Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

If she fails to report the crime and waits 9 months to cry rape then no abortion is not justifiable

The law in this country does not require a woman to report a rape but it does require her to have an abortion within twenty four weeks [ it might be
different in America ] if she wants one regardless of the reason.

Twenty four weeks is a long time to carry a "rape child" without doing anything about it. Twenty-four hours maybe. Twenty four weeks? Get off your ass and do something.

A woman who wants an abortion as a result of being raped is obviously going to have
it as soon as possible.

Not necessarily, and therein lies the problem. They SHOULD be required to report it, and have an abortion if necessary, as soon as possible...like the next day. And then there are those women who get pregnant, carry the child for eight months and THEN say they were raped because they got pissed off at their former boyfriend/sex partner and don't want the "fetus" anymore.There is a popular opinion that if you don't report a rape, you weren't raped.

But twenty four weeks is the legal limit so just saying.

But that could be changed to twelve weeks or 24 hours if that's what the collective wants, right?

Now compelling a woman to report a rape within nine months is entirely
unacceptable because it does not take in to account the psychological trauma she may be experiencing which would be exacerbated by having a rape
trial.

A rape victim doesn't have to report a rape at all, but shouldn't expect any special consideration from society if he/she refuses to do so. "Psychological trauma" needs to be treated and I'm not interested in treating women like children and allowing them to excuse themselves for failing to do the right thing in a timely manner. I don't get that dispensation so why should they? If I get the crap beaten out of me in a bar brawl I have a statutorily limited time (90 days) to report the assault or I lose my right to do so. Why should rape be any different? For one thing, failing to report a rape leaves a rapist at large and unreported and therefore free to rape again.

It's my belief that crime victims have a duty to report all crimes as soon as possible, regardless of the hardship it causes them, in order to maximize the chances that serial criminals will be caught and more victimization prevented. If you don't report a crime, then you get no sympathy from me as you suffer the consequences thereof because you have selfishly decided that you don't care if others are victimized, so why should we care that you were? Actions, and inactions have consequences.

Consequently the woman should only press charges if she wants to not if any one else wants her to.

True, but she must also be held liable for the consequences of not doing so and shouldn't expect sympathy from society.

It is not necessary to report the rape before
she has an abortion if she decides to press charges.

Huh? If she's using rape as the justification for getting an abortion she has to report it, and having an abortion before reporting the rape and then reporting a rape smacks of willful destruction of evidence which could be used by the defense to exonerate the suspect (specifically DNA evidence from the fetus). If one is raped, one needs to proceed immediately to the nearest hospital ER and report the rape and demand that the police be called and that a rape kit examination and forensic collection of evidence be performed before doing anything else at all. Otherwise, any case against the alleged rapist is severely damaged, potentially to the point of rejection of the case by the DA. After all, the suspect is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury at trial, and destruction or failure to collect evidence is the number one reason for failure to convict.

However a jury would be more sympathetic toward her if she did have an abortion before any trial

Maybe. But not really relevant. If she reports the rape, has a forensic exam done immediately and then follows anti-pregnancy protocols her chances of needing an abortion are very, very small. If, on the other hand, she waits 9 months and then makes a rape complaint and demands an abortion of a fully-formed viable fetus she should probably be told she cannot do so in either case. Tempus fugit and all that.

[surreptitious57]

DNA evidence in rape trials can be next to use less because it does not invalidate consent. Since all a rapist has to say is that the sex was consensual
and then it is a case of who does the jury believe : the man or the woman ? You cannot examine consent under a microscope. And so if both parties
do not agree on whether it was given or not then there is no objective means of determining who is lying and who is telling the truth. Now I would
believe the woman as a matter of principle but juries are always instructed to think logically not emotionally and so one would be none the wiser

You cannot compare common assault to rape because of the psychological trauma involved. The two are absolutely not the same. A man getting
beat up by a man or men is completely different to a woman being raped by a man or men. What is the statute of limitations on rape in America
and if it is different to that of common assault why do you think that is so ? And if it is the same the law needs to be changed as soon as possible

[Seth]

DNA evidence in rape trials can be next to useless because it does not invalidate consent.

Nonsense. It can identify the individual with nearly absolute reliability.

Since all a rapist has to say is that the sex was consensual
and then it is a case of who does the jury believe : the man or the woman ?

Well, that's the case in every rape trial now isn't it? But the first burden for the prosecution is to prove that one specific individual had sex with the alleged victim, which DNA proves beyond all reasonable doubt.

You can not examine consent under a microscope and so if both parties
do not agree on whether it was given or not then there is no objective means of determining who is lying and who is telling the truth.

True enough. And therein lies the difficulty with rape prosecutions. This is particularly true in "date rape" or "acquaintance rape" scenarios, as opposed to violent stranger rapes.

But, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant.

Now I would believe the woman as a matter of principle.

You must not know much about women. They can and do lie about being raped just like everybody else lies about many things, and there are many reasons why a woman might lie about being raped by a date or acquaintance. It's pure idiocy to assume a woman claiming rape is telling the truth, particularly if she waits months to make the claim.

But juries are always instructed to think logically not emotionally and so one would be none the wiser

And so it should be.

You cannot compare common assault to rape because of the psychological trauma involved.

Of course I can, and I do.

The two are absolutely not the same.

No they aren't, but they are both violent crimes which need to be reported.

