How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

[ConstantLearner]

It’s hard for us men to fully comprehend the emotional distress such a woman must feel: first being raped, then carrying her rapist’s baby. That is why a TOTAL ban on abortion without taking into account such terrible circumstances as rape and incest, the life and health of the mother, and carrying a baby that is so sickly that s/he, if born alive at all, will be terribly deformed and in pain, is not likely to take place, especially in this day and age of women’s rights. While all of the above make up a relatively small percentage of all abortions, they do occur. So what about abortion on demand on the part of the woman for no other reason than she believes she is not ready for a baby psychologically, financially, age-wise, career-wise, etc.? What about a ban on this kind of abortion, which comprises the vast majority? A compromise solution or still too harsh for the woman and her right to privacy?

But Catholics who believe abortion is killing would still be condoning killing even in cases of rape and incest. A living baby is a living baby, no matter how it was conceived. One can’t say, “Abortion is murder, and murder is wrong,” yet make exceptions. That is having your cake and eating it, too.

I do not believe in abortion myself, but I do think the Constitution of the US guarantees a woman’s right to have one, but I’m no constitutional scholar.

 

[ConstantLearner]

But I didn’t actually argue that a fetus isn’t human. I argued that it isn’t a human being , because being refers to the present capacity for human agency, which an early bundle of cells don’t collectively possess yet.

I think a fetus is a human being, but until a certain stage, not a viable human being. Does the fact that it’s not viable make it disposable? I don’t think so.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I’m not sure why you keep bringing up souls and religion. This isn’t a religious issue—unless you think laws against killing people are somehow exclusively religious.

I agree with you. Abortion, in the US, is not a religious issue; it’s a legal issue, and it’s legality was predicated on a woman’s right to privacy as expressed in the Fourth Amendment, not on whether or not a fetus should be accorded the rights and privileges of those already born.

 

[kkerwin1]

A don’t agree with these semantics, which is why I gave the fairly gruesome examples of a braindead coma patient and a corpse.

Saying that something IS, i.e. using the verb “to be” with respect to an object being locatable in space and time, is really not how I think we use the term, “being.” We could have talked about rock beings and tree beings-- but we don’t. I’ve never heard the word “being” used except in the context of living, sentient agents-- people, hypothetical aliens, God, etc.

I understand. I hate arguing from semantics. If you prefer, please feel free to throw out the purely semantic portion of my argument, and argue against my point about there being no change in what an individual human is in its development from zygote to adult, and until death. Put another way, that there is never a point when a fetus is “one human life” and then “another human life” when it develops sufficient neuropsychological capacity to have an internal experience, intellect, and will.

Thank you for your many thoughtful posts. I will try to address them all, but I think one post per session is about all that I can manage right now. Give me a couple of days, if you would, to address the others.

Thank you for the opportunity to learn from you. Certainly, please take all the time that you need. I’ll try to refrain from responding until you’re done.

Best,
Kris

 

[kkerwin1]

But Catholics who believe abortion is killing would still be condoning killing even in cases of rape and incest. A living baby is a living baby, no matter how it was conceived. One can’t say, “Abortion is murder, and murder is wrong,” yet make exceptions. That is having your cake and eating it, too.

The bolded is correct. Catholics don’t support abortion in the cases of rape or incest. While these are both horrific crimes, we believe that the fetus is owed the same level of respect that its mother is owed. That just as its mother should never have been raped, that also the fetus should not be killed.

I think a fetus is a human being, but until a certain stage, not a viable human being. Does the fact that it’s not viable make it disposable? I don’t think so.

This seems to be correct, both morally and scientifically. Although, it should be noted that medical advances may one day make the issue of viability outside of the womb a moot point. How beautiful our bodies are created that modern science hasn’t yet figured out a way to duplicate the womb!

I agree with you. Abortion, in the US, is not a religious issue; it’s a legal issue, and it’s legality was predicated on a woman’s right to privacy as expressed in the Fourth Amendment, not on whether or not a fetus should be accorded the rights and privileges of those already born.

The problem here is that, if the fetus is a human who is owed the same level of respect that a born child is owed, then privacy isn’t a good enough reason to kill it. For example, a mother doesn’t enjoy the right to privacy to kill her born children; why should she have a right to privacy to kill her unborn child if it is owed the same level of dignity as owed to her born children? Therefore, I believe that the issue of privacy is ultimately a red herring.

