Remembering Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973) is often discussed but seldom read. On the fortieth anniversary of the decision, it is worth another read.
As I noted in National Review Online a few weeks ago, the truth about abortion history was the first casualty of Roe. The second was the truth about when human life begins. In his Roe opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun famously maintained agnosticism about the origins of human life. “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” the Nixon-appointee insisted. “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to come to a consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
But the question—at least as a matter of biology—was not hard to answer in 1973. An editorial published just a few years earlier in the journal California Medicine (which was supportive of liberalizing the nation’s abortion laws) put it this way: One result of the rhetorical strategy pursued by proponents of abortion reform “has been the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra- uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”
Robert Copher
4 months agoTHIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. You’re not “remembering” Roe v Wade. You are fanning the flames of argument and finger pointing at a law you disagree with. TOUGH!! Just live with it. Life begins…blah, blah, blah. Who cares. It isn’t a “person” until it has a reflective consciousness. Now what? We aren’t “murdering” anyone. This column is the irresponsible journalism that causes more and more discourse in this country and is intended to continue to divide us in our unity as a nation. Its pathetic bully pulpit, soap box, whining is all that it is. Stop it.
Phil Cardarella
4 months agoNote the “we need not resolve” aspect of Blackmun’s opinion. That is because the fact that a fertilized egg has separate DNA from the woman surrounding it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the abortion decision.
It is about the woman’s right. A non-viable fetus has no rights. As viability increases, some limitations can be brought — BUT the fetus has no rights superior to the lealth and life of the woman involved.
Roe v. Wade decided whether a woman may be prohibited by law from exercising control of her own body. Either a woman is a person or she is not. Blackmun came down on the side that she is — and has a right to control her own body that cannot be legislated away.
It is important to understand that this does NOT impose on anyone’s religious or moral beliefs. Every woman is free to make her own choice. Religious leaders and others are free to argue what a woman SHOULD do, but may not use the power of the State to dictate what she MUST do.
That is why it is perfectly consistent to maintain that choosing to terminate a pregnancy is a sin that should not be committed — but that it cannot be made a crime in a secular state. You can (and should) be both Catholic and pro-choice, just as you can be an observant Jew or Muslim and accept that the rest of America will be allowed to eat porkchops and go to church on Sindays.
Matt Henry
4 months agoHe’s remembering that it was a flawed decision. Should good and moral Americans have shut up and lived with Dred Scott?
You’re asking a lot of people who believe, deeply, that there is no constitutional right to murder children to stand down and not even have the conversation anymore, especially in the face of more and more evidence that the life of a fetus is much more complex than believed over 40 years ago.
That something isn’t a person until it has “reflective consciousness” is so rife with logical and moral pitfalls we could discuss / argue it for weeks and get nowhere. You certainly can’t make that statement with any kind of certitude. It is an opinion, no more. Are you prepared to agree with medical ethicists who argue that we should be able to euthanize children within the first six months after birth? That’s the logical extension of your position….
Does this relate to gun control? Of course not. This is the government having found a right for a human being to harm another, defenseless one (or at least this is a reasonable argument). The same can’t be said about the right to peacefully keep weapons.
Matt Henry
4 months agoMan, Phil. You do have all the answers.
Phil Cardarella
4 months agoUh, “Sundays”.
And, what folks should do who think that every abortion is “murdering children” is understand that an acorn is not an oak tree.
I look forward to the time when those who oppose abortion so angrily spend as much energy championing the needs of children in need of necessities and love.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoThe decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy rightfully belongs with the woman involved, period. Not with her husband, not with her church, not with her doctor, not with any political party or voter.
Roe v. Wade righted a tremendous wrong—that is, the assertion that other people have any valid claim on a woman’s decision about a pregnancy.
For that matter, even scientists do not agree that life begins at conception. If that is the case, then God must be the biggest murderer going … look at all those miscarriages!
Mark Hastert
4 months agoLets get back to one reference made by Justice Blackburn. The argument I’ve heard made over and over and over has it’s roots an a particular religious doctrine, one not shared by all religions or even by all Christians. The very people would would chafe at the suggestion of imposing Sharia Law would happily do their own equivalent.