A man getting beat up by a man or men is completely different to a woman being raped by a man or men.

Not when it comes to what the alleged victim needs to do in response to the crime it isn't.

What is the statute of limitations on rape in America
and if it is different to that of common assault why do you think that is so ?

Depends largely on the state.

Colorado Sex Crimes – The Colorado Statute of Limitations and Sentencing Provisions for Sex Offenses
What Is the Statute of Limitations for Sex Offenses?

The Colorado statute of limitations (Section 16-5-401, C.R.S) requires law enforcement personnel to commence prosecution for criminal offenses within a set period of time. The time period is different, depending on the specific crime and its circumstances. Murder, kidnapping, treason, specified sex offenses against children, and forgery have no time limit for commencement of prosecution. Most other felonies must be prosecuted within three years of the commission of the crime. The time limit is suspended for up to five years while an offender is absent from the state of Colorado.

Felony sex offenses

Sex offenses, especially those committed against children, have their own categories of limitations to prosecution. The time period during which an individual may be prosecuted for a felony sex offense is up to ten years after the commission of the crime. Prosecution must commence within ten years after the victim reaches the age of 18 for the felony offenses of sexual assault and unlawful sexual contact when the victim is under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. Prosecution for failure to register as a sex offender against children must commence within three years of the commission of the crime. There is no statute of limitations for specified sex offenses against children.

Misdemeanor sex offenses

Prosecution of misdemeanor offenses charged under the sex assault (Section 18-3-402 (3), C.R.S.) and unlawful sexual contact (Section 18-3-404 (2), C.R.S.) statutes must be commenced within five years of the commission of the crime. All other misdemeanor sex offenses must be prosecuted within 18 months of the commission of the crime.

DNA exception

In a case where a sex offense is reported to law enforcement officials within ten years of the commission of the crime and the identity of the offender is determined by DNA evidence, there is no time limit for commencing prosecution

And if it is the same the law needs to be changed as soon as possible

Same as what? Simple misdemeanor assault? It's not the same, but the principle remains the same. Report all crimes as soon as possible or risk not being able to pursue prosecution effectively.

[surreptitious57]

The overwhelming majority of women that report rape are telling the truth. There are sadly some who do manufacture rape allegations for ulterior motive
And they should be jailed for wasting police time and also for perjury if they lie under oath in a court of law. But they are a very tiny minority indeed. And
casting any doubt on those who have genuinely been raped only allows more rapists to avoid justice. Unless there is solid evidence that a woman is actually
lying I would always as a matter of principle believe her word over that of the man any day. Remember most rapists never end up in court either because of
fear upon the part of the woman or lack of evidence or both. Any that do have a more than a reasonable chance of being convicted. A woman that has been
brave enough to confront hers needs to see justice done. But what she definitely does not need to see is who ever raped her walking out of court a free man

[JimC]

The overwhelming majority of women that report rape are telling the truth. There are sadly some who do manufacture rape allegations for ulterior motive
And they should be jailed for wasting police time and also for perjury if they lie under oath in a court of law. But they are a very tiny minority indeed. And
casting any doubt on those who have genuinely been raped only allows more rapists to avoid justice. Unless there is solid evidence that a woman is actually
lying I would always as a matter of principle believe her word over that of the man any day. Remember most rapists never end up in court either because of
fear upon the part of the woman or lack of evidence or both. Any that do have a more than a reasonable chance of being convicted. A woman that has been
brave enough to confront hers needs to see justice done. But what she definitely does not need to see is who ever raped her walking out of court a free man

I'm sure that it is definitely a majority of women who tell the truth about being raped, but "overwhelming majority" might be stretching the point. I'd like to see hard data before reaching a conclusion.

[Forty Two]

Your foreskin, placed inside the uterus of a woman, will not naturally reproduce itself into a fully-mature human being.

So like I said previously, you are relying on what something MIGHT BECOME to define what it is today.

Wrong. I'm discussing what the fertilized egg HAS BECOME upon the formation of the zygote, which is a new, living genetically-unique human being.

Maybe so, but even assuming that without admitting it (since it depends on the definition of "human being"), there are plenty of human beings that can be killed under given circumstances. Calling it a human being doesn't mean there aren't circumstances in which it is good policy to allow it to be aborted.

[Forty Two]

There is nothing to resolve there. Genetically, it's human. But, that doesn't resolve the ultimate issue of abortion.

As long as we agree that it is a human being, which is to say that it is a living organism comprised of human tissue based on unique human DNA formed at the formation of the zygote, we can agree.

I agree it is human. Human being has a slightly different connotation.

Pro-abortionists base the majority of their justifications for permitting abortion on the fallacious claim that a fetus is not a living human being (organism)

And, there you have illustrated how you and they are using terms differently. A thing can be human without being a human being. It is not fallacious to say that a fertilzed egg is a human fertilized egg, but is not a human being.

A fertilized human egg is not a human being. The biological materials involved are genetically identical to the parent donors until the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus 22 to 26 hours after fertilization. At that moment the biological materials change irrevocably from two distinct DNA patterns of the parents to a new, distinct and unique DNA pattern of the new human organism, which at that moment achieves the status of "being" (or existing) and is therefore properly classified at that moment, and at all time thereafter until death, as a "human being." [/quote]

That's one way to look at it.

However, even if we accept that as true for the sake of argument, it doesn't mean abortion has to be illegal in all instances.

