Anti-abortion bill in Alabama

[MarginOfError]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Hope you're not calling me a reactionary lunatic.  I watched that entire interview and this part of the interview was not about the reduction from 3 physicians to 1.  By the way, it's not just reduction of 3 physicians to 1, it doesn't have to be in a hospital either.  Which basically means, a physician in Planned Parenthood with interest in fully formed baby body parts can decide and influence the mother to terminate a baby including and up to post birth.  So yeah, you can dismiss that concern as "nuance lost on reactionary lunatics".

We're done here.  If you're still buying into that line or garbage, there's no hope for reasoned discussion.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

We're done here.  If you're still buying into that line or garbage, there's no hope for reasoned discussion.

Really?  You think it unreasonable that somebody is interested in the sale of baby body parts?  I'd like to live in your world, buddy.  Unfortunately, I come from a world where a mother sold her 6 year old daughter to a cyberporn outfit, so it isn't unreasonable at all that somebody would buy and sell baby body parts.  

Edited May 20, 2019 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

26 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

And on what grounds do you propose that the mighty (i.e., those with governmental power) be able to tell pregnant women they have no choice over their medical care and pregnancies beginning at the moment of conception?

Keep in mind, JAG, I'm not weighing in on the morality of any abortion. But I am rather concerned with how we manage these rights and protections in a pluralistic society.

It’s not accurate to say we’re “tell[ing] pregnant women they have no choice over their medical care and pregnancies beginning at the moment of conception”.  They are simply being told that there are limits to the circumstances under which they can unilaterally kill the new life inside them—a life that in over 95% of cases, the pregnant woman created voluntarily.  

As for what the basis for such a regimen could be:  how about that we don’t get to use our bodies to harm other bodies, regardless of how weak or dependent those bodies are relative to our own?  This is the basis for our current legal injunctions to the effect that parents can’t kill their children, or men who are sole breadwinners can’t beat their wives, or pet owners (increasingly) can’t abuse their animals, or nursing home workers can’t rape their vegetative patients, or I can’t harvest the eggs of endangered sea turtles on a beach in California.  The very essence of law, is controlling what people do with their bodies.  Through child support legislation, we appropriate a significant proportion of a man’s resources and labor for up to 18 years due to a single act of sex which the man may or may not have intended to result in pregnancy.  Pregnant women aren’t as unique in that, as abortion apologists would like us to think they are.

As it pertains to abortion, one can still find constitutional justification for abortion in cases of rape/invest/mother’s life by pointing out that criminal law—and even the Constitution, arguably—entitle a person to use lethal force against threats to their life, liberty, and/or property.  That would actually be a fun twist to all this—if Roe were reversed but DC v. Heller became the basis for guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion in the event of a life or health risk.  

Edited May 20, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s not accurate to say we’re “tell[ing] pregnant women they have no choice over their medical care and pregnancies beginning at the moment of conception”.  They are simply being told that there are limits to the circumstances under which they can unilaterally kill the new life inside them

On this, we agree.  Where we disagree is where that line should be drawn. And it is an incredibly difficult line to draw given the multitude of moral systems that exist in our society.

Quote

—a life that in over 95% of cases, the pregnant woman created voluntarily.  

This is the kind of element I would want to leave out of the discussion, as it seems to lean toward moral reasoning.  Eventually, you get into questions of voluntary versus intentional blah blah blah. I don't see how you untangle those without appealing to the subjective, moral code.  Perhaps it's the statistician in me, but I try not to draw subjective lines unless I have no other choice.

Quote

As for what the basis for such a regimen could be:  how about that we don’t get to use our bodies to harm other bodies, regardless of how weak or dependent those bodies are relative to our own?  This is the basis for our current legal injunctions to the effect that parents can’t kill their children, or men who are sole breadwinners can’t beat their wives, or pet owners (increasingly) can’t abuse their animals, or nursing home workers can’t rape their vegetative patients, or I can’t harvest the eggs of endangered sea turtles on a beach in California.  The very essence of law, is controlling what people do with their bodies.    

