Posted on 12/05/2021 5:46:09 AM PST by Kaslin
On December 1 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case debating the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which many believe may lead to the Supreme Court weakening or overturning Roe v. Wade. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, “How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It's still debated in religions. So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that's a religious view, isn't it -- because it assumes that a fetus's life at -- when? You're not drawing -- you're -- when do you suggest we begin that life?"
Justice Sotomayor is echoing Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade when he said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Speaking as an atheist who opposes abortion, I find this evasion nonsensical for several reasons.
(1) Philosophers may debate when a human life has moral value, but biologists aren't debating when a human organism’s life begins. Dr. Steve Jacobs of the University of Chicago has covered this issue extensively: he surveyed thousands of biologists around the world about when, biologically, a human organism comes into existence, and the strong consensus was at fertilization. Even biologists who identified as "very pro-choice" affirmed that fertilization marks the first stage of a new human life cycle. This same understanding is reflected in countless embryology texts published over the past several decades. In embryology, this topic is not a debate: a human zygote is the first developmental stage in an individual human's life cycle. Biologically you, me, and Justice Sotomayor all began as zygotes.
(2) Even if it were true that there is no consensus on when a human life begins, it would make little sense for the Court to enforce a standard that assumes life doesn’t begin until at least the second half of pregnancy. Our current abortion laws allow for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of prenatal humans every year. Right now there are seven states (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont) that allow abortion for any reason at any stage in pregnancy. Late-term abortion providers have given interviews openly discussing aborting fetuses into the third trimester (past viability) for nonmedical reasons. These elective late-term abortions are part of Roe’s legacy, and they demand a stronger justification than “Well, there’s a lot of philosophical debate about when human life begins, so this is probably fine.”
(3) While there is no major debate in biology over when a human organism’s life begins, there is a philosophical debate over when that human’s life carries enough moral weight to merit legal protection. Notably that philosophical debate hasn't stopped the judiciary from upholding laws regarding fetal homicide. As of 2018, 38 states had fetal homicide laws, including 29 states in which such laws apply even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. Some people argue these laws undermine abortion rights, but to my knowledge no one has argued that these laws violate the religious freedom of third-party aggressors who may not believe a fetus is “a life.” In most of the country you can be charged with homicide if you cause the death of a woman’s fetus; no one cares what your religious views dictate about whether that fetus is “a life.”
(4) There are other philosophical debates that have not prevented the judiciary from issuing legally binding opinions. For example, philosophers Peter Singer, Alberto Giubilini, and Francesca Minerva have all argued that newborn infants are not "persons" in a philosophical sense and that killing them would not carry the same moral weight as killing "people." This debate hasn't prevented state and federal governments from passing and upholding laws against infanticide. As another example, there is extensive and ongoing philosophical debate over the ethics surrounding vaccination and vaccine mandates, but that debate has not stopped the Supreme Court from quite recently rejecting challenges to vaccine mandates.
(5) If it’s true that the question of when human life is morally valuable is merely a religious debate, then it’s also true that Roe promoted one “religious” view over others. Roe effectively enforces the view that human life isn't valuable enough to merit legal protection until at least halfway through pregnancy (and possibly at no point during pregnancy, as some states have decided). If the Court doesn't want to insert itself into the philosophical debate about when a human life has moral value, its strategy should be to overturn Roe. That is how the Court extricates itself from the conversation and leaves space for the people of each state to debate different religious and philosophical views and create their legal standards accordingly. Instead, through Roe, the Court forced the entire nation to allow abortion for any reason until viability, approximately six months into pregnancy. This standard isn’t neutral, and the “religious” view it promotes is extremely unpopular. Most Americans oppose abortion after three months into pregnancy, while Roe requires states to allow it through six months. Similarly, 96% of other countries have more restrictive abortion laws than Roe allows in the United States. Nothing about the Roe standard is neutral, religiously or otherwise.
Abortion ends the life of a human in utero. This is not a religious view; it is a fact of biology. Whether it is immoral to take these lives is an open religious and philosophical question. If Justice Sotomayor believes the Supreme Court lacks authority to weigh in on that question, she should vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and let the people of each state decide for themselves.
Is killing a democrat wrong?
To determine that a killing is murder, you first have to assume that the victim is a human being. Perhaps the author would argue that we should eliminate murder laws as well, because of their religious nature.
If you continued down that rabbit hole, I think you’d end up finding that all laws have a religious taint, and are not the business of the courts.
She only wants government intervention when it enforces decrees she agrees with and not with decrees she is against.
Leftist demand the use of the monopoly on force of government to hurt their enemies. This is why their favorite weapon in the ongoing civil war is lawfare.
My suggestion holds for you as well.
IF human life doesn’t begin at conception then I’m gonna bust up some turtle eggs or other so called endangered species.
You’re right; my criticism should have been focused on Sotomayor, not on the author.
I think this is falsely put forward as a “difficult” problem which is “religious” in nature.
How about biology? How about following the science?
The sperm is alive, but it’s just a cell with mere 23 chromosomes.
The ovum is alive, but it’s just a cell with mere 23 chromosomes.
Put them together, you get a living organism which is demonstrably human, with a full 46 chromosomes. It’s right where it ought to be, and fully viable in that location. Human Life. Right there. At fertilization. This isn’t hard.
She can talk out of 8 sides of her at one time.
The minute the egg and sperm unite, there is a creation of a unique set of DNA like no other created before or since that moment in time.
Like Dr. Carson stated, if it’s not human, why do doctor’s and companies want the remains?
As they should. If you believe that your rights come from gubmint, gubmint can grant or take them away at any time. If you believe your rights are God given, only He can take them away,
Sotomayor is just hopelessly stupid. It is a complete waste of time to present any even mildly complex issues for her consideration. She is the classic example of how affirmative action results in incompetence.
Sotomayer apparently does not want to reconsider whether Blackmum’s opinion remains true - “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus [on when life begins], the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
It seems that the science since then is well beyond consensus and that the judiciary does not have to speculate anymore. If life begins at conception, and the Constitution protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we are at the next step. Sotomayer needs to answer the legal question why that life would not be entitled to any or even limited Constitutional due process protection? An if entitled to due process protection, what would it look like? Ahhhh ... now the Court has been exposed to be out of its jurisdiction .... it cannot legislate. It would require a Constitutional amendment.
Some will say that the states are empowered to decide whether abortion would be permitted under the 10th Amendment. I would argue that since the US Supreme Court has extended federal constitutional protection via the 14th Amendment, the states would not be able to fashion their own abortion laws without guaranteeing due process to the unborn that could survive federal constitutional requirements. Roe may be the most devastating court decision ever for at least 62 million reasons.
Sotomayer here is either not bright, not honest, or both.
She is also declared Catholic!
Would Sotomayer be insulted if someone said to her that one wished the justice’s mother aborted her as early as the moment of conception instead of having her sit on the Supreme Court? If she is intellectually honest, she would be insulted because it compels her to acknowledge when life begins. For without conception, she would never have been born.
Since the Constitution protects life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without due process, that conceived life is entitled to federal constitutional due process protection - even the states cannot deny due process for the unborn under the 10th Amendment.
Abortion is murder.
Compare the DNA of the mother to the DNA of the fetus. Abortion should be legal for as long as the two DNAs match exactly.
Oh, and BTW, if DNA doesn’t work to differentiate between individuals, we have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people in prisons that should be set free.
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.