You are correct to say that "a thing", which I take to mean tissue originating from a human being, can be "human" without being a "human being." Thus, foreskin is "human" but not a "human being." The zygote, however, is something entirely different from every other cell in a human body in that it is a new and unique combination of DNA creating a new living human being at the zygotic stage of development. The new living human being never changes character thereafter, it merely continues to develop and mature. It becomes comprised of human tissue as the cells divide and differentiate into different roles, but at all times that tissue comprises a living human being, not some unknown or abstract creature of undefined genetic origin or purpose that suddenly and miraculously becomes a human being only when ejected from the birth canal.

I've never said the ejectment from the birth canal is the relevant cut-off point. And, as I noted, what you call it, whether human, human being, it, mob, whatever -- it doesn't change the analysis.

Thus, the zygote, and all it's arbitrarily labeled stages such as blastocyst, embryo or fetus, is at all times a human being. That is simply a scientific fact.

Whether that human being is entitled to respect for its fundamental rights is an entirely different and non-scientific question.

Sure, but the term human being is not generally used synonymously with human, and the separate nature of the DNA is not an official definition. Science explains what it is -- and the DNA of the parents merge as you described. Whether it's a human being is not a scientific term.

Not all pro choice folks use the exit of the birth canal as the point at which a human fetus becomes a human being.

Indeed. But they are still wrong no matter when they choose to draw that conclusion because they are simply scientifically ignorant and wrong.

No, because even if you say it's a human being, that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a compromise position on abortion. You are making the leap that if we accept that science shows the embryo is a human being, then abortion must always be an illegal option.

One perfectly rational approach is to say that, sure, even assuming it's a human being, it makes sense to allow abortions under given circumstances. Law does not have to track morality. Like some folks who think that violence in self defense is wrong under all circumstances. it's still perfectly fine for a society to make a law that says you can kill a human being if you are in actually risk of being killed yourself. Heck, you can even make a law that says it's not illegal to kill someone who you only think is out to expose you to a risk of bodily injury (even if you 're wrong, and they never wanted to expose you to risk of bodily injury), and you can even have a law where if two people are in a lifeboat and there is only food and water to save one of them, that it wouldn't be illegal for one person to kill the other to survive.

That kind of thing. You seem to think that calling it a human being means any legal abortion is scientifically "Wrong." That's not logically the case.

A pro-choicer like me doesn't know exactly when it becomes a human being, and frankly the term doesn't have much relevance to me in the abortion context.

It's always a human being, from the moment the zygote is formed. Whether it is endowed with independent rights is a political and social question, not a scientific one.

and, it's human-ness is one factor to consider in the moral and legal analysis. Some humans can be killed under given circumstances. The issue of law becomes a balancing of the interests, and that is open to a wide range of differing views, depending on what factors one thinks are most important.

I view it more as a pragmatic balance. Whatever you call the developing embryo or fetus, there just, as a practical matter, has to be available abortion for a variety of reasons. However, that availability does not have to be unlimited. At a certain point, and I think this is before birth, there has been enough time to decide, and the fetus is too close to birth to be arbitrarily killed.

My position is not based on the humanity of the tissues. It's based no pragmatism, an attempt to sensibly balance competing necessities.

And therein lies the conundrum. It's easy to discount the rights of the fetus (if there are any) by refusing to admit that it's a human being, which makes the balancing you refer to tipped heavily in favor of killing the fetus. This is the essential disconnect of the pro-abortion contingent. They, which includes you, refuse to acknowledge the fundamental scientific facts involved by denying that the organism living within the woman is in fact a living human being. By denying its humanity you tilt the balance away from reason and logic and towards politics and emotion.

I haven't refused to acknowledge that. I've told you it's human. You refuse to acknowledge that I've acknowledged that.

There is, inevitably, balance-tilting no matter what. But, the fact remains that humans can be legally killed for lots of reasons. Calling it human doesn't mean that we have to make all abortions illegal. Isn't that correct?

It's possible that we might make a law imposing the death penalty for littering.

Only by squarely facing the true facts involved, all of them, no matter how disturbing they might be to your political and social ideas, can a truly rational balancing of the competing "necessities" (I prefer "interests") be made.

Yes, and you should take your own advice. I've said that even if it's a human being, abortion should still be legal.

As a philosophical exercise, try examining your pragmatic stance on abortion from the position of fully acknowledging that in authorizing abortion you are in fact authorizing the killing of a living human being.

Yes, and I support the legal killing of lots of human beings. So do you.

Under what circumstances do you think it is rational and logical, and moral and ethical, to end a human life, any human life?

Oh, under many different circumstances. But, first off, moral and legal are two different things. I think that cheating on one's spouse is immoral, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I support legal killings of human beings in a variety of circumstances -- punishment of some heinous crimes, self-defense, defense of others, to save one's own life in the "stater of nature," to protect oneself when one's life is accidentally threatened, under circumstances where one person's life might save millions of people -- that sort of thing. There are many many instances.

In the case of an unborn human embryo, if it is determined that carrying it poses a significant risk to the life of the mother, I very much think it should be legal to abort it. That's one example. If during childbirth, there is a situation that arises where the mother or the child is going to die, then I think that someone has to make the decision to save one of them. These are unsavory decisions, but realities of life. Also, I don't think that a small child of 10 or 12 who is raped and impregnated should have to bear 9 months of carrying her rapists child, when an early abortion can save her that trauma. Those are some examples.