This is somewhat compelling.  At the same time, none of those situations are pure analogs to pregnancy--in none of those cases do the aggressors act as literal incubators for their victims. A nursing home worker isn't going to experience rapid weight gain, potential long term changes to body shape, urinary continence, etc. A man who chooses not to beat his wife doesn't develop gestational diabetes as a consequence. The reality is that women face serious and potentially life long changes to their health when they go through pregnancy. 

The thing about fetal viability that I find attractive is it draws an objective line between those interests.

Quote

As it pertains to abortion, one can still find constitutional justification for abortion in cases of rape/invest/mother’s life by pointing out that criminal law—and even the Constitution, arguably—entitle a person to use lethal force against threats to their life, liberty, and/or property.  That would actually be a fun twist to all this—if Roe were reversed but DC v. Heller became the basis for guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion in the event of a life or health risk.

Well, yeah, I guess I kind of addressed this already.  This would be an interesting development. Would we legally classify fetuses as parasites under this reasoning?

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

This is the kind of element I would want to leave out of the discussion, as it seems to lean toward moral reasoning.  Eventually, you get into questions of voluntary versus intentional blah blah blah. I don't see how you untangle those without appealing to the subjective, moral code.  Perhaps it's the statistician in me, but I try not to draw subjective lines unless I have no other choice.

 

Except that the argument they make is about having a choice... That they are morally entitled to make a choice to abort.  That is the moral argument presented by the pro abortion side.  @Just_A_Guy is simply countered that argument preemptively... Per JAG's counter 95% of the time they already made the choice and now trying to undo it.  Thus it gives you want by eliminating or reducing the moral argument for abortion.

 

[MarginOfError]

17 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Except that the argument they make is about having a choice... That they are morally entitled to make a choice to abort.  That is the moral argument presented by the pro abortion side.  @Just_A_Guy is simply countered that argument preemptively... Per JAG's counter 95% of the time they already made the choice and now trying to undo it.  Thus it gives you want by eliminating or reducing the moral argument for abortion.

Let me emphasize this, and say it explicitly: I am claiming no moral argument for legalized abortion.  And I think those that make a moral argument are shooting themselves in the foot.  The framework I described was that of negotiating a legal (agnostic to morality) compromise between two parties using an objective measure to draw a line that recognized the interests of both mother and child.

Also, I reject the "she shouldn't be able to have an abortion because she already made a choice that got her pregnant" argument.  On the same grounds that it is a moral argument.  I even reject that as a moral argument.  Making one bad decision does not mean we don't get to make other bad decisions. A person may choose to abort a pregnancy and evade the mortal consequences of her decision to have sex, but that does nothing to mitigate the eternal consequences of either decision.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Let me emphasize this, and say it explicitly: I am claiming no moral argument for legalized abortion.  And I think those that make a moral argument are shooting themselves in the foot.  The framework I described was that of negotiating a legal (agnostic to morality) compromise between two parties using an objective measure to draw a line that recognized the interests of both mother and child.

Also, I reject the "she shouldn't be able to have an abortion because she already made a choice that got her pregnant" argument.  On the same grounds that it is a moral argument.  I even reject that as a moral argument.  Making one bad decision does not mean we don't get to make other bad decisions. A person may choose to abort a pregnancy and evade the mortal consequences of her decision to have sex, but that does nothing to mitigate the eternal consequences of either decision.

If you don't want to claim a moral argument, then you should stop arguing about abortion and start arguing about personhood.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If you don't want to claim a moral argument, then you should stop arguing about abortion and start arguing about personhood.

There is no argument about abortion other than the moral.

Edited May 20, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[MarginOfError]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There is no argument about abortion other than the moral.

Okay, so how do you choose which moral code gets implemented into law?

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Okay, so how do you choose which moral code gets implemented into law?

The one which abides by a person's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (which by the way is a moral code).

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Okay, so how do you choose which moral code gets implemented into law?

 

[anatess2]

I know @MarginOfError is ignoring me.  But this is especially for him.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/resignations-at-planned-parenthood-prove-baby-body-parts-investigation-is-h

[MarginOfError]

16 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

That didn't really answer the question I was interested in.  So let me rephrase: what are the criteria you would use for choosing which moral code gets implemented into law? 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

That didn't really answer the question I was interested in.  So let me rephrase: what are the criteria you would use for choosing which moral code gets implemented into law? 

