I still have trouble with understanding why one is now illegal and not the other.

Same reason its legal to drive 70 on the interstate and not 71.  Aren't most laws about drawing arbitrary lines?

Re "calculated beginning": Isn't that the plan? I mean, before the recent Supreme Court shift I thought most of the "pro-life" legal plan was to get states to use their rights to pass seemingly minor, sometimes absurd, restrictions on abortions (waiting periods, parental/spousal notifications, ban on certain procedures, must listen to heartbeat, must read anti-abortion statements, must see ultrasound, have to call the police for a police report, limited to certain trimesters, etc) that did not "deny" the patient the right to have an abortion, but rather further restricted it?

All of these restrictions singly were never so unreasonable as to be overturned by the courts, but all together it would put a damper on the ability of providers to offer these services in a timely fashion. So, they pass muster with the Supremes, and so while Roe v. Wade is still upheld, its effects are diminished. Isn't that what they want? To avoid the massive "Culture War" that would break out if it were overturned, but to have their cake and eat it, too?

So, isn't this just the latest portion of said plan?

So, isn't this just the latest portion of said plan? Absolutely. So the pro-choice needs a plan of its own. IMHO, part of that plan ought to focus on tribal lands. When South Dakota tried to outright ban abortion recently, the local native american tribe offered to host the planned parenthood outlet in the state, since it is beyond the reach of state government. Such a strategy would have the helpful effect of increasing medical care for poor tribe members while butressing a family's right to plan. Many tribes have become strong and wealthy lobbies. If the pro-choice movement can aid them with needed medical care in the near term, it could have positive long term effects when the such lobbies may become necessary.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

When South Dakota tried to outright ban abortion recently, the local native american tribe offered to host the planned parenthood outlet in the state, since it is beyond the reach of state government. Such a strategy would have the helpful effect of increasing medical care for poor tribe members while butressing a family's right to plan. Many tribes have become strong and wealthy lobbies. If the pro-choice movement can aid them with needed medical care in the near term, it could have positive long term effects when the such lobbies may become necessary.

Great. Now the "Moral Majority" will have a second reason to be pissed at Native Americans. Not only do they allow gambling and sell cigarettes and booze tax free, but they also allow abortions on their property.

Besides the cheap health care the clinics would provide Native Americans, I could see them jumping on such a deal. The inevitable court challenge to the abortion plan would be smacked down, further buttressing claims of sovereignty on the reservation. It is a win for all concerned.

Writing in 2006 Hadley Arkes pondered what would happen if it were upheld:

What the Court would be saying in effect is, "We are now in business to consider seriously, and to sustain, many plausible measures that impose real restrictions on abortion."

That would invite a flood of measures enacted by the states. They might be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability, for instance, or even earlier, with the first evidence of a beating heart. Or requirements that abortionists use a method more likely to yield the child alive. Or provisions that ban abortions on a child likely to be afflicted with disabilities, such as Down syndrome.

Each restriction would command the support of about 70 or 80 percent of the country, including many people who describe themselves as pro-choice. And step by step, the public would get used to these cardinal notions: that the freedom to order abortions, like any other kind of freedom, may be subject to plausible restrictions; that it is legitimate for legislatures to enact those restrictions; and that it is, in fact, possible for ordinary folk, with ordinary language, to deliberate about the grounds on which abortions could be said to be justified or unjustified. This seems to me the path far more likely to be taken by justices with the judicial temperament of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

singling out this procedure is hardly their ultimate goal but rather a calculated beginning.

Without a doubt, which is the most troubling part, especially given their hesitation to include any concern for the health of the existent family unit. It is a mentally ill individual who would rob a living child of their healthy mother.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

I still have trouble with understanding why one is now illegal and not the other.

Its simple.  The reason is that the SCOTUS is stacked with consevative ideologues who cater to Christian fundies' propaganda.  I hope that clears up the confusion.  

I still have trouble with understanding why one is now illegal and not the other.

I agree...the problem is that there's no good way of determining "when life begins", so we're stuck with banning procedures. It's easy to say "life begins" when the baby is born, but what about premature c-section babies? Why is it okay to do a D&X, but not okay to kill a baby delivered by c-section? I think that the most neutral way to draw lines would be at two points - either ban abortion of fetuses that would be viable outside the fetus (so probably completely ban third trimester abortions, except in cases where the fetus is not viable or where the life - but not necessarily health - of the mother would be compromised), or make the cutoff "consciousness" - which would allow infanticide of babies up to maybe 6 months of age. I'd be okay with either option, but most pro-choice are opposed to "option a" and most everyone is opposed to "option b", so we're left with laws that have little rational, philosophical, or scientific basis.

either ban abortion of fetuses that would be viable outside the fetus

That should read "outside the uterus" - oops.