I certainly believe that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, moral and ethical to end a human life. The question that remains here is whether, or at what point it becomes immoral, unethical and unjustifiable to end a human life inside the womb.

Sure, and there are lots of reasons why it would be justifiable to end a human life. Heck, one can think of it as horribly immoral to ever do it, and yet still be of the mind that it should be legal. Law and morality are not the same.

And that is the core of the issue here, but it's an issue that cannot be rationally addressed when one side of the debate resorts to distorting and denying objective scientific fact as a central component of its argument. That's utterly irrational, which ought to be anathema here, of all places.

I don't see where I have done this.

The morality has little to do with the legality, in my view. A great many immoral things not only "can" be legal, but "should" be legal. Legality, to me, should be based on a rational and pragmatic approach to what provides the best outcome while serving legitimate governmental interests and achieving proper governmental purposes. There will, of course, be a wide range of opinion as to what are legitimate interests and purposes of government. However, protecting life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness of individual citizens, providing for the common defense and providing for the general welfare, are all pretty well accepted purposes of government. In the case of abortion, there is no clear or perfect way to serve those interests, so it's a balancing of interests -- life vs liberty -- what is in the general welfare? That kind of thing.

This presumes that a "legitimate government interest" or "proper government purpose" is the mandate of the law, which is to say it presumes (falsely I believe) that the interests of government (which is to say the collective in any democratic system) are always more important than the interests of the individual AGAINST the interests of the collective.

Not in the least. it does not presume that the government's interests are "always" more important. Neither the individual's rights nor the government's interest/purpose are "always" superior to the other. And, in the case of abortion, we don't just have one individual, we have two. So, we have the rights and interests of the mother along with the rights and interests of the unborn entity, and the governmental interests/purposes, to balance. Your assumption that the unborn entity's rights must take precedence over the woman's rights is another area where you simply make a declaration of what you believe to be a truism.

Your justification for abortion is more than a little fuzzy,

Of course, because as I said, it's pragmatic and based on a balancing of interests wherein people can have widely disparate opinions on what is most important and where the pragmatic line should be drawn (if at all). Life is not all black and white, and in some areas, we have a shade of grey where no perfect line can be drawn. Take ages of consent for sex between adults and minors. It's bright line drawn through a huge grey area, and many jurisdictions pick different lines. Some countries 18, some 16, some 14, some depend on if the parents consent, some depend on how old the respective sex partners are relative to each other, some have rules about relationships of trust (teacher/student, etc. that change the analysis). The science shows that we simply cannot say that all 15 year olds are not capable of consenting to sex with 21 year olds -- many 15 year olds know exactly what they're doing and are plenty mature. Heck, it used to be normal for 13, 14, and 15 year olds to marry and have children themselves. Romeo and Juliet were adolescents, etc. Yet, our culture has drawn a line that is a compromise of competing interests. It is imperfect.

which indicates to me that you have not spent much time truly examining the issue and your rationalizations and justifications for your position. I was the same way for most of my life, until, frankly, I began examining my reasoning and motives in response to posts at RDF and its progeny, including Rationalia. I've spent a lot of time in introspection and examination of the facts and my beliefs, which have resulted in substantial changes in my attitudes about abortion through reason and logic.

However, you have your logic wrong. And, you draw moral conclusions and then extend them to legal conclusions, by a leap. You have acknowledged that a person can still be pro choice even if they acknowledge the embryo as human, haven't you? Well, that's where I stand - sometimes, it should be legal to abort, even if it's human.

[Tero]

Abortion is a political issue, science does not deal with fairness to fetuses, our feelings etc. But since Seth brought up science, it can make recommendations to improve our lives. Even minimize guilt about abortions.

But science says it us a crime against humanity to have more than 2 babies in modern srates (with low infant death rates). A third baby could be awarded by lottery to one of 4 cousins.

All females over 12 are tested every monthand excess fetuses aborted. All males are tracked by DNA to count offspring. A 20 year window given to produce two offspring, then vasectomy. If only one offspring found, vasectomy at age 45.

[mistermack]

When women get pregnant it's not just their bodies, and that's the point. When you create another living human being, other interests than your own appear and may be considered by public policy in regulating how you treat others.

Thus sayeth the Supreme Court, so you go fuck yourself instead. But wear a condom.

The law in the US doesn't consider a fetus as a human being. Therefore, legal abortion is not murder.
So stick that up your ass.

[Seth]

The overwhelming majority of women that report rape are telling the truth.

This may be true, but it's not particularly relevant as any accusation of a crime could be false, which is why the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

There are sadly some who do manufacture rape allegations for ulterior motive

Yes, there are, and rather more I think than you would like to admit, particularly when it comes to acquaintance rape.

And they should be jailed for wasting police time and also for perjury if they lie under oath in a court of law.

Infrequently they are. The problem is that with an acquaintance rape it's a "she said, he said" situation where the commission of the crime depends upon whether or not consent to the sexual activity was given, and as ought to be obvious, ex post facto remorse or anger can turn consensual sex into a "date rape" very, very easily, and while it may not result in a criminal conviction even the allegation can destroy the accused's reputation, job and pretty much everything else, not to mention costing him tens of thousands of dollars in unwarranted legal costs just to address the charges. This makes it incredibly easy for a remorseful or angry woman to cry "DATE RAPE!" as a vindictive act because, we all know, hell hath no fury like a woman who doesn't get what she wants out of an intimate relationship.