We already instituted the moral code.  It's called the US Constitution.  Built on the foundation of INALIENABLE rights.

Edited May 21, 2019 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

That didn't really answer the question I was interested in.  So let me rephrase: what are the criteria you would use for choosing which moral code gets implemented into law? 

Maybe you mean to ask me which criteria I would use for choosing who to vote for that will represent me in the process of how moral code gets implemented into law.

Edited May 21, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

23 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

[1]On this, we agree.  Where we disagree is where that line should be drawn. And it is an incredibly difficult line to draw given the multitude of moral systems that exist in our society.

[2]This is the kind of element I would want to leave out of the discussion, as it seems to lean toward moral reasoning.  Eventually, you get into questions of voluntary versus intentional blah blah blah. I don't see how you untangle those without appealing to the subjective, moral code.  Perhaps it's the statistician in me, but I try not to draw subjective lines unless I have no other choice.

[3]This is somewhat compelling.  At the same time, none of those situations are pure analogs to pregnancy--in none of those cases do the aggressors act as literal incubators for their victims. A nursing home worker isn't going to experience rapid weight gain, potential long term changes to body shape, urinary continence, etc. A man who chooses not to beat his wife doesn't develop gestational diabetes as a consequence. The reality is that women face serious and potentially life long changes to their health when they go through pregnancy. 

[4]The thing about fetal viability that I find attractive is it draws an objective line between those interests.

[5]Well, yeah, I guess I kind of addressed this already.  This would be an interesting development. Would we legally classify fetuses as parasites under this reasoning?

1.  Hmm.  One interesting (but perhaps tangential) response would be that it wasn’t that much of a moral question (because we were all more or less on the same page) until fifty years ago; suggesting that cultural diversity within a single nation is not always a strength. 

Second (and this transitions into your point 2)), I don’t think we can disavow the “moral” aspects here.  Call it “morality” or “ethics” or “philosophy” or even “utilitarianism”—you’re still fundamentally talking about a milieu of right-and-wrong, which forms the basis for much of our state and federal criminal codes.  Heck, other pet progressive causes—health care, racial and gender equality—are rife with moralism; so it seems incongruous to banish “morality” from this and only this issue.  

3.  You’re obviously right that there is no perfect analog.  But as a general principle  it is also well-established in law and in society, that we don’t automatically get to do Option a) just because it is easier than Option b); and (although I know you’re uncomfortable with this) we tend to have less sympathy for people who are struggling in circumstances of their own making.  The criminal code focuses quite a lot on these questions of casualty and fault.  A man in a divorce may be facing thousands of dollars in alimony—but he doesn’t get to relieve himself of that burden by killing his wife outright.  A cancer patient might desperately need a lung transplant—but she doesn’t get to abduct a matching potential donor and force him to give her a lung; and we’d probably agree that her behavior was even more outrageous if we knew she had basically given herself lung cancer through a lifetime of smoking.  

4.  This sort of feeds back into your point 1, but I think the difficulty here is less a failure of morality than the inability of the scientific community to give us a philosophically/sociologically coherent definition of “human life”.  Some say “consciousness”—can we therefore kill someone who is asleep?  Some say “ability to feel pain”—so the death penalty is OK as long as anesthetic is administered first?  Some say “having social connections, or people who love them”—so it’s OK to kill a homeless guy?  Some, like you, suggest “viability”—so a person with incurable stage 4 pancreatic cancer can be strangled at any time post-diagnosis? (In the long run, we’re ALL non-viable anyways).  So *all* of these indicia have ramifications for how we treat other powerless-yet-hitherto-undeniably-alive members of our society; blurring the lines of what and who does and doesn’t deserve protection until you’ve got doofuses like Jim Carrey openly fantasizing on Twitter about “aborting” the governor of Missouri, vocal opposition to born-alive legislation, and repulsively evil degenerates over at ByCommonConsent suggesting that even a full-term baby is basically just twitching and isn’t really “alive” for days or weeks following its birth.  

