Ray,
Thanks for your input.
I think you may be mischaracterizing my personal views on abortion. Pleas re-read the second paragraph in my last comment to Warren Anderson. There is nothing "cool" about any of this; but I think my views are consistent with those of most Americans.
Your comment on the "health of the mother" is interesting. On the one hand you trivialize this important medical reality as "trite" and an "overused excuse". Then immediately turn around and admit that such a situation requires a decision made by the woman and her doctor. Of course it is; and those of the pro-choice side have been saying this for a long time. Thanks for joining us.
I admit that Margaret Sanger is a controversial figure. Whatever her position on eugenics was in
the early 20th century -- a position widely shared at the time -- is irrelevant to this discussion. Not only has she been dead for a long time, but memes like eugenics and "survival of the fittest" have long been discredited. Let me just say that Planned Parenthood in 2022 is hardly the Frankenstein Monster of social engineering that you imply.
If you can state unequivocally that abortion is not a "moral practice 95% of the time", you are claiming an unjustified insight into the individual decisions made by millions of people. Perhaps your own view of what is moral -- a religious, not medical or scientific opinion -- is not shared by others who may see things in different, more complicated, ways.
State interference in the medical, moral, and economic life of an individual is a position that should be condemned by any real (traditional) Conservative. Alas, that version of conservatism has, over the past many years, been superseded by a religiously dominated version aggressively committed to controlling those medical, moral, and economic lives.
Thanks again for you input.
Jeff Laadt
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Jeff:
You really stumbled on this one.....in a big way.
- Viable baby abortions are okay with you?
- Third trimester abortions are okay with you?
- How about partial birth abortions ? That's cool too i suppose.
The "health of the mother" is a trite, overused excuse.
Of course, if the women is in legitimate danger, then that's a decision she and her Dr. make.
You probably know who Margaret Sanger is - one of founding members of Planned Parenthood and lead advocate of abortion.
She believed in eugenics (widely documented).
Sanger helped create this organization. She did not have the health of women in mind. She felt that “inferior” human beings ought to be relinquished from the world and abortion was just one way to do that.
Awful stuff.
Jeff, abortion is not a moral practice 95% of the time.
Morning after pill, sure.
20 week baby mutilated by tools and forceps - not so much.
If that's your idea morality and the right thing to do, tell your pregnant pals to move to the coasts.
It should be up to the states, period.
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Editors, I have read the opinions of the several writers regarding abortion, several times. They seem to me as a group of caring Americans, with each explaining their rational for their "opinions". Some of them forget an opinion is a personal accounting on any issue not a group accounting although some people enjoy similar "opinions.
May I suggest we begin a review of the subject with my opinion regarding the definition of morality.
I offer such because some people refer to the philosophy of their religion. Failing to reference the subject in other religions, or in a non-religious country. We do practice more than one religion in America which is similar to the world at large.
"Morality is... conforming to the standards of the norm" of the bell shape curve" That is the danger
we must address as a democratic nation. I say this because using the principles of democracy any populist in any state can declare their preference regarding opinions on any subject because of the shape of the bell shape of their group. That is why referring to the states or their few majority citizens who have a majority of one is a serious miscalculation of justice in a freedom living society.
"To refer to the states" as a solution, is to make a mockery of the purpose of the judicial system to deal with complicated issues.
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Warren,
I was not dodging any issue about "life." I wrote: "...that personhood develops over time, the early clump of cells does eventually become that human life." The two key words being "personhood" and "human." Yes, that early clump of cells is living tissue; so are the sperm and egg that united to begin the reproductive process. The moral (and legal) question centers on when living tissue reaches the point of what we recognize as human, as a person with rights separate from its incubating host. Those that spout the mantra of Life Begins at Conception are the ones dodging the question, in my opinion. Even the lowly amoeba has "life."
I have expressed my own personal view of the matter. But just in case it hasn't sunk in, let me repeat. Human life (AKA personhood) develops at some point later during the gestational period. I do not pretend to know precisely when. Until that undefined moment arrives, then I am of the opinion that the rights -- both legal and moral -- belong to the pregnant woman. And for all the moral, economic, medical and cultural reasons that have long been debated, the right to abort the pregnancy rests entirely with the prospective mother.
That was essentially the way Roe was decided. It remains the majority view today. The potential criminalization of abortion will, as I have said before, do nothing to end the practice, while doing immeasurable harm to those women who cannot avail themselves of the services offered in states that have chosen a different path. It will cause economic disruption. And will become just another example of the wealth gap between those of means and those without.
And please stop the absurd claims about the prenatal killing of millions of "babies" -- another term with no agreed upon meaning.
Jeff Laadt
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Jeff,
If you took just a little time to study the Bible, you would not conclude that it "condones genocide and misogyny on a grand scale. " At times it is descriptive, at others prescriptive.
You are dodging the issue when you say you don't know when life begins. That has been the alibi for those supporting baby killing for a long time. We have a relative who was 1 lb. 7 oz. at birth. He is now a college graduate, enjoying life. He was a person at birth and in the weeks preceding. If medical science in the future saves babies at even earlier stages of gestation, you will need to modify your mistaken views on when life begins.
The other unjust taking of human lives you cite needs to be dealt with. But that does not excuse the killing of 60 million babies.
