silly.” is the usual reply.
So let’s briefly analyze the question:
1) the word ‘does’ assumes communication which is a ‘faith’ activity … I ‘believe’ you can understand the words I write and you in turn believe that the words I write will be comprehensible (Whether in fact they are is a different matter. lol.)
2) the word ‘mother’ can be replaced easily with ‘your Dad”; “your bro/sis”, etc … Now, if I said “Prove they exist! … not the person/name but his “Daddy-ness” ” or, “Erin, prove you exist” but remember, we will not be deceived until you prove existence in fact exists. Does ‘nothing – ‘0’ exist? … does anything exist?”
3) ‘love’ ….. too much can be said. But like courage. faith, hope and a million other ‘things’. love is intangible . In some ways, verbalizing the proof of love (demanding proof of love) is itself a ‘proof’ that the person does not love.
Now project this to God: “Does God love Erin?” It is strange that you wish proof of His existence BEFORE knowing Him in love.
to a believer proof is not necessary, to the non-believer no amount of proof is sufficient.
Now look closely at the phrase human rights … the only criteria are: it is human (as a noun, not an adjective) and it is alive … both of these criteria are met by the fetus. The option left open is either the body autonomy or, one of doing what Doug did … you know, there are Humans, and then here are humans…. we ‘Humans’ have rights. but the fetus is not ‘Human’ only ‘human’. The ‘body autonomy’ argument is not some hyper vigilance about safety, but an argument about control.
The ‘body autonomy’ argument is not some hyper vigilance about safety, but an argument about control.
Erin at January 26, 2008 10:17 AM
***************
Erin,
You did not answer my question. You say you don’t think they are babies until they are born. Those are baby arms and baby legs and a baby head that gets sucked out of the girl. You are in denial that it is just as much a baby inside the womb. To deny it is irrational. How do you account for the baby parts if there is no baby inside? Do they magically become baby parts once they are removed from the womb?
*rolls eyes* No. They’re not baby parts. They didn’t come from a baby. They’re parts from a fetus. They’re medical waste.
It certainly is an argument about control. I am entitled to have control of my own body.
Also, I got a new job today, FINALLY! I am now a server at Joe’s Crab Shack! Whoo!
Erin,
You really, really, really believe that? That those arms and legs are not parts of a person? How do you do that? What do you tell yourself? I’m not being mean, I’m really curious. When you see those little rib cages or toes…what do you say to yourself?
Erin,
And congrats on the job…mmmmmm…crab!
MK- I don’t know. It just really doesn’t affect me the way it does some people. I have a very analytical mind. If I see a body part that is from, say, a dead person, it doesn’t bother me either. My brain automatically considers that a fetus doesn’t have sentience until at least near the end of the second trimester, and even then, they were infringing on bodily autonomy. I’m much more bothered by some kind of example of actual suffering. For example, when I see Bethany’s pictures of Blessing, I’m not bothered, because I know that at the point where she miscarried, the fetus had no feeling or serious existence. It does, however, make my heart ache to see Bethany’s suffering because she hurts for what she lost so deeply. Does that make sense?
@Erin,
that makes perfect sense.
There is little doubt that I am severely disabled and my life is filled with people getting an eg boost, by feeling sorry for me. But I am not in the least bit sorry for myself, it is a waste of time!
There is so much growing to do (and living), miracles to perform ( but being ‘disabled’ looms large), laughter to share (but blank apartment walls are my only friends), tears to shed (I have few hugs), there are waltzes to dance (though I cannot walk) …. I am forced to eat lemons (and would love to make a bit of lemonade out of this) …
Like M. Luther Jr. “I too have a dream …. that someday Erin will be free; will be free; will BE FREE!”
Erin said:
**************
MK- I don’t know. It just really doesn’t affect me the way it does some people. I have a very analytical mind. If I see a body part that is from, say, a dead person, it doesn’t bother me either. My brain automatically considers that a fetus doesn’t have sentience until at least near the end of the second trimester, and even then, they were infringing on bodily autonomy.
**************
Erin,
Ignoring the evidence of human life is not analytical. A brain automatically assuming to have the capaciy to determine when a human life is “sentient” is not analytical. It’s heart beat races as it is getting attacked. It responds to sounds and touch etc… There is no rational way to deny it is a human life at twelve weeks and no way you can know how much pain the “fetus” feels when it is getting ripped apart at twelve weeks of age.