And it's not just rape allegations that dissatisfied mentally unbalanced women use as a tool of revenge and to make themselves feel better, as I'm painfully aware of.

So, the notion that because "most women" are truthful about reporting rapes, therefore we should always believe the woman is fallacious nonsense.

Therefore, if a woman is to be given credence for such a complaint, it is incumbent upon her to do what any other crime victim is expected to do, which is preserve evidence and cooperate with authorities in determining the truth of the matter. Not reporting a rape for months, even though one gets pregnant as a result, and then having an abortion before any forensic evidence that might identify the "rapist" (or the true father, who has rights that are implicated) is in my opinion just cause to dismiss any such claims outright without further inquiry because the evidence has been willfully destroyed by the purported victim.

After all, a man's life and liberty are at stake here and the interests of justice for him far, far outweigh any inconvenience or emotional impact on the purported victim. Period.

But they are a very tiny minority indeed. And
casting any doubt on those who have genuinely been raped only allows more rapists to avoid justice.

Well, the system works this way: When an accusation of criminal activity is made against someone, doubt of their guilt is a presumption that must be overcome in order to convict that person of the crime, so there's nothing whatever wrong with being skeptical about rape claims, just as there's nothing wrong with being skeptical about any other crime claim. In order to substantiate any crime claim evidence proving the guilt of the defendant beyond all reasonable doubt is required. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

Unless there is solid evidence that a woman is actually
lying I would always as a matter of principle believe her word over that of the man any day.

Evidently you've never been falsely accused of a crime by an angry, vindictive and/or mentally unbalanced woman. You might not want to be quite so credulous because, trust me, false accusations by women against men happen all the time, including rape accusations, precisely because of the pernicious and ignorant attitude you have about the inherent truthfulness of women over that of men. Your attitude is both ignorant and completely sexist and you should contemplate that fact a bit more completely because you are part of the problem.

Remember most rapists never end up in court either because of fear upon the part of the woman or lack of evidence or both.

A good reason for women to carry guns and shoot men who try to rape them at the time, when there's lots of evidence and less chance for perjury.

Any that do have a more than a reasonable chance of being convicted.

Nonsense. This falsely presumes guilt.

A woman that has been
brave enough to confront hers needs to see justice done.

The presumption of guilt you hold is antithetical to both justice and reason.

But what she definitely does not need to see is who ever raped her walking out of court a free man

Assuming she actually was raped, yes. On the other hand, it's better that ten actual rapists go free than one innocent man is imprisoned falsely. This demonstrates that it's of critical importance that rape victims (male or female) do not hesitate to report the crime and fully cooperate in the investigation and collection of forensic evidence, something which waiting months and then having an abortion before reporting does not begin to accomplish. That act alone probably makes it impossible for the accused to get a fair trial and is adequate justification for dismissing the complaint entirely, which would be a consequences of the purported victim's bad decision making and her fault entirely.

[Seth]

When women get pregnant it's not just their bodies, and that's the point. When you create another living human being, other interests than your own appear and may be considered by public policy in regulating how you treat others.

Thus sayeth the Supreme Court, so you go fuck yourself instead. But wear a condom.

The law in the US doesn't consider a fetus as a human being. Therefore, legal abortion is not murder.
So stick that up your ass.

Not exactly. The law says, quite specifically, that interests other than the privacy of the woman come into play as the fetus develops, and that at some point in the fetus's development, it is up to the state to decide what those interests are and how they are balanced with the privacy interests of the woman. And you're also wrong in your claim because the Supreme Court clearly recognizes that a fetus is a living human being.

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
...

An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization":

"The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime - a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

"The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .

"The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [410 U.S. 113, 142] and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id., at 75-76.

...

In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, "We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less." 22 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871).

...

The third reason is the State's interest - some phrase it in terms of duty - in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. [410 U.S. 113, 151]

...

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

...

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. ... But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. (emphasis added)

...

The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. ... As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

...

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. (emphasis added)

...

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. (emphasis added) Source

The import here is that while a fetus prior to viability is not a "person in the whole sense" and therefore entitled to 14th Amendment protections, it is nonetheless human in composition and existence, otherwise there would be no need to even consider the various interests involved. It is equally clear that after the point of fetal viability, the fetus is something more than "potential" human life. It is clearly human life and has the characteristic of existence, including the potential of becoming a whole "person" in law, which is precisely what generates the state's interest in protecting that life.

The Court carefully avoided stating the obvious for political reasons, which is that there is a legal distinction, insofar as abortion is concerned, between a "living human being" and a "person" in the law, and that the full protections of the 14th Amendment only apply to "living persons" and that at the time of the ruling, "personhood" does not attach until birth. This does not however preclude the State from acting upon its interests in protecting the unborn living human being (but not rights-endowed person) from the time of fetal viability through birth so that the potential person can realize it's full potential. The Court chose not to muddy the issue by using the term "potential person" but nonetheless makes it clear that a viable human fetus is more than "potential life" and something than a "whole person."

But at no time does the Court suggest that the fetus is not living tissue of human origin that exists, which is the very definition of "human being."

And, thanks for admitting that whether a fetus has "rights" is a matter of law, not biology. Laws, you see, can change. Biology remains the same and the biological fact is that from zygote to death, a human fetus is a human being which may, at the option of the majority, be endowed with rights at any stage of development.