Matt Henry
4 months agoThey do, Phil. But since you have never looked outside of your own sphere you can’t see that.
Again, if an acorn is not an oak, are you okay with aborting kids post-birth who have yet to develop sentience? Gonna stay true to your intellectual ideals or are you gonna punk out?
Matt Henry
4 months agoI love how all the “opinions” on here are just plain right, PERIOD. Any debate beyond that period is treated with hostility. Why are people always so afraid to defend their positions?
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoI’m not afraid to defend my position, Matt. Why are you so afraid to let other people make their own decisions about things that don’t concern you?
Matt Henry
4 months agoAnd an issue can be a moral one without being founded in a particular religion. Why is stealing wrong? Murder? To dismiss abortion as a religious freedom issue gone awry misses the whole point.
Are there some who argue this point from a religious perspective? Sure. But that is not the foundation for an opposition that believes the cultural destruction that is wrought by abortion has to be considered in the same way that so many other things are outlawed.
Matt Henry
4 months agoOh, but they do concern me. Very much so. As do all of the intrusive laws that we are allowed to discuss. Why is prostitution illegal? Drugs? Silicone breast implants? Why do I have to have a license to cut people’s hair? Why is abortion the only thing that is written in stone, PERIOD?
Robert Copher
4 months agoMatt, I think women should be allowed to eat their children after birth. Sorry, I can not find compassion for a glob of biological consciousness. When/if it develops into a person, I will give it rights. I am being a bit dramatic on purpose. Calling abortion “murder” or anything else is only serving to satisfy those posing the argument. It has no foundation in logic in my eyes. Until you are willing to hold it and kiss it, its a glob of cells and there is no guarantee that it will ever become anything else. The “cultural destruction” you speak of comes from the opinion that others don’t “care” enough. I’ll care when it is a person. not before. I care very very much about the number so suicides in this country. The number of hungry children and families. I care about PEOPLE once they are in the world and are trying to deal with life. Not growths that may some day become a person.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoReally? When have you gotten pregnant, Matt?
Robert Copher
4 months agonumber “of” suicides. Sorry about the type-o
Robert Copher
4 months agoIt was not a “flawed” decision. It was exactly how it should have been and the rest of the world agrees with it.
Robert Copher
4 months agoSo that no one thinks I’m actually encouraging mothers to eat their children. I agree with late term restrictions on abortions. Most people agree with that. It the extreme of denying the option to women or forcing them into invasive proceedures that I can not agree with. But the main thing that irks me about the whole thing is the attitude that anti-aborion folk bring to the discussion with terms like “murder” and the continueing argument that exists on a woman’s rights that is causing so much hatred and tendancy toward violence over the issue.
Mark Hastert
4 months ago“And an issue can be a moral one without being founded in a particular religion.”
It can but not in this case. There were laws before there was a bible and some of the examples cited fall into that category. Then there are religious beliefs that some would make law. I agree with Mr Copher in that there is a point in the development of a fetus that at which many if not most would agree that it becomes a person but it;s not when it’s a cluster of undifferentiated cells. Most Americans think the same way but also most Americans, 70% in the latest polls believed that the right to terminate a pregnancy should not be overturned. By all means live your religion just don’t force others to.
Matt Henry
4 months agoWow. Look at all the fish swimming around in that barrel.
Rachel - Did you have an opinion about the war in Iraq? Have you ever fought in one? Does a man have any ramifications from the decision that the woman makes? Heck, you can’t even donate sperm without potentially having to pay for it. Please. Don’t bring a spoon to a knife fight.
Robert - and I think it was flawed. That’s my opinion. You are the only one screaming that I should shut up about it. And the thing that “irks” me about The pro-choice folks is that they can’t have a reasoned discussion about it without screaming that I should sit down and shut up about it. It’s almost like that’s all they’ve got.