That leaves you with the “BODILY AUTONOMY” concept to fall back on. Well, the “bodily autonomy” concept does not apply to an adult who has consentual sex for the following reason. Analytically speaking, there would be no violation of your bodily domain in your willing participation in the actions that create the second life. Therefore, analytically speaking the bodily autonomy claim is much more logcally applied to the “fetus” than to the mother since they did not have a consentual choice that put them in this position.
John: Hal, The American Constitution is not only the grandpappy of modern-constitutions, it also has a set of ‘human’ … (not ‘person’) rights. Doug balks at this, but being ‘human’ (with attending ‘rights’) predates both sentience and personhood. When the focus shifts from the adult decision makers to the child … the inalienable innocence wins hands down.
Nope, John, rights are not attributed to the unborn like that. I “balk” at pretending that “human” is the argument. It is not.
Nobody is saying the unborn are “not innocent” – there’s no capacity for guilt in the first place.
The Constitution does not apply to the unborn.
Doug
John: Now look closely at the phrase human rights … the only criteria are: it is human (as a noun, not an adjective) and it is alive … both of these criteria are met by the fetus. The option left open is either the body autonomy or, one of doing what Doug did … you know, there are Humans, and then here are humans…. we ‘Humans’ have rights. but the fetus is not ‘Human’ only ‘human’. The ‘body autonomy’ argument is not some hyper vigilance about safety, but an argument about control.
No, those are not the only criteria. Maybe rights are attributed, and maybe they are not.
Sure – “human rights” are only attributed to those who are human and living, but while those are necessary, they are not sufficient.
Really not that hard a concept – necessary but not sufficient.
No, John, it’s not a “Human” or “human” deal. The point is that while you might wish things were different, the attribution of rights is the way we have it. Not that it “has” to be that way, but it *is* that way, and that’s why you’re arguing in the first place.
On “control” – well heck yes. Should other people control the pregnant woman in this matter? I say heck no – let her make her own best choice.
Doug
@Doug,
ah, there you is!
“The Constitution does not apply to the unborn.”
Is THAT so? Please get a legal opinion about this. Best inform the SC justices … that they have just been wasting their time!
you forgot something: the unborn cats or dogs or horses or gorillas … I’d AGREE but I think you mean unborn HUMANS … so I think the Constitution does apply because the constitution of being HUMAN is at conception … not at birth and the Constitution is about HUMAN rights, n’est pas?.
ah, there you is!
Hey John – yeah, been working long hours, and this motel has a crappy internet connection.
(Okay, okay – I loaded a new game and have been playing the heck out of it, too.)
……
“The Constitution does not apply to the unborn.”
Is THAT so? Please get a legal opinion about this. Best inform the SC justices … that they have just been wasting their time!
It’s not on me, Dude, you make the assertion, the burden’s yours. If the Constitution was applied to the unborn, you wouldn’t be arguing.
……
you forgot something: the unborn cats or dogs or horses or gorillas … I’d AGREE but I think you mean unborn HUMANS … so I think the Constitution does apply because the constitution of being HUMAN is at conception … not at birth and the Constitution is about HUMAN rights, n’est pas?.
Nope – “human” is understood, here. Yes, the Constitution is about human rights, among other things, but that does not mean that all “humans” have a given right. Are we talking about any other species than humans? No. Do all “living human beings” have rights? No.
Doug
@Doug,
there are many ways to attack the certainty feature of body autonomy but by far my favorite one is – name me one, just one of our body systems that responds favorably to our dominating control … better yet: just name any body system that we exercise absolute control … that yields a positive outcome. BTW I do not think of suicide as a positive outcome even though we believe it an act of ultimate control. So why believe that body autonomy/control will yield anything positive. The notion of control is problematic because removal of the fetus does not remove a woman’s pregnancy-related hormones, etc.
@Doug,
“It’s not on me, Dude, you make the assertion, the burden’s yours. If the Constitution was applied to the unborn, you wouldn’t be arguing.”
The ‘reason’ that there is argument here is in application. The words/theory ‘say’ one thing, but you do not ‘walk the talk’. Theory is one thing, its application something else entirely … last week the problem was not so much in the ‘desiring’ as in desiring’s physical expression – intent. Here the problem is that the application of the law is uneven. Unfairness looms large here, as certain HUMANS are (in practice) denied their inalienable rights … and protection!
Erin,
You say that you are analytical…that you get the same feeling looking at the limbs of dead adults…
But the question was “Are these or are these not the “limbs” of a human being?”