I dunno, I find the idea of babushka fetuses entertaining. I think it was the plot of a Stephen King novel.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Wait, why are you OK with infanticide for children younger than 6 months, again?

Wait, why are you OK with infanticide for children younger than 6 months, again?

Up until 6 months or so, a child is only vaguely aware of its surroundings, and has cognitive abilities lower than most animals (which we have no problem killing if it's convenient to us). The key parts of "being human" are self-awareness, speech and advanced cognitive ability - those are the things that separate us from other animals. Given that very young children do not have these capabilities, I hold that they are not fully human (or at least, that on the "human-ness scale" they aren't much different from a third-trimester fetus). If it's cool to abort a third trimester baby, infanticide up to about 6 months (or maybe just 3 months - I'm willing to err on the side of caution) should be okay too.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, to an extent, to point out that the obvious "break point" in whether abortion is okay or not isn't "birth", since that's such an ill-defined concept due to advances in modern medicine. We need to figure out where the break point is between what's human and what's not. I'm proposing that the two best break points are #1, viability without the assistance of the mother's body (i.e., third trimester babies), and #2, advanced cognitive development. If we want to eliminate the ambiguity in current abortion laws, those would be good places to start.

I hold that they are not fully human (or at least, that on the "human-ness scale" they aren't much different from a third-trimester fetus). If it's cool to abort a third trimester baby, infanticide up to about 6 months (or maybe just 3 months - I'm willing to err on the side of caution)

OK, that's wacky.  It's a little disturbing, even.  But at least you admirably are willing to take on the "break point" question.  If a person believes that abortion is moral but that murder is not moral then that person has to concede that there is a dividing line somewhere between abortion and murder, and that dividing line almost certainly has to be drawn based on time.  But if you ask most abortion rights proponents where that line is, you won't get an answer, or you will get a deeply arbitrary and unsatisfying answer.

Part of the genius of the pro-life strategy of going after partial birth abortion specifically is that it illustrates how arbitrary the current line really is.  If we say that the fetus/baby becomes human only at birth, and if birth means the fetus/baby has completely left the confines of its mother's body, then is it OK to just pull the baby part of the way out of its mother and kill it in that state?  Presumably the doctor has to be really careful here; if he pulls to far, it's a human being with the legal right of life, but if he keeps that head inside the birth canal, it's still a thing that we can kill.  This crazy situation -- no matter how rare it is in practice -- provides a powerful illustration of how it's really lawyers that are drawing this line, not doctors, and certainly not ethicists.

Now, as I said, at least you admirably are willing to take on the "break point" question, because many abortion rights proponents prefer to dodge it.  They say that it is a "private matter" or a religious matter and that it should be decided by each individual, not by the state.  But because they want it decided by each individual, they want the law to allow any individual's decision, and that means they have to argue for the most permissible laws imaginable.  Saying it's a private religious matter is really a bankrupt position; all the time, we have laws that take moral positions that might contradict individual citizen's private views, but we live with them.

But because they want it decided by each individual, they want the law to allow any individual's decision, and that means they have to argue for the most permissible laws imaginable. Saying it's a private religious matter is really a bankrupt position; all the time, we have laws that take moral positions that might contradict individual citizen's private views, but we live with them.

We're exactly in agreement on the issues here, although we're at polar opposite ends of the spectrum as far as what to actually do, given these problems. My position is, I feel, pretty much in line with the classical liberal position that people should have as much freedom as possible to do what they wish with themselves and their possessions, without government interference. A fetus / infant is only a potential human being - a woman capable of bearing a child, on the other hand, already has full legal personhood in all meaningful ways. In any conflict between the rights of an existential human being versus only a potential human being, I would always side with the one already existing. Once the child develops human capacity, however, I think that they state has a compelling interest in defending its rights.