Mark - my Opposition to wholesale abortion stems from the Cultural rock that it has caused, not some religious hang up. You are also sure that life starts SOMETIME but you don’t have the stones to Lay out a position and stick to it. If it is all about sentience, Robert, Then why are you fudging on late-term abortions? Clearly an eight month fetus doesn’t know it exists. Aren’t you impinging on the right of the mother? I can at least respect the medical ethicists that argue for fifth trimester abortions. At least they are Intellectually honest.
Matt Henry
4 months agoOf course I meant “cultural rot”. Darned autocorrect….
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoMatt, you’re the one claiming that the issue of abortion concerns you. If you are not the one who is pregnant, it is actually none of your concern whatsoever.
Matt Henry
4 months agoWell, I keep shooting that argument down but you keep ignoring it. Of course it concerns me. It concerns all of us. Man must suffer the ramifications of that decision. Our cultural degradation due to our lack of concern for life is my concern. And then, of course, you continue to ignore how many things you have opinions about About which you have no experience. Are you Catholic? Should abortion be considered a sin? Are you in the military? Do you have a position on America’s military actions? Are you gay? What about gay rights? Should Viagra be paid for by insurance? Have you ever lacked the ability to get an erection? Should prostitution be legalized? Have you ever been a prostitute? How could you possibly relate to someone in that life? Would you like me to go on? I surely could all day….
The whole “you can’t get pregnant” argument is specious, silly, and easily dismissed and yet you hang on it like its gold. What does that say about how secure you feel arguing the actual facts?
Still with the spoons with you….
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoNo, my point is that unless YOU are the one who is pregnant, you have nothing. ZIP. ZERO. NADA. to say about what decision is made. You can tap dance around that all you want, but you haven’t any skin in this game and you know it.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoIt doesn’t matter how many times you say it Rachel, it is still flawed logic.
Using your “logic”, I shouldn’t have a say in anything unless it affects me.
Murder or stealing or any crime that doesn’t affect me, I have no say.
I don’t have a child fighting in Afghanistan, so I have no say in that.
On the other hand, since I pay federal taxes and 45% of the public doesn’t, then I should get all the say where that money goes.
Your “logic” is foolish. I do have skin in the game because I am part of the society.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoAnd speaking of “logic”. Robert shows us again that his is the answer to everything. He is the arbitrator of the truth. Too bad many his idea of what constitutes a person is shared by Eugenics and the 1930’s Nazi party.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoUsing your “logic,” JR, I should be able to decide that you should be sterilized because I don’t think you “need” to have children. Those fingers pointing back at you mean something.
Matt Henry
4 months agoBut that’s not what you said. I agree that I have no SAY in what a woman does if she is pregnant. That certainly doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion about whether or not society SHOULD have a say (which we do; partial birth is severely restricted) and what that say should be. And I can point out your hypocrisy about all the things that you, as part of society, tell people what they can and cannot do. But you said it doesn’t concern me. Of course it does. And I have told you why.
Until you choose to deal with these points and you just stand there and stamp your foot and say “it’s none of your business” then you look like you can’t defend your position. And frankly, this has been true of almost every pro-abortion person with whom I have had this discussion. Why don’t you just threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue?
Matt Henry
4 months agoGood lord. Where you came up with that logic is absolutely beyond me. And JR, you are dead on. We do have skin in the game because we are part of society and are forced as such to bear the consequences of these ‘private’ decisions.
Robert Copher
4 months agoMatt, I appreciate your persistance and respect. My point is not that you are right or that I am right. My point is that regardless of who is right, both of us, in the best interest of the nation, need to sit down and shut up. I apologize for using seemingly direspectful terminology. Sit down and be quiet. Better? Just that the argument persists is causing damage. At some point, not entirely, but at some point a person needs to recognize that it isn’t about them or their “correctness” in the matter. Does that make sense yet? Continueing to press the matter is the issue now and has overtaken the correctness of either side. As a parent haven’t you ever had to tell your kids to just seperate and leave each other alone for a while? That is my point. Leave it alone already for the sake of a cohesive national atmosphere. Just abide by the laws for a while and stop pounding on them. Live to fight another day and recognize when it is time to lay down our pains and arguments.
Suzanne Conaway
4 months agoI think what irritates me most about the anti-choice group is that for them, once an egg is fertilized, the woman turns into nothing more than a baby factory.