 

[benjamin1973]

Again, I think you can say that a fetus is human, in about the same sense that hair is human-- it has DNA, it is associated with humanity. But “being” surely has always meant, wherever it has been used, to refer to conscious agency.

 

[benjamin1973]

I understand. I hate arguing from semantics. If you prefer, please feel free to throw out the purely semantic portion of my argument, and argue against my point about there being no change in what an individual human is in its development from zygote to adult, and until death. Put another way, that there is never a point when a fetus is “one human life” and then “another human life” when it develops sufficient neuropsychological capacity to have an internal experience, intellect, and will.

I believe I have argued that, with my rainbow analogy. Not being able to find a distinct transition line doesn’t mean that a very clear transition hasn’t been made.

I can look at a late-term infant, and know that it has a brain and nerves which definitely allow it the capacity to feel. I can look at a newly-fertilized egg, and know that it cannot have any of the traits that a developed human has, except the following:

1. human DNA
2. possibly a soul

Unique DNA itself isn’t the issue, because we don’t protect a corpse-- or, for that matter, hair. Therefore, I have to believe that it is religious beliefs which are behind the aversion to abortion-- at least to very early-term abortion. I’m fine with that, and I think it’s a perfectly legitimate philosophical position to take.

If you say, “I believe, as an adherent of the Catholic Faith and a believer in Christ our Lord, that instantly upon conception, God infuses a zygote with a soul, and so I cannot in good conscience tolerate abortion,” then I’m fine with that; in fact, I admire your level of conviction and your willingness to act on that conviction. However, it requires the imposition of your world view on other people to put that into legislation, and to me that violates the separation of Church and State.

In other words, I don’t think there is a really legitimate secular reason to overturn Roe vs Wade. I think abortion is better combated by doing good deeds as a Catholic, bringing in especially poor young girls for emotional and even financial support as they struggle in poor areas, and convincing those people to accept the Church and its teachings. In brief: if you want the population to act as Catholics must act, you have to find a way to make more of them Catholic.

 

[kkerwin1]

I believe I have argued that, with my rainbow analogy. Not being able to find a distinct transition line doesn’t mean that a very clear transition hasn’t been made.

You have not, no. To be honest, you’re making the same philosophical mistake that you have been making since you and I started discussing with one another directly; you’re confusing the traits of a thing with the thing itself.

You have not described an essential difference (a difference having to do with the essence of a thing), but rather a qualitative one (a difference having to do with a thing’s traits or qualities). A color is not a physical entity, but rather a trait of light expressed by the entity of the photon.The photon’s color corresponds to its frequency or wavelength (it doesn’t matter which, they vary with the other’s inverse). Moreover, at a given instant, a rainbow has a finite number of photons that are passing through the retina of the observer, each with their own wavelength; thus, there are a finite (albeit large) number of colors in a rainbow at any given instant. Consequently, while our eyes may have difficulty perceiving the small changes between colors as we progress through the spectrum, the colors are actually quite discrete. Finally, the color of a given photon is not constant; it can be affected by the Doppler Effect. This effect is critical for forecasting the weather of course, but it has also been instrumental to astronomers and cosmologists in determining the rate of acceleration of the universe’s expansion. Specifically, they refer to it as “red shifting”, since wavelengths lengthen (like the long wavelengths of red light vs, say, blue) as the Earth moves further away from the light source. In this method, the same physical entity, the proton, can have its color changed.

Moving away from metaphor and back to the topic at hand, just because a developing fetus gains a new trait does not mean that it is a new fetus or a new life.

To put this another way, it’s as though you are arguing that if you slap a new coat of paint on an old car that you’ve made the junker brand new, or at least a different car.

 

[ConstantLearner]

The problem here is that, if the fetus is a human who is owed the same level of respect that a born child is owed, then privacy isn’t a good enough reason to kill it. For example, a mother doesn’t enjoy the right to privacy to kill her born children; why should she have a right to privacy to kill her unborn child if it is owed the same level of dignity as owed to her born children? Therefore, I believe that the issue of privacy is ultimately a red herring.

The problem is that in the US the fetus has not been accorded the same rights and privileges as the already born. I don’t think the US Constitution affords them those rights, even though I, personally, am against abortion. The framers of the Constitution overlooked abortion in favor of privacy. I would have no problem with that because I am a fluid constructionist, whereas an ultra-conservative like Kavanaugh is a strict constructionist.