[Seth]

Abortion is a political issue, science does not deal with fairness to fetuses, our feelings etc. But since Seth brought up science, it can make recommendations to improve our lives. Even minimize guilt about abortions.

But science says it us a crime against humanity to have more than 2 babies in modern srates (with low infant death rates). A third baby could be awarded by lottery to one of 4 cousins.

All females over 12 are tested every monthand excess fetuses aborted. All males are tracked by DNA to count offspring. A 20 year window given to produce two offspring, then vasectomy. If only one offspring found, vasectomy at age 45.

Science does not define or have anything at all to do with "crime." That's entirely a political issue.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

But at no time does the Court suggest that the fetus is not living tissue of human origin that exists, which is the very definition of "human being."

It is certainly not the definition of "human being", otherwise a donated kidney being transported in an ice box would be a human being...

[Tero]

I said "crime against humanity". It's like a bad thing. Overpopulation etc. Science can be used to measure quality of life. More people less quality.

[Seth]

There is nothing to resolve there. Genetically, it's human. But, that doesn't resolve the ultimate issue of abortion.

As long as we agree that it is a human being, which is to say that it is a living organism comprised of human tissue based on unique human DNA formed at the formation of the zygote, we can agree.

I agree it is human. Human being has a slightly different connotation.

Yes, it does. A scientifically correct connotation that pro-abortionists don't like because it weakens their case, which hinges on staunch and unswerving denial of the humanity of the fetus for its persuasive ability, which is destroyed if the fetus is properly and scientifically identified as a "human being."

A fertilized human egg is not a human being. The biological materials involved are genetically identical to the parent donors until the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus 22 to 26 hours after fertilization. At that moment the biological materials change irrevocably from two distinct DNA patterns of the parents to a new, distinct and unique DNA pattern of the new human organism, which at that moment achieves the status of "being" (or existing) and is therefore properly classified at that moment, and at all time thereafter until death, as a "human being."

That's one way to look at it.

That's the scientific, rational and logical way to look at it.

However, even if we accept that as true for the sake of argument, it doesn't mean abortion has to be illegal in all instances.

True. In and of itself it doesn't mean that abortion has to be illegal at all. It's merely a scientific fact that has nothing whatever to do with social policy or law.

You are correct to say that "a thing", which I take to mean tissue originating from a human being, can be "human" without being a "human being." Thus, foreskin is "human" but not a "human being." The zygote, however, is something entirely different from every other cell in a human body in that it is a new and unique combination of DNA creating a new living human being at the zygotic stage of development. The new living human being never changes character thereafter, it merely continues to develop and mature. It becomes comprised of human tissue as the cells divide and differentiate into different roles, but at all times that tissue comprises a living human being, not some unknown or abstract creature of undefined genetic origin or purpose that suddenly and miraculously becomes a human being only when ejected from the birth canal.

I've never said the ejectment from the birth canal is the relevant cut-off point.

I know, but most radical pro-abortionists do, and they do so because admitting an earlier cut-off point fatally damages their fundamental claim supporting their position, which is that a fetus is not a human being and has no rights at all and that the mother's right to privacy trumps everything else right up until complete delivery from the birth canal.

If they concede that there is some point prior to that moment when the interests of the mother become subservient to other interests (like that of the father, the state or the fetus itself) their entire edifice comes crashing down around them because they are conceding the most fundamental belief they have, which is that a woman's body is hers to control at all times and under all circumstances and no one, not even the state, has any authority to interfere with that perfect and plenary autonomy, ever, under any circumstances. Destroy that foundational argument and their entire dogma evaporates, so they cannot concede or waver in the slightest from that absolutist position without entirely losing the battle for female autonomy.

And, as I noted, what you call it, whether human, human being, it, mob, whatever -- it doesn't change the analysis.

Yes, it does. By acknowledging the simple scientific facts involved it raises the bar and forces those who favor plenary female autonomy to justify their position to a much greater extent than they have to at this point, where they can preclude any debate at all simply by saying "My body, my decision." Remove the false scientific presumption that a viable fetus is a non-human part of the woman's anatomy and that argument falls apart, and they know it, which is why they refuse to recognize scientific fact.

Thus, the zygote, and all it's arbitrarily labeled stages such as blastocyst, embryo or fetus, is at all times a human being. That is simply a scientific fact.

Whether that human being is entitled to respect for its fundamental rights is an entirely different and non-scientific question.

Sure, but the term human being is not generally used synonymously with human, and the separate nature of the DNA is not an official definition. Science explains what it is -- and the DNA of the parents merge as you described. Whether it's a human being is not a scientific term.

If it's "human" and it is genetically distinct and unique from the parents and it "exists" it has achieved the state of "being" and therefore is properly defined as a "human being." The fact that you don't like the term is merely evidence of the bias and refusal to accept simple facts and logic I mention above. But we agree that merely because it's a "human being" does not necessarily mean that it's a "person" entitled to full 14th Amendment civil rights. But I will not abide the pettifoggery involved in denying the nature of the organism as the foundation for asserting maternal plenary control of the fetus. Pro-abortionists will have to come up with a better foundation and argument for the termination of a living human being at the fetal stage of development than "it's not a human being."

Not all pro choice folks use the exit of the birth canal as the point at which a human fetus becomes a human being.