How can any sane person consider taking the morning after pill to keep a blastocyst from attaching to the womb consider that blastocyst a baby? It’s a minute blob of dividing cells. Howver, the woman taking the pill has considered the possiblity of pregnancy and felt that it is not in her best interests to bear a child.
Maybe she has selfish reasons. But her reason certainly should override concern for a dot of cells.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoYou have told me why you THINK it concerns you. Sure, have an opinion about abortion. But actively working to ban it just because YOU think it’s wrong is the exact same thing as my actively working to make men subject to mandatory vasectomies for whatever crazy reason I might come up with.
If it’s not your womb, it’s not your decision. If you think abortion is wrong, don’t go around getting women pregnant. Teach your daughters and sons to be careful and responsible. And don’t have an abortion yourself. Beyond that … it’s none of your business, as I said.
Robert Copher
4 months agoAlso Matt, you make some very good points about consequences of others effecting us. When our administation approved waterboarding or torture of any kind it was an announcement to the world and to Americans that Americans must already be accepting of those practices. Now that it has become public knowledge more and more are accepting of those practices and allowing for them and it has made the country more dangerous, not safer, to have allowed them during war. Those “heros” of our democracy began its decent, IMO. However I do not believe that is the case with abortions up to a certain point in the growth of the cells. While you will contend I’m sure that it has done the same thing to our national cohesion. I would not agree. Regardless, it is the media and journalists that are refusing to accept responsibility and leave some issues alone. Instead they keep fanning the flames and these 30something comments here are evidence, IMO, of the need to drop it and why I criticize the author for bringing it up again. But hey, they gotta sell papers, right? WRONG.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoRachel - Unfortunately you confuse a vasectomy with life. Biology is a b__ isn’t it.
But the reality is simply this, in my belief I don’t have to bend reality.
For the pro-choice belief, you have to discount biology and what constitutes the beginning of life and create some arbitrary reasoning about what makes a person or when a life is really a life. This is all just mental gymnastics so you don’t have to look at the reality of what you propose.
Suzanne Conaway
4 months ago‘Life” certainly begins when the egg is fertilized. What we need to focus on is when that egg becomes a person. And that certainly isn’t in the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions take place.
Again, folks, consider the women. We are not incubators. We have brains and feelings. Stop trying to pretend we don’t.
Matt McKinley
4 months agoFifty four million lives extinguished in 40 yrs. Looks like vacuum pumps need to be banned.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoBut don’t consider the the human life. Stop trying to pretend it does not exist.
Phil Cardarella
4 months agoI keep waiting for Matt and JR to come up with their ideas for making alternatives to abortion a more attractive choice. After all, women do not seek an abortion merely to pass a slow afternoon.
How about making contraception cheap and easy for all — so that there will be fewere unplanned pregnancies.
Or providing care and feeding and education for all those children who are already born.
Wanting to criminalize abortion costs nothing. It is sanctimonious hot air. Put your money where your mouth is, fellas: Which alternatives are you guys ready to FUND?
Robert Copher
4 months agoNow Suzanne, you know that the sperm is alive and the egg is alive, so you must admit that life begins BEFORE feritlization as I have heard some argue. LOL Oh darn, now what.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoPhil -
I’d say that 55 million abortions seems to be excessive doesn’t it? How about you demanding restrictions to ensure that at least that abortions are rare as opposed to being used for birth control. What restrictions do you care to offer Phil? (Talk about sanctimonious hot air , LOL)
Matt Henry
4 months agoI’m not actively working to ban anything. Your imagination is running away on you. I’ll be honest; I don’t know how to more clearly explain my position without having you totally miss the point. I’m not sure you want to give it more than the shallowest of looks. And frankly, you have no intellectual curiosity on the issue, which makes it all pretty boring and pointless.
Robert - honestly, it’s really naive to suggest that the way we move forward is just to never, ever bring it up just because it causes strife to think about it. Impossible. And it sure doesn’t help just to scream shut up to those you don’t agree with.