The only empirically-verifiable bright-lines we have for human life are fertilization and heartbeat (and maybe implantation-you’d know better than I whether that can be confirmed without physically opening up the womb in a way that risks the pregnancy).  Unfortunately, all of these definitions of “human life” are terribly inconvenient for a society that prioritizes getting and keeping women in the sexual marketplace for as long as possible, and sees pregnancy and motherhood as obstacles to that priority; so in the aftermath of the Sexual Revolution, we just can’t bring ourselves to admit that these little beasties might actually be “alive” and we dream up all kinds of explanations as to why they aren’t, really—which explanations then erode the historical Western “culture of life” that Dubya was fond of talking about.

5.  I don’t think that would be necessary.  We don’t need to deny the humanity of another person before deploying lethal force against them in self-defense.  We weigh the factors as carefully as possible under the circumstances, sorrowfully come to a conclusion as to what our own safety requires, and then do what needs to be done.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

you’re still fundamentally talking about a milieu of right-and-wrong, which forms the basis for much of our state and federal criminal codes.

Can you specify any criminal code that isn't codification of right-and-wrong?

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can you specify any criminal code that isn't codification of right-and-wrong?

Well, maybe those city ordinances that ban plastic drinking straws.   

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Some, like you, suggest “viability”

Except that it is not just MoE that suggests this as a test. I did not see a quote from a church handbook in this thread, but the gospel topics essay on abortion (I believe using language similar to the handbooks) that

Quote

that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as ... when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

Maybe we want to try to wrangle whether that is the same thing as "viability" or not, but it sure seems to be a very similar concept -- and similarly difficult to pin down to a "bright line" between which defects will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth and which defects will.

In some ways I think this is the most intriguing part of this discussion -- is how these kind of official statements from the Church seem to contrast with others on the pro-life spectrum and how our Church allows for exceptions that others don't want to allow for. As the OP asked -- does the Church's position fall short?

Edited May 21, 2019 by MrShorty

[The Folk Prophet]

@MarginOfError, it strikes me that you're trying to inject relative moralism into government/law.

Well law cannot really work that way in that law is the codification of morality.

for example:

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, maybe those city ordinances that ban plastic drinking straws.   

JaG implies (jokingly) that because HE personally believes using drinking straws is not "wrong" they shouldn't be banned. But, of course, the reason such bans are put in place is because people in power in certain places believe using them is wrong.

But you seem to be implying that if JaG believes using straws to not be wrong and you believe using straws to be wrong, that you both ought to be able to legally get your way.

So tell me, how can using drinking straws be both legal and illegal?

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Except that it is not just MoE that suggests this as a test. I did not see a quote from a church handbook in this thread, but the gospel topics essay on abortion (I believe using language similar to the handbooks) that

https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

Maybe we want to try to wrangle whether that is the same thing as "viability" or not, but it sure seems to be a very similar concept -- and similarly difficult to pin down to a "bright line" between which defects will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth and which defects will.

In some ways I think this is the most intriguing part of this discussion -- is how these kind of official statements from the Church seem to contrast with others on the pro-life spectrum and how our Church allows for exceptions that others don't want to allow for. As the OP asked -- does the Church's position fall short?

There is a world of difference between a fetus that is not (or potentially not ) viable because of birth defects.  And a fetus that is not viable because it has not had enough time... 

The later has a very easy and clear 'fix' the former does not.

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Except that it is not just MoE that suggests this as a test. I did not see a quote from a church handbook in this thread, but the gospel topics essay on abortion (I believe using language similar to the handbooks) that

https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

Maybe we want to try to wrangle whether that is the same thing as "viability" or not, but it sure seems to be a very similar concept -- and similarly difficult to pin down to a "bright line" between which defects will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth and which defects will.

In some ways I think this is the most intriguing part of this discussion -- is how these kind of official statements from the Church seem to contrast with others on the pro-life spectrum and how our Church allows for exceptions that others don't want to allow for. As the OP asked -- does the Church's position fall short?