The law already recognizes this principal to an extent (hence the reason that even the law we're discussing here has an exception for the life, if not the health, of the mother). We intuitively realize that if it was our life on the line, versus the potential life of a baby, most of us would throw the baby under the bus. Given that we already have gradations of legal personhood for children (i.e., we say that they can't legally commit a crime until a certain age, we say they can't consent to sex until a certain age, can't smoke until a certain age, can't drink until a certain age, etc, etc.), I see no problem with severely limiting the legal rights of newborns. I'm also quite aware that it will never happen, but like you I think that this is something that pro-choice advocates need to think seriously about. If they can't stomach the notion, then perhaps they need to revise their conception of what is or is not an acceptable abortion.

We kill animals to eat them (at least that is the only legitimate reason to be killing them), so are you planning on eating these kids?

Tipping Sacred Cows

We kill animals to eat them (at least that is the only legitimate reason to be killing them)

We put hundreds of thousands of stray cats and dogs to death each month to keep down overpopulation. We kill mice & other rodents simply because they are pests. We allow farmers to kill all sorts of animals (i.e. deer, ground hogs, etc) for causing crop damage. Not all killing of animals is for food.

so are you planning on eating these kids?

I think this is a separate issue that has to do with eating freely acquired human flesh, more than an issue about abortion (i.e. - is it okay to chop off your own arm and grill it up for lunch?). I haven't really thought through my position on the issue, but if it's something you want to talk about perhaps we could move it to a diary entry, since it's not completely relevant to this thread.

Well, we take human stem cells, which have the potential to be an arm or a leg and we essentially treat them in the same manner that we treat animals that we do other laboratory tests on but I think we've finally taken this point to its logical end.

But since we're making this point, I also wanted to point out that we kill certain dogs and cats for the benefit of other dogs and cats. The recent pet food recall scandal and congressional hearings have brought to the public view the fact that pet food companies "employ" dogs and cats to taste test the processed food to make sure it is not harmful and OK for consumption by the bourgeois animal class. Of course, when the food is harmful, they pay with their lives.

I think we could settle the entire matter, though, if we went by the Cliff Huxtable line of reasoning on child rearing -- "I brought you into this world, I can take you out." Up until 5 is perfectly fine with me.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

As I said in another post, the only legitimate killing of an animal is for eating. All the other reasons are because of failures on our part rather than a necessity for the goal.

Tipping Sacred Cows

We kill animals to eat them (at least that is the only legitimate reason to be killing them)...

As I said 'only legitimate reason', killing them for any of the reasons you gave is a choice made for economic reasons (killing being the cheapest method) aside from human predation which is basically a capital crime for an animal (but it still stems from our failure to preserve their environment).

Tipping Sacred Cows

But your proposal, as well as the Court's decision, ignores the health of the mother.

So does the current law, this being a compromise between this decision and the way it was before the law was put into effect.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Which is exactly the problem I have with this decision. Elective late term abortions are not something I'm ever going to try to defend, particularly because of the D&E method. But the health of the mother must be paramount in all situations. If outlawing elective D&E would make the whole abortion debate go away (and I think an astute politician could essentially nullify the issue by taking this position in a campaign) I'd support that, distasteful as it is to me to take any part of the mothering process away from families and their medically trained professionals. There is simply no excuse, even if you are against elective abortions entirely, for not protecting the life of the mother. You have to put the life of the mother first. Anything else is hateful misogyny.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

But the health of the mother must be paramount in all situations...There is simply no excuse, even if you are against elective abortions entirely, for not protecting the life of the mother. You have to put the life of the mother first

No as-applied challenge need be brought if the Act's prohibition threatens a woman's life, because the Act already contains a life exception

It's bullshit sophistry to pretend they aren't the same thing.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

It's bullshit sophistry to pretend they aren't the same thing

Justice Ginsburg, on the other hand, seems to be using a broader definition of "life" that includes metaphysical existence, the act and experience of living. In her view, abortion rights "center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course." In that view I would agree that your contention that protecting one's life is inextricably connected with protecting one's health.

The majority view does not deny that a woman ought to have "autonomy to determine her life's course," but they draw the limits of such autonomy (court precedent, by the way, has always recognized limits on that autonomy going back all the way to Roe v. Wade) more narrowly than had been the case before. In their view, the increased risk to a woman's health cannot take precedence over the certain death of the life of the fetus.

I don't know what is more disturbing, my over the top sarcasm, or your stoic aceptance of it...

I just took it for granted that we would both ignore the final sentence of your statement.

Tipping Sacred Cows