Indeed. But they are still wrong no matter when they choose to draw that conclusion because they are simply scientifically ignorant and wrong.

No, because even if you say it's a human being, that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a compromise position on abortion.

I never said it was wrong. I'm merely demanding acceptance of scientific fact and logic as a pre-condition to discussing the political issues involved, for reasons I've previously mentioned.

You are making the leap that if we accept that science shows the embryo is a human being, then abortion must always be an illegal option.

No, I'm not. You are making the leap that if you accept the scientific fact that from zygote to death the organism involved is a living human being that I will argue that it is never justifiable in law or social policy to end that life by abortion.

One perfectly rational approach is to say that, sure, even assuming it's a human being, it makes sense to allow abortions under given circumstances.

Yes, it does.

Law does not have to track morality.

Laws are the codification of the moral beliefs of a particular society, which is why laws differ so much from culture to culture.

Like some folks who think that violence in self defense is wrong under all circumstances. it's still perfectly fine for a society to make a law that says you can kill a human being if you are in actually risk of being killed yourself. Heck, you can even make a law that says it's not illegal to kill someone who you only think is out to expose you to a risk of bodily injury (even if you 're wrong, and they never wanted to expose you to risk of bodily injury), and you can even have a law where if two people are in a lifeboat and there is only food and water to save one of them, that it wouldn't be illegal for one person to kill the other to survive.

Each of which would (hopefully though not inevitably) reflect the moral beliefs of the society which the law apply to.

That kind of thing. You seem to think that calling it a human being means any legal abortion is scientifically "Wrong." That's not logically the case.

You seem to think that that's what I think, probably based on your inherent bias against those who argue against unlimited at-will abortion, when that is not factually the case. I suggest you examine your prejudicial biases for a moment.

A pro-choicer like me doesn't know exactly when it becomes a human being, and frankly the term doesn't have much relevance to me in the abortion context.

It's always a human being, from the moment the zygote is formed. Whether it is endowed with independent rights is a political and social question, not a scientific one.

and, it's human-ness is one factor to consider in the moral and legal analysis. Some humans can be killed under given circumstances. The issue of law becomes a balancing of the interests, and that is open to a wide range of differing views, depending on what factors one thinks are most important.

Yup. You weren't expecting that agreement, were you? Bias check please.

I view it more as a pragmatic balance. Whatever you call the developing embryo or fetus, there just, as a practical matter, has to be available abortion for a variety of reasons. However, that availability does not have to be unlimited. At a certain point, and I think this is before birth, there has been enough time to decide, and the fetus is too close to birth to be arbitrarily killed.

My position is not based on the humanity of the tissues. It's based no pragmatism, an attempt to sensibly balance competing necessities.

And therein lies the conundrum. It's easy to discount the rights of the fetus (if there are any) by refusing to admit that it's a human being, which makes the balancing you refer to tipped heavily in favor of killing the fetus. This is the essential disconnect of the pro-abortion contingent. They, which includes you, refuse to acknowledge the fundamental scientific facts involved by denying that the organism living within the woman is in fact a living human being. By denying its humanity you tilt the balance away from reason and logic and towards politics and emotion.

I haven't refused to acknowledge that. I've told you it's human. You refuse to acknowledge that I've acknowledged that.

Well, I meant "pro abortionists" in general rather than "you" in the specific sense.

There is, inevitably, balance-tilting no matter what. But, the fact remains that humans can be legally killed for lots of reasons. Calling it human doesn't mean that we have to make all abortions illegal. Isn't that correct?

It's possible that we might make a law imposing the death penalty for littering.

Yup. Or killing a lion in Africa for trophy reasons. Then again not all such laws are axiomatically rational or just.

Only by squarely facing the true facts involved, all of them, no matter how disturbing they might be to your political and social ideas, can a truly rational balancing of the competing "necessities" (I prefer "interests") be made.

Yes, and you should take your own advice. I've said that even if it's a human being, abortion should still be legal.

I have never said it shouldn't be.

As a philosophical exercise, try examining your pragmatic stance on abortion from the position of fully acknowledging that in authorizing abortion you are in fact authorizing the killing of a living human being.

Yes, and I support the legal killing of lots of human beings. So do you.

Indeed. The general distinction however is that where I support the legal killing of human beings (who are legal persons) it's always because the individual involved has committed some act against others that justifies the use of deadly physical force in self defense. I fail to see how in the course of a normal pregnancy such a justification could be found.

Under what circumstances do you think it is rational and logical, and moral and ethical, to end a human life, any human life?

Oh, under many different circumstances. But, first off, moral and legal are two different things. I think that cheating on one's spouse is immoral, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I support legal killings of human beings in a variety of circumstances -- punishment of some heinous crimes, self-defense, defense of others, to save one's own life in the "stater of nature," to protect oneself when one's life is accidentally threatened, under circumstances where one person's life might save millions of people -- that sort of thing. There are many many instances.

In sum, might we say that you support legal killing of human beings under circumstances where there are competing rights such as the right to life and safety that come into play that would justify the taking of one life over another? Might I extend that example to include circumstances not of the life-taking individual's creation or instigation?

In the case of an unborn human embryo, if it is determined that carrying it poses a significant risk to the life of the mother, I very much think it should be legal to abort it.

So do I.

That's one example. If during childbirth, there is a situation that arises where the mother or the child is going to die, then I think that someone has to make the decision to save one of them. These are unsavory decisions, but realities of life.