 

[ConstantLearner]

In other words, I don’t think there is a really legitimate secular reason to overturn Roe vs Wade. I think abortion is better combated by doing good deeds as a Catholic, bringing in especially poor young girls for emotional and even financial support as they struggle in poor areas, and convincing those people to accept the Church and its teachings. In brief: if you want the population to act as Catholics must act, you have to find a way to make more of them Catholic.

I agree with you.

 

[benjamin1973]

You have not, no. To be honest, you’re making the same philosophical mistake that you have been making since you and I started discussing with one another directly; you’re confusing the traits of a thing with the thing itself. You have not described an essential difference (a difference having to do with the essence of a thing), but rather a qualitative one (a difference having to do with a thing’s traits or qualities).

So far as we are concerned, a thing is a collection of its properties: mass, form, light, function, etc. When you start talking about the underlying essence of things, you are begging the question-- if there IS something essentially human beyond the properties we can observe, then the Christian view is already correct, and abortion may be highly immoral.

However, if someone doesn’t already believe in that essential quality, but insists that a thing is a collection of its properties, then how are you to demonstrate your view? Surely, not by pointing to any combination of those properties.

And this is what I said before-- demanding legislative actions beyond observable properties, when the immaterial properties are sourced in a religious tradition, violates the separation of Church and State.

A color is not a physical entity, but rather a trait of light expressed by the entity of the photon.The photon’s color corresponds to its frequency or wavelength (it doesn’t matter which, they vary with the other’s inverse). Moreover, at a given instant, a rainbow has a finite number of photons that are passing through the retina of the observer, each with their own wavelength; thus, there are a finite (albeit large) number of colors in a rainbow at any given instant. Consequently . . .

I think you’ve stretched the metaphor too far. I’m not talking about the physical properties of photons (which do not, by the way, actually HAVE a color). I’m just saying that two states can be discrete despite not having a clear-cut dividing line.

To put this another way, it’s as though you are arguing that if you slap a new coat of paint on an old car that you’ve made the junker brand new, or at least a different car.

I wouldn’t categorize the development of a nervous system, and the subsequent capacity for subjective experience and the expression of the agency of free will, a “new coat of paint.”

I wouldn’t care much if my brain was transplanted into a robot, so long as I could still feel and experience. I would grieve the loss of a child’s body fairly little if he or she could have a complete functioning consciousness transplanted into a cloned body.

To me, the body is a vehicle for the experiencer. When the Bible says God created Man in His image, I don’t take that to mean God has 10 fingers, a brain and an appendix. I take it to mean that God has endowed us with consciousness, with a conscience, and with the agency of free will. It is not the molding of the clay for which I thank God, but the breath of awareness.

 

[benjamin1973]

But, we instinctively and semantically differentiate between the life of individual cells and that of an entire organism. There is a sort of “gestalt life” of all multi-cellular organisms, and it is this gestalt life that I am interested in. Individual cells on our bodies are dying all the time, but we continue to live. While the arm is attached and has a distinct DNA from the rest of the tissue in the body, it is still part of the organism to which the whole body belongs. When the arm is removed, its cells that have DNA distinct from the rest of the body continue to live. However, none of those cells possess the capacity to execute a body plan and grow into a separate gestalt life. It remains just an arm. Therefore, there is no moral objection to removing and safely disposing it.

When the zygote, which has distinct DNA from the rest of the tissue in the mother’s body, is attached to the mother and is not independently viable because it lacks a heart, a brain, and all the things which a complete organism has, then we have a very similar condition. Even though it has distinct DNA, it is part of the mother’s complete functioning organism, until such a time as it has developed sufficiently that it can be safely separated from her. You think of it as a baby, growing on its own in a kind of safe shelter; but it is not that-- the role of the mother’s body in bringing a zygote to fruition as a new human being is absolute.

The only difference is the potential of the zygote eventually to be detached and live independently, in the future.

 

[Elf01]

kkerwin1:

But, we instinctively and semantically differentiate between the life of individual cells and that of an entire organism. There is a sort of “gestalt life” of all multi-cellular organisms, and it is this gestalt life that I am interested in. Individual cells on our bodies are dying all the time, but we continue to live. While the arm is attached and has a distinct DNA from the rest of the tissue in the body, it is still part of the organism to which the whole body belongs. When the arm is removed, its cells that have DNA distinct from the rest of the body continue to live. However, none of those cells possess the capacity to execute a body plan and grow into a separate gestalt life. It remains just an arm. Therefore, there is no moral objection to removing and safely disposing it.