And honestly, I will not take any of you seriously until you quit ducking the “when does it stop being okay” question. Self-awareness? Viability? Robert? Mark? Suzanne? (Rachel will just tell me it’s none of my business). You can dismiss something by saying “certainly not” this but there is no intellectual heft to that. You can’t just draw a line wherever you kinda sorta feel like.it. Have the stones to deal with that core issue or you are a fraud.
Matt Henry
4 months agoIt IS cheap and easy to get. Are you telling me the 55 million aborted kids only happened because somebody couldn’t come up with the four bucks for a box of condoms available on each corner or the oh-so-very-easily-obtained ortho pills for $9 a month. Please! How easy do we have to make it for these poor little women who act like they can’t do anything for themselves?
How about a little personal responsibility, hmmmmm?
Suzanne Conaway
4 months agoOkay, Matt. I wrote an article back last summer for “Midwest Voices” about fetal viability. In that article, I said that current science says that the fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. To be safe, I’d set the cutoff point at 18 weeks except in cases where the health of the mother would be compromised.
With current pregnancy detection methods that can say yes or no even before a period is missed, the vast majority of abortions happen well before the fetus can feel pain.
If you deal with facts and science instead of religion and feelings, you can see that an 18-week cutoff would be ideal.
Robert Copher
4 months agoMatt, I did not say never, ever. You are browsing over my comments now. I specifically said “not entirely”. I did not say to give up your values, I said realize when your values make no difference and wearing them on your arm-sleeve isn’t helping matters. The constant complaining that you and others keep pressing everyone to accept is unproductive and actually is making things worse. Quit ducking the “when does it stop being OK” question? I’m not ducking that question. I don’t understand what your asking or think that it is relative to my point but it never stops being OK for women to excercise their rights. What are you talking about? Who are you calling a fraud? And my question to you apparently is the same one your asking, How about a little personal responsibility and drop it for a while? Your last comment is just a ramble of irrational statements. Now you’re the one saying that its OK except when its because a woman doesn’t live up to your moral standard. How consistant and rational is that? Birth control is OK as long as you do it before conception, but if you don’t and an egg is fertilaized, birth control is not OK. Who told you that? God? Its an argument that could go on forever!! We’re just really tired of hearing it and I feel the responsibility to point out the harm it creates to allow the argument to continue without a rest. So I will now rest. Goodnight.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoSee, I knew if I let you ramble long enough, Matt, your true reasons for being anti-choice would come out. You just hate women. Admit it to yourself and you will be a lot happier.
Robert Copher
4 months agolol. Rachel. lol I was just about to say the same thing. Its not about the babies its about the sluts. lol.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoBoy ain’t it the truth. LOL
Robert Copher
4 months agoFemale “sluts”. sorry, should have put that in quotes. I like slutty women, so don’t want to be called a hypocrit. What about the male “sluts”? I wonder.
Matt Henry
4 months agoIf you need to resort to hostility to feel like you won your argument, then feel free, but I have said nothing to deserve such an insult.
Is it “hating women” to suggest that an increased insistence on personal responsibility would benefit all women and their families? I pointed out using sarcasm that the left, with their “war on women” ridiculousness, seem to think that women are completely incapable of caring for themselves, that birth control (which is so plainly and clearly available to virtually everyone who prioritizes it) must be free and hand delivered or women are incapable of handling it one their own. Why do you assume they are so weak?
If anyone has displayed a dirisive disregard for the strength and character of Women, it is the professional left and those who propogate the notion that they need an ultra-intrusive government to make it through the day. And shame on you both for demeaning women by resorting to use these struggles as a devise to shut down debate with a hateful slander.
Matt Henry
4 months agoBy the way, what does pain have to do with it if there is no sentient agent there to understand it? I fail to see what in the world that has to do with whether a fetus has value as a human being.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoRock on Matt.
Stay Classy, Rachel and Robert.
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months agowhy can’t women merely give the baby away? there are thousands wanting babies. why be so selfish and kill a baby?????????????