Indeed. But in that situation the need to decide is not occasioned by something the mother did to create that need, correct?

Also, I don't think that a small child of 10 or 12 who is raped and impregnated should have to bear 9 months of carrying her rapists child, when an early abortion can save her that trauma. Those are some examples.

I think there is adequate medical justification inherent in such a pregnancy and the severe risks of harm to the mother to justify an abortion in that circumstance. On the other hand, one must consider the fact that it is medically possible for a young girl of that age to successfully carry and deliver a child, which is not at fault, which can then be turned over for adoption. I also note that there are plenty of examples of young girls of similar or slightly older ages who CHOOSE to carry such a child to term and deliver it. Some of them actually CHOOSE to get pregnant specifically for that purpose.

This raises the question of female reproductive autonomy from the other side of the coin. Should such a "child" (who is demonstrably not a "child" but is a sexually mature person capable of bearing children) be FORCED to have an abortion because she's deemed "too young"? It's a conundrum, isn't it?

I certainly believe that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, moral and ethical to end a human life. The question that remains here is whether, or at what point it becomes immoral, unethical and unjustifiable to end a human life inside the womb.

Sure, and there are lots of reasons why it would be justifiable to end a human life. Heck, one can think of it as horribly immoral to ever do it, and yet still be of the mind that it should be legal. Law and morality are not the same.

They should be, since law is the codification of morality and very little else.

And that is the core of the issue here, but it's an issue that cannot be rationally addressed when one side of the debate resorts to distorting and denying objective scientific fact as a central component of its argument. That's utterly irrational, which ought to be anathema here, of all places.

I don't see where I have done this.

You, who are among a very, very small contingent of people I've discussed this issue with in the last quarter-century, have not. My congratulations.

The morality has little to do with the legality, in my view. A great many immoral things not only "can" be legal, but "should" be legal. Legality, to me, should be based on a rational and pragmatic approach to what provides the best outcome while serving legitimate governmental interests and achieving proper governmental purposes. There will, of course, be a wide range of opinion as to what are legitimate interests and purposes of government. However, protecting life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness of individual citizens, providing for the common defense and providing for the general welfare, are all pretty well accepted purposes of government. In the case of abortion, there is no clear or perfect way to serve those interests, so it's a balancing of interests -- life vs liberty -- what is in the general welfare? That kind of thing.

This presumes that a "legitimate government interest" or "proper government purpose" is the mandate of the law, which is to say it presumes (falsely I believe) that the interests of government (which is to say the collective in any democratic system) are always more important than the interests of the individual AGAINST the interests of the collective.

Not in the least. it does not presume that the government's interests are "always" more important. Neither the individual's rights nor the government's interest/purpose are "always" superior to the other. And, in the case of abortion, we don't just have one individual, we have two. So, we have the rights and interests of the mother along with the rights and interests of the unborn entity, and the governmental interests/purposes, to balance. Your assumption that the unborn entity's rights must take precedence over the woman's rights is another area where you simply make a declaration of what you believe to be a truism.

Thanks for admitting that there are two individuals involved. Of course, there are actually three or more. You forget the interests of the father and the state. And I don't make any claim that an unborn "entity's" right "must take precedence over the woman's rights," I merely say that there comes a time when the other interests and rights involved in a decision to carry or abort may well take precedence over the woman's desire to exercise plenary reproductive autonomy. So, as it happens, does the Supreme Court.

Your justification for abortion is more than a little fuzzy,

Of course, because as I said, it's pragmatic and based on a balancing of interests wherein people can have widely disparate opinions on what is most important and where the pragmatic line should be drawn (if at all). Life is not all black and white, and in some areas, we have a shade of grey where no perfect line can be drawn. Take ages of consent for sex between adults and minors. It's bright line drawn through a huge grey area, and many jurisdictions pick different lines. Some countries 18, some 16, some 14, some depend on if the parents consent, some depend on how old the respective sex partners are relative to each other, some have rules about relationships of trust (teacher/student, etc. that change the analysis). The science shows that we simply cannot say that all 15 year olds are not capable of consenting to sex with 21 year olds -- many 15 year olds know exactly what they're doing and are plenty mature. Heck, it used to be normal for 13, 14, and 15 year olds to marry and have children themselves. Romeo and Juliet were adolescents, etc. Yet, our culture has drawn a line that is a compromise of competing interests. It is imperfect.

Pragmatism has to be based on some sort of ethical and moral foundation, otherwise it is nothing more than random situational ethics indistinguishable from anarchy.

which indicates to me that you have not spent much time truly examining the issue and your rationalizations and justifications for your position. I was the same way for most of my life, until, frankly, I began examining my reasoning and motives in response to posts at RDF and its progeny, including Rationalia. I've spent a lot of time in introspection and examination of the facts and my beliefs, which have resulted in substantial changes in my attitudes about abortion through reason and logic.

However, you have your logic wrong. And, you draw moral conclusions and then extend them to legal conclusions, by a leap. You have acknowledged that a person can still be pro choice even if they acknowledge the embryo as human, haven't you? Well, that's where I stand - sometimes, it should be legal to abort, even if it's human.

We don't disagree in principle because I have never argued that all abortion should be illegal. I merely insist on examining the subject from a foundation of sound science, reason and logic rather than one of ideological bias and the denial of plain facts.