As I said above:  in the long run, none of us are “viable”.  In the shorter run, though, it is not “wrangling” to point out (as @estradling75 does) the difference between “not viable yet” versus “will, and can, never be viable”.

I don’t see the Church position as “falling short” at all.  The Church’s position is based in theology, not social science—the two overlap but are not identical.  

From a theological standpoint—yes, as Saints we know that life begins when the spirit enters, and that event probably isn’t contemporaneous with conception; and for “permanently non-viable” babies maybe it doesn’t happen at all.  Further, whether the fetuses at issue in the “hard cases” are alive or not, the Lord excuses their abortion in at least some cases due to the anguish being suffered by the mother.

From a civil/sociological/legal standpoint, though—no one outside of our faith is likely to be convinced by the Church’s theology as to when the spirit enters the body.  Thus, in in our capacities as citizens of a democratic republic we have to look at the secularist definitions of what is and isn’t life, and the logical implications of adopting any particular definition.  From that perspective, I think any definition other than fertilization/implantation/heartbeat lead us to some pretty dark places—as the both abortion-loving and murderous Jim Carrey (and thousands (millions?) of others who echo his talking points) make perfectly clear.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

Well, here's the thing, TFP...I will concede that a lot of law is codified morality. But importantly, it is the codification of widespread morality. But I would argue it is less about right vs. wrong and more about just vs. unjust. We evaluate concepts like, "should one individual be able to take another's property without compensation?" 

In terms of abortion, the concepts we are weighing are along the lines of "should one line be able to require another to host it to birth?" and "should one life be able to terminate the life growing within itself?" Which of those lives has just claim over the other?  Neither is independent or free of the effects of the interests of the other. And I don't get the feeling there is widespread consensus regarding how to answer those questions.  

I'm not interested in relative moralism; I merely recognize that morality here isn't steady enough to build a meaningful decision.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Well, here's the thing, TFP...I will concede that a lot of law is codified morality. But importantly, it is the codification of widespread morality. But I would argue it is less about right vs. wrong and more about just vs. unjust. We evaluate concepts like, "should one individual be able to take another's property without compensation?" 

In terms of abortion, the concepts we are weighing are along the lines of "should one line be able to require another to host it to birth?" and "should one life be able to terminate the life growing within itself?" Which of those lives has just claim over the other?  Neither is independent or free of the effects of the interests of the other. And I don't get the feeling there is widespread consensus regarding how to answer those questions.  

I'm not interested in relative moralism; I merely recognize that morality here isn't steady enough to build a meaningful decision.

MoE, I agree that the task is easier with a universally-accepted morality.  But—we used to have that, as pertaining to abortion; and it has decayed due to two issues:  first, the conscientious PR effort of a bunch of sexual profligates who were more interesting in getting laid than in making sure they truly weren’t hurting anyone; and second, the imposition by the Supreme Court of a moral code that the majority of the country disagreed with; and then forcing the country to stew in that chaos for several decades until all semblance of consensus was broken (see also:  gay marriage). 

And frankly, if the United States of 2019 can’t even agree on “the person who consciously makes the mess is the one who should bear the primary inconvenience of cleaning up that mess”—maybe we shouldn’t be a single country anymore. 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Except that it is not just MoE that suggests this as a test. I did not see a quote from a church handbook in this thread, but the gospel topics essay on abortion (I believe using language similar to the handbooks) that

https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

Maybe we want to try to wrangle whether that is the same thing as "viability" or not, but it sure seems to be a very similar concept -- and similarly difficult to pin down to a "bright line" between which defects will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth and which defects will.

In some ways I think this is the most intriguing part of this discussion -- is how these kind of official statements from the Church seem to contrast with others on the pro-life spectrum and how our Church allows for exceptions that others don't want to allow for. As the OP asked -- does the Church's position fall short?

I'll pile on to this one as well.  The Church most definitely does not use viability by itself as a metric for the moral evaluation of abortion. What it does use is "viability following birth," and, using cold hearted terms, permits individuals to engage in a cost-benefit analysis regarding continuing the pregnancy when viability past birth is unlikely.

But as far as the Church is concerned, early termination of a pregnancy is a serious no-no.