Robert Copher
4 months agoPlease disregard my last statement regarding sluts. It was uncalled for. And since the proof is in the details, my earlier comment should have been “disent” not “decent”. I apologize for getting wound up and not proof reading or commenting too quickly. This wireless keyboard drops words and letters sometimes and my eyesite doesn’t always focus to see every letter typed.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoIf you feel insulted by my pointing out what is obviously the truth, you know the old saying: if someone got your goat, you probably had a goat to get.
Your attitude toward women makes itself more than clear on this board, and it is quite evident that your interest in this issue has EVERYTHING to do with concern for controlling other peoples’ private decisions.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoRule number 1. When you got nothing else, claim it is racism or sexism.
Thanks for playing Rachel. How you get from an abortion argument to this is beyond logic. But then again, so is everything else you wrote.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoRule number 1a: when you can’t come up with a reason why you should be able to tell another person what they can do with their own body, cry reverse racism or sexism.
You fail.
Matt Henry
4 months agoBingo, JR. And Rachel, by your logic, every woman who is “offended” by any comment about them, or by specific example Sandra Fluke, may have had a goat to get when she was so offended by Rush Limbaugh. Are you prepared to stipulate to that point? Are you saying Limbaugh was right? How dare you. How dare you say that about such a brave culture warrior.
I’m sick to death of babies on the left stifling debate by resorting to racism and sexism charges, especially when they are the ones who treat women and minorities as helpless. I’m not playing that game anymore. I will not by cowed.
And by the way, just stating that I have a bad “attitude with women” doesn’t make it true. Wanna try to back that comment up?
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoBlah blah blah blah blah. You still haven’t given me a reason why you should have the right to make personal medical decisions for other people. Until you can do that, you’re noise and nothing more.
Matt Henry
4 months agoYeah..yeah..yeah… You’re the poster child for someone who has no ability to defend her position so just throws a tantrum til she turns blue. Priceless. “I don’t want his cigarettes! I don’t want HIS cigarettes! I want MY cigarettes!”
Never said what I wanted to do, and wouldn’t do that were I king for a day. Are we projecting our hostility, hmmmmmm? Do you have to feel hatred and hostility toward anyone who doesn’t agree with you? Must be terrible to live with that kind of rage….
I have said over and over in this post that this is about being willing TO HAVE THE DEBATE! Left-wingers are always fans of telling people to shut up and sit down because they know that their “truth” cannot be supported with logic and facts. Is self awareness important in “drawing the line?” If so why not kill infants? Is partial birth acceptable? Why does the “right to privacy” apply to nothing but abortion? We could go on and on but you don’t want to have the debate. You just want to scream “you hate women!” and go buy some lip gloss….
They say this is “settled science” or “the debate is over.” It is not. It never will be. And if you want to stifle debate by calling me a woman hater or whatever, that is your right, but it makes you look like a tool and makes your argument look ridiculous. Why are you so afraid of the light?
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoYou haven’t answered my question. Why are you so concerned with what other people decide to do? What gives you the right to interfere?
My very first post in this thread laid out my position and you don’t like it, so you post six-paragraph screeds to try and obscure the point. It’s not working.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoBecause Rachel, in a society there is a moral code. Why would I care if you murdered your husband, it has no bearing on me. What about suicide, that is illegal to. How about drugs that you put into your body, why is that my concern. (And furthermore according to you argument, why isn’t it legal also) Your argument can be made against the entire justice system. It gets down to what is right and wrong and murder is wrong. You may not mind living in a society where people are throwaways. You see abortion as removing some cells, I see it as killing the most defenseless human life in society. Furthermore, this just opens up the doors to start doing the same to the other end of the age spectrum, and that is exactly where we are headed. The idea that someone decides what a person is can be used against you, just as easily as you want to use it for whatever goals you have.
I shouldn’t have to remind you that almost half of all abortions, probably higher because of sex selection, are women. Additionally, it is disproportionately minorities. Why do you hate women and minorities so much Rachel?
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoA fetus is not life. It is potential life, and by definition cannot be “murdered.” But thanks for trying.
Matt Henry
4 months ago“A fetus is not a life.” Well therein lies the argument, but God forbid you debate that point without throwing a hissy. I know that’s your position. You have made it very clear. But you absolutely refuse to engage in the debate as to WHEN it becomes a life.