When the zygote, which has distinct DNA from the rest of the tissue in the mother’s body, is attached to the mother and is not independently viable because it lacks a heart, a brain, and all the things which a complete organism has, then we have a very similar condition. Even though it has distinct DNA, it is part of the mother’s complete functioning organism, until such a time as it has developed sufficiently that it can be safely separated from her. You think of it as a baby, growing on its own in a kind of safe shelter; but it is not that-- the role of the mother’s body in bringing a zygote to fruition as a new human being is absolute.

The only difference is the potential of the zygote eventually to be detached and live independently, in the future.

Would you say the same about conjoined twins who share conjoined twins who share vital organs and cannot be separated without one dying?

 

[Augustinian]

And this is what I said before-- demanding legislative actions beyond observable properties, when the immaterial properties are sourced in a religious tradition, violates the separation of Church and State.

Well, the Legal Abortion is based on the religious traditions of Episcopalianism, the UCC, Unitarian-Universalists, Secular Humanists and others.

Is it important to divorce the state from such policies because of that?

Further, leading Catholic politician Nancy Pelosi has pointed out that legal abortion is “sacred” to her and her religious traditions, even though many of us might disagree with this.

 

[otjm]

The morality of follosing how law is adjudicated is well settled in both law and legal ethics.

The Supreme Court is not going to set aside Roe vs. Wade and related cases unless a case comes before them providing that specifically. And given how cases arrive at the SC, it is extremely unlikely there will be a flat over-turn. The vast majority of cases arrive on a specific question, narrow in scope. Few cases come up with a sweeping question so broad as to provide an overturn of a previous decision.

The panic attack coming from the Democrats and from the liberal media is for the most part a smoke screen. Overturning Roe would simply put the question back to the individual states, not end abortion.

 

[crenfro]

Here’s my opinion, for what it’s worth:

Can’t be overturned quickly enough. How many abortions, how many people are we now missing from our country - is it 61,000,000? Don’t know if I have the correct amount, but anything greater than 0 is too many.

Done with opinion.

 

[benjamin1973]

If they both had a nervous system, mental functioning and the capacity for pain and the agency of free will. . . no way.

 

[benjamin1973]

Absolutely. If there were religious justifications made in order to justify abortion, then that would invalidate the legislation.

 

[joeybaggz]

It’s hard for us men to fully comprehend the emotional distress such a woman must feel:

Agree wholeheartedly, MBoy, and in the case of rape or incest, I think, probably, the majority of us on the pro-life side of the fence would not deny the use of RU486 (or whatever the “morning after” pill is). in that situation. I think we must allow a woman the freedom to exercise her God-given free will in such a situation.

What about a ban on this kind of abortion, which comprises the vast majority? A compromise solution or still too harsh for the woman and her right to privacy?

Again, a source of debate as to the exercise of free will. However, speaking for myself on this side of the pro-life fence, it isn’t so much the right of the woman to choice, as it is the right of a developing human being, in its most helpless and dependent state, to its own life. I think for most of us, it is not so much a question of civil law, but “thou shalt not kill.” To me, divine trumps civil.

I am not a lawyer, but if I remember Roe v. Wade gave a woman the freedom to procure an abortion. However as the developing life advanced, it accrued more rights, even under that law. Abortions in 2nd and even 3rd trimester is not the elimination of a “clump of cells” the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

Granted, it is a tough question in its entirety.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Did Nancy Pelosi actually say that legal abortion is ‘sacred’ to her religious tradition? That would be odd if she did. Is her tradition not Catholic?

Anyhow, I would add to the list of religious traditions that advocate for legal abortion Quakerism and Judaism. The latter takes a peculiar stance, however, as in so many other issues, since it is always based on legal intricacies. Normally, abortion is not endorsed by ANY stream of Judaism. However, if the mother’s life or health is endangered, Judaism gives preference to the mother over the life of the unborn baby, even in the third trimester right up until birth. And, paradoxically perhaps, it is Orthodox rabbis who most insist on this since ensoulment does not occur, according to strict Jewish belief, until birth. Thornier issues involve rape and incest, and especially if an unborn baby is ill and will be born terribly deformed and in pain, or if the ill baby directly threatens the health and life of the baby who is relatively healthy. Regardless of this, abortion, according to Jewish law, is always a last resort, never a first, so that abortion on demand is strictly forbidden.