When you look at the arms of a cadaver, do you not see arms? The person may be dead, but the arms are still arms. If the person was alive, the arms would not be “something else”…
So when you look at the ribcages of aborted babies, are you not still seeing rib cages? If you look at the ribcages of non aborted, unborn, 8 week old fetuses, are you not looking at their ribcages? The ribcages do not cease to be ribcages simply by their age, attachment to a live body, or placement in or out of the womb. They are still, and always will be, ribcages.
Similarly, sentient or not, born or unborn, alive or dead, are they not still human beings? Are they not “persons” whether or not they are tiny, breathing or thinking…?
If you are truly going to be analytical, then I do not see how you can manipulate facts. Either they are human beings or they aren’t. Now whether or not you believe these human beings have the right to life is a different argument. But “analytically” speaking, what changes do they make that causes their very being to convert from non-human to human?
I think, that in fact, you do not think analytically, but emotionally, because scientifically, these are “people”, but emotionally you distance yourself from this fact. You “detach” yourself from the “facts” and replace them with attributes which are not analytical (sentience, personhood, rights) but intellectual or spritiual.
Objectively, these are humans. Your interpretation of their “humanity” is not scientific, but subjective.
“It’s not on me, Dude, you make the assertion, the burden’s yours. If the Constitution was applied to the unborn, you wouldn’t be arguing.”
John: The ‘reason’ that there is argument here is in application. The words/theory ‘say’ one thing, but you do not ‘walk the talk’. Theory is one thing, its application something else entirely … last week the problem was not so much in the ‘desiring’ as in desiring’s physical expression – intent. Here the problem is that the application of the law is uneven. Unfairness looms large here, as certain HUMANS are (in practice) denied their inalienable rights … and protection!
John, the concept of “inalienable” was something the writers of the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution) liked, but this was applied to only born people, and really not even to all of them, in the first place.
It’s not that rights are repudiated or transferred, as would be the argument with “inalienable,” but rather that they aren’t accorded to the unborn from the get-go.
“Walking the walk” is noting the truth here – that the Constitution does not apply to the unborn. It did not in 1789, and it does not today, your wishes notwithstanding. Even the lawyers on the “pro-life” side that argued the Roe versus Wade case agreed that the unborn are not persons under the Constitution, and it is that sense of personhood, i.e. attributed rights, that we are arguing about now.
Yes, the law is not applied to the unborn as it is to born people. The unborn are inside the body of a person, to start with, and that makes one heck of a difference.
Doug
Even the lawyers on the “pro-life” side that argued the Roe versus Wade case agreed that the unborn are not persons under the Constitution, and it is that sense of personhood, i.e. attributed rights, that we are arguing about now.
I’d dearly like to see these arguments. I was under the impression that Roe V Wade/Doe v Bolton stood on the right to privacy, not personhood.
@Doug.
Do rights pre-exist the Constitution? Did the black man have rights before being ‘freed’? If not then he was not oppressed because he was not a legal person. There are two ways of looking at any constitution: 1) as the written document of a government to distribute to its citizens rights and obligations; or. 2) it is a document that acknowledges rights of people and organizes a government around said rights. In the first instance a government creates and distributes ‘rights’. In the second case, the role of government is to acknowledge the ‘rights’ of its
citizens.
We have been down this road before. I would love the input of an expert on the US-constitution.
I very purposely used the phrase ‘don’t walk the talk’. Apparently Nazi Germany had written one of the world’s best-worded constitutions.
Even the lawyers on the “pro-life” side that argued the Roe versus Wade case agreed that the unborn are not persons under the Constitution, and it is that sense of personhood, i.e. attributed rights, that we are arguing about now.
I’d dearly like to see these arguments. I was under the impression that Roe V Wade/Doe v Bolton stood on the right to privacy, not personhood.
MK, it’s right in the text of Roe.
Do rights pre-exist the Constitution?
John, sure – I imagine people have been thinking about this stuff just about “forever.” There obviously was common law in the US (as I assume for Canada, too) stemming from English common law. Heck, go back to caveman days and I bet some such stuff went on. (Sockittome sockittome sockittome….)
……
Did the black man have rights before being ‘freed’?
Certainly not as many, if any, as by our current standards.
……
If not then he was not oppressed because he was not a legal person.
The “legal person” for slaves was a “yes and no” deal. Certainly oppressed in the opinion of almost everybody now.