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Warren,
Predictably, you lead with scripture, which to you is the sine qua non of rhetorical debate. And, just as predictably, I will ignore the imposition of a biblical framework that also condones genocide and misogyny on a grand scale.
Your moral outrage is palpable. And I give you credit for being consistent. But not all of us buy into the equating of abortion -- certainly in the early stages of pregnancy -- as the "murder" of a "child." My own view is probably close to the majority of other Americans: that personhood develops over time; the early clump of cells does eventually become that human life, the ending of which is a moral dilemma even for a dedicated secularist like me.
You write that "we are a pluralistic nation, but one that agrees that murder is immoral." I completely agree. What we do not agree upon is what constitutes murder, nor a reliable definition of what constitutes a "baby". Is it not, for instance, also a moral outrage for the state to carry out the killing of wrongly convicted human beings? Or to engage in ill-defined, even duplicitous, warfare that results in the killings of thousands? Humans have engaged in wanton slaughter for as long as there have been human beings. It's part of what we do as a species. You can look it up in the Bible.
Jeff Laadt
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Jeff,
Abortion proponents use semantics to make their case, ignoring the fact that the procedure destroys a human life. They talk about choice, women’s health, etc. it’s like putting lipstick on a pig. This is nothing new in the annals of human depravity. Isaiah 5:20-21 from 2,700 years ago wrote, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” Three centuries earlier, in Psalm 139, David pointed out the personhood of the embryo—someone who God knows.
Various pro-abortion scholars have made it clear that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, something that should have been decided at the legislative level in each state.
Not every long-standing law or court decision should be immune from change. Should the Dred Scott decision not have been reversed if it stood for more than 13 years? What about Separate but Equal; or segregation in general; or anti-Semitic laws?
God has not changed his mind about “Thou shalt not kill” or any other command. It is not for us to take polls in order to decide the abortion issue. We are a pluralistic nation, but one that agrees that murder is immoral.
I have taken care of hundreds of pregnant women in my medical practice. Each one perceives that what is growing inside of them is a baby. Another affirmation of personhood of the unborn is the murder of a pregnant women. If the child dies, it is a double homicide.
Are we a moral nation, or one that is tolerant of 60 million babies being killed?
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Frank,
Let's stop for a second and consider the underlying issue. For me and my cohorts, that issue is the right of choice, and less so the procedure itself. There are many who abhor the act of abortion, but who recognize that to abort or not is a private decision; one not granted to the state. There are also many who maintain nuanced opinions as to when it is appropriate for the state to intervene in balancing the rights of the pregnant woman with those of the fetus.
That balancing is exactly what Roe attempted to do. Roe affirmed the right of privacy while also recognizing the state's interest in protecting the rights of the unborn fetus. All accomplished under a trimester system granting the state more power to intervene as the pregnancy progressed. That balancing has stood up well, both in the Courts and with the public, for a half century. Most would like it to continue.
Whether "deemed" or "inalienable", rights are always manufactured in some sense. But some are foundational and have enjoyed universal acceptance going back centuries. The "deemed" rights outlined by Roe are the extension of the rights of privacy and equal protection as understood by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Clearly, the American people and the American court system have supported these extensions for a very long time. Justice Alito is the outlier.
Jeff Laadt
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Jeff,
Thank you for not dodging the question for a change. And thank you for your unabashed honesty.
Few people who respect life ever get a chance to witness such callousness and utter disregard for defenseless human beings, especially that of a full-term baby seconds before exiting the mother. Such an openly misguided attitude of glaring monumental proportion truly hardens the resolve in defense of life at any stage.
And here’s why you and your cohorts are misguided:
Abortion was never a “constitutional inalienable right” as you indicated. That’s why the so-called “right” needed to first be manufactured as an extension of legitimate rights and them DEEMED a right on its own by the original Court.
Today’s Court simply DEEMED the manufactured right invalid on grounds much more solid than the foundational quicksand the original house of cards was constructed upon.
In the end, a woman or man will be able to obtain the same services as before the ruling, which on its own, destroys the theme and argument of your letter.
Frank Gabl
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Frank,
I am not "passionate" about the killing on any human being. The issue, as I and most Americans see it, is about the right of human beings to make reproductive decisions on their own terms. You know full well -- or should know -- the many complexities involved in this: viability, rape, incest, health of the mother, and so on. Too many of your cohorts would simply ban outright any and all efforts to terminate pregnancy, regardless of circumstance. Too many, it seems, would make criminals of both patient and provider for exercising what had been, for the past fifty years, a common, necessary, and legal medical procedure. And rest assured, such draconian measures will not end abortion; it will simply reset the economic, medical, and social ramifications inherent in America going forward -- and not in a good way.
And, no, I am not about to follow your silly "Wisconsin, Love It or Leave It" advice. I feel quite comfortable here, actually. So I guess I'll just stay where I am.
Jeff Laadt
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.
Jeff,
Why you would be so passionate about the killing of a human being up to the moment of birth is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you can explain?
That said, the draft ruling still gives you your wish. And if you don’t like Wisconsin’s eventual ruling on the matter you are free to move to a state you feel comfortable in.
Please don’t waste time by dodging the question.
Frank Gabl
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.