Posted on 12/04/2008 1:37:22 PM PST by NYer
True. Back when I was a public speaker, I used to tell audiences, "There are two kinds of human beings: developing, and dead. Is there anybody here who has stopped developing?" Nobody ever raised their hand.
The fact that an infant, or embryo, or zygote, is still developing is not what makes them different from the rest of us: it's what makes them the same as the rest of us. And what makes them interesting.
As for animal capacities: First off, I do think we owe animals more respect than we generally give them.
I'm not talking about PeTA nonsense, I just mean we ought to ponder the thought that God said they were "Good," and not just good for us, but good in themselves, in the general scheme of things. That doesn't give animals priority over humankind, but it does mean that we have the role of protecting, managing, yes even harvesting them, in a humane and intelligent way, because of what they are (good creatures) and what we are (fellow creatures; and, what's more, the image and likeness of God.)
Nevertheless, we all approximate animal capacity most of the time, especially, e.g. when we're asleep, which is about 1/3 of our entire lifetime. Human-level rational cognitive function is a very sporadic, intermittent thing, even in the geniuses amongst us. In none of us does it develop perfectly, and in none of us does it manifest continuously.
No system of human rights can depend on rational cognitive functions, because such functions are unequal, partial, intermittent, and revocable.
I can NOT be considered human, rational, and "a person in the full sense of te word" until I've had my first cup of coffee in the morning. :o)
Thank you, this is a fascinating article. :)
It should be, for the reasons you explained.
Just tossing my two cents in.
I heard in the days before abortion legal, woman were not held in comtempt of preforming an abortion, but the abortionist were considered the one’s commiting the crime. They were the one’s prosucuted, not the mothers (who considered second victims)
What I find disturbing is that this aspect of it will have the most far reaching consequences, yet is very rarely discussed openly when the issue is debated.
Yes. I think I’ll go with Mildred.
bookmark.
thanks for posting this.
This seems to be a different philosophy. If a woman took one of her children to a doctor to have them killed, she would be at least guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. This appears to put having an abortion in the terms.
The realistic political goal is restricting, as severely as possible, surgical abortion. Everyone understands that laws protecting the embryo at early gestational stages are nearly impossible to enforce.
You are correct, however, that the moral implications for pill users, or pregnant women who risk the health of the baby, are quite dire.
In absence of the mockery of justice that Roe v. Wade regime represents, torts regarding abortifacient contraception or induced miscarriage could be sorted out in case law. It is no different than other behaviors that carry risks to others, e.g. driving vehicles, discharging forearms, or fixing the electric.
Some would argue that's irrelevant - if it's wrong it should be illegal, whether it's consistently enforceable or not.
You are correct, however, that the moral implications for pill users, or pregnant women who risk the health of the baby, are quite dire.
The moral implications have always been there. The question is what the legal and political implications will be.
Well, many people are absolutely petrified at the thought of life without birth control pills. I'm not, but maybe you've been pregnant more often than I have. That's neither here nor there. What's "here" is the contention that some undefined situation "will" have the most far-reaching consequences, etc., etc., as tacticalogic posted. There are no laws proposed at this time to regulate any contraceptive or abortifacient drugs. Attempts even to reduce the usage of surgical abortion often crash on Roe v. Wade. So this far-out whatiffery is not particularly useful, imo.
There are some people, including annalex, Mrs. Don-o, and me, who believe the country would be better off without the use of birth control pills or equivalents. However, to affect this by law is extremely, massively improbable, and we all understand that. Fantasy scenarios should not be allowed to stand in the way of reasonable discussion on an issue of objective fact, such as the time at which a unique human life begins.
If the legislation gets passed, and someone is determined to make the government enforce banning of birth control pills under that law, I think it’s entirely possible that it’s going to end up in court. They’ll force the judges and politicians to have to choose between overturning or repealing the legislation or banning birth control pills
Far-out whatiffery.
Congress can "find" that hate crimes have a "substantial effect on interstate commerce", but the idea that anyone would try to ban birth control pills because they may take a human life is "far-out whatiffery".
Color me skeptical.
I think it’s entirely possible that it’s going to end up in court. They’ll force the judges and politicians to have to choose between overturning or repealing the legislation or banning birth control pills
Okay, fine. Imagine a law is passed banning abortifacient drugs. (Imagine I look like Catherine Zeta-Jones, too - why not?) Then birth control pills will no longer be sold legally in that state. Maybe millions of women will say, "ONZ, I feel great! Why in the world was I doing that to myself?!?" Or maybe millions of women (not to mention men) will say, "Shoot! Is *that* what that law said?" Then they'll strongly encourage their state representatives to repeal the law.
Frankly, I'm puzzled by what's so frightening about any of the *reasonably* possible outcomes of any of this.
Hey, that was MY far-out whatiffery! Mrs. Don-o owes me royalties.
And *our* Congress, with Kennedys and Nancy Pelosi in it, and that psychopathic Boxer woman? It’s more likely that the people will take the Russian Option and go after the place with rocket launchers and tanks than the U.S. Congress would attempt to ban birth control pills.
Congress doesn’t generally act on issues of medicine, anyway. It’s the FDA.
Ideally, I would like to see a scenario when
- It is illegal to provide a surgical abortion or obtain one; penalties vary and consider mental state of the mother, rape or deformity of the child as extentuating circumstances.
- Amnesty given for past abortions.
- Abortifacient contraception is outlawed. Chemical contraception should be subject to the same regulatory regime as any medicine with the health of the potential emerging embryo in mind.
- All contraception is subject to sale and advertisement restriction similar to that on tobacco. That is not on the grounds of harm to the embryo, but on the grounds that contraception is an enabling tecnhiology of adultery and is not in the interest of society.
- A case law is gradually built up regarding risky behavior during pregnancy, which is based on the legal recognition of the rights of the fetus. For example, a father might sue the mother for neglecting her pregnancy. What the outcomes of such torts might be, I don’t know and I trust the courts to, by and large, get to the truth.
You submit that "everyone knows it can't be done".
I submit that it's entirely possible there one or a group of people out there who think it can, and can find a lawyer who'll be willing to go for it if it means a possible wrongful death class action suit payoff.
State or federal legislation?
Exactly so. Personally, I don't think much can be achieved politically even under a sympathetic administration. The true progress will occur when the culture changes for the better. See my previous post, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.