……
There are two ways of looking at any constitution: 1) as the written document of a government to distribute to its citizens rights and obligations; or. 2) it is a document that acknowledges rights of people and organizes a government around said rights. In the first instance a government creates and distributes ‘rights’. In the second case, the role of government is to acknowledge the ‘rights’ of its citizens.
If the attribution of certain rights to certain beings is already fact, then there need be no difference, and that’s really the case with the Constitution – nothing much changed from 1776 to 1789, for example (the Constitution coming to be in 1789).
……
We have been down this road before. I would love the input of an expert on the US-constitution. I very purposely used the phrase ‘don’t walk the talk’. Apparently Nazi Germany had written one of the world’s best-worded constitutions.
The Supreme Court is who does the interpretation of the Constitution. There was nothing put in the Constitution about the unborn, and why would there be – abortion was legal to a point in gestation before, during, and after the Constitution took effect. Hitler may well have violated the German constitution – I don’t know – but the US is fine with its Constitution, and that was the case in 1789 as it is in 2008. Similarly, there are people who complain about Canada, but it’s still widely considered one of the best places in the world to be.
Doug
@Doug,
Analytically speaking, there would be no violation of your bodily domain in your willing participation in the actions that create the second life. Therefore, analytically speaking the bodily autonomy claim is much more logcally applied to the “fetus” than to the mother since the “fetus” did not have a consentual choice that put them in this position.
********************
Doug said,
Even the lawyers on the “pro-life” side that argued the Roe versus Wade case agreed that the unborn are not persons under the Constitution, and it is that sense of personhood, i.e. attributed rights, that we are arguing about now.
John said,
I’d dearly like to see these arguments. I was under the impression that Roe V Wade/Doe v Bolton stood on the right to privacy, not personhood.
Doug said,
MK, it’s right in the text of Roe.
************************
Doug,
Please post the RoeVWade text you are referring to. I understood that the Supreme court specifically sidestepped the personhood issue and in fact stated that “RoeVWade would be nullified” if and or when personhood status should ever be granted to children inside the womb.
Analytically speaking, there would be no violation of your bodily domain in your willing participation in the actions that create the second life. Therefore, analytically speaking the bodily autonomy claim is much more logcally applied to the “fetus” than to the mother since the “fetus” did not have a consentual choice that put them in this position.
Hey Truthseeker, how’re things goin’?
Agreed that willingness means no violation of “bodily domain.”
Of course, consent to have sex is not consent to remain pregnant. The fetus has no “choice,” or no cares about any of this.
Doug
Please post the RoeVWade text you are referring to. I understood that the Supreme court specifically sidestepped the personhood issue and in fact stated that “RoeVWade would be nullified” if and or when personhood status should ever be granted to children inside the womb.
TS, yes indeed – if (real) personhood (as opposed to some of the silly stuff that grandstanding legislators have inserted into bills in some states) would ever be established for the unborn, then the “pro-choice” position in Roe would be blown out of the water, and the Roe decision said as much.
As for the text, read it yourself. You have the awesome resources of the internet at yo’ fingertippies.
Doug
John: there are many ways to attack the certainty feature of body autonomy but by far my favorite one is – name me one, just one of our body systems that responds favorably to our dominating control … better yet: just name any body system that we exercise absolute control … that yields a positive outcome. BTW I do not think of suicide as a positive outcome even though we believe it an act of ultimate control. So why believe that body autonomy/control will yield anything positive. The notion of control is problematic because removal of the fetus does not remove a woman’s pregnancy-related hormones, etc.
Johnster, I missed this one earlier.
I hear you on absolutes, but do think there are some cases where a given person wants to die, and in the end the suffering on their part is less if they are allowed to. A rare deal, sure, but they exist.
“Why believe that bodily autonomy will yield anything positive?” Because that’s what people want, and in lieu of any compelling reason otherwise, I think people are happier being free like that, and I’m for people being happy.
Doug (looking forward to spring)
John,
“The ‘body autonomy’ argument is not some hyper vigilance about safety, but an argument about control.”
And why is that a problem? Shouldn’t we be able to (or at least try) to control our bodies and our lives?
The arguement that we can’t control our biology or the function of our internal organs and structures has absolutely no bearing on the abortion debate. It is akin to arguing that, simply because we can’t control everything, we shouldn’t be allowed to control those aspects of our physical being that we can indeed exert control over.
If that is true, why does medicine exist at all? If we shouldn’t be able to exert any control over our bodies because we cannot completely control everything that said bodies or the organs inside them do, why is it permissible for us to attempt to exert “control” in this manner?