I don’t care what people decide any more than gabillions of others do on all kinds of issues. Do you have an opinion on legalizing drugs? Gun Control? How about all the “war on women” nonsense? Obamacare? You name it. I can come up with 8000 things where you, as part of society and as part of your opinion, tell people what they can and cannot do. But you want Abortion to be a sacred cow. You want it to be exempt from any discussion. You want to stamp your feet and cry. Knock yourself out but don’t pull me down with you.
You are displaying a staggering level of intellectual cowardice and I tire of you.
Robert Copher
4 months agoThanks for making my point guys. wow.
Matt Henry
4 months agoHow about you answer my question. Was Sandra Fluke admitting to being a “slut” since she was so offended by it?
Here fishie fishie…
Matt Henry
4 months agoYes, you are right, Robert. We should all just sit down and shut up.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoYou have yet to answer my question, Matt. What gives you the right to decide for other people about their personal decisions?
All this bloviating and drama just makes you look even sillier. You’re certainly no one to be lecturing others about intellectual ability.
Matt Henry
4 months agoI DID answer your question! Jesus! I’m not repeating it again. You’re too vapid to understand.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoYou answered by saying that you believe life begins at conception. This is a belief, not a scientific fact. You are allowed to believe whatever you like, but other people and their lives are not governed by your beliefs.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoBy the way, swearing at me probably feels good, but it makes you look silly again.
Matt Henry
4 months agoSorry, precious flower. I will keep my expressions of flabberghatery to myself. Of course, calling someone a “woman hater” is just fine, right? The first lady of comment-board civility….
I never, ever said that life begins at conception. Now you are making things up, lying if you will, to try to make your point. How sad.
And by the way, you neither have expressed anything other than what is an opinion. If you are prepared to have a debate on the science of when “life” begins I’m happy to have it, but you’ve chosen to avoid debate so far like it carries the plauge. Like you said; you are free to have your opinion but other people and their lives shouldn’t be governed by your beliefs. Especially when you make absolutely no effort to defend them other than lying and foot-stomping.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoYou just keep proving why you’re not to be taken seriously.
Matt Henry
4 months agoYep, straight to personal attack. What a shock. You can say that but you know you are only saying it because you can’t keep up except with lies and hostility. Time to move on.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoQuite time in your case. Come back when you can present facts and make a cogent argument instead of swearing and losing your temper.
Robert Copher
4 months agoLife - is everywhere. Its in the sperm, its in the egg, blah, blah, blah. Birth control ends life. Period. “life” is not a point to stand on or else you muddy the debate of abortion. Instead of just ending it which is what I wish would happen. Regardless of my belief that life is not the determining criteria for acceptable procedures in birth control, or your belief that abortion is murder of a human, it seems obvious to me that the debate can not continue without beliefs coming into and ending the debate. which brings us back to the law of the land and my contention that we all need to get over our beliefs and move on. Is abortion harming society? Only in beliefs, or in the verifiable evidence of its controversy. Same as drugs, and other socially viewed issues. However the Supreme court has already ruled on the individual rights with consideration of its social impact. So the rest is noise and overzealous expression of belief. And therin lies the bane of our society, IMO. The overexpression of beliefs.
Matt Henry
4 months agoLosing your temper. Now that’s funny coming from the person whose whole thread has been about personal attacks. Wanna take back your lie now or later? Maybe if you say it enough times it will be true. Classic leftist maneuver when they are exposed as a joke.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoI thought you were moving on.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months ago(By all means, stick around, though. You’re doing wonders to reinforce the pro-choice viewpoint.)
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoIf we are to believe scientists, life begins at conceptions. The question is when the state recognizes life.
Rachel, you got nothing. And why do you hate women and minorities so much?
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoAnd you’re helping as well, JR, bless your heart. Just keep on talking …
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoReminds me of a quote.
Arguing with with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock down all of the pieces, c_ all over the board, and then strut around like they are the winners.
Robert Copher
4 months agoMatt, looking back thru these comments I have a couple of things. 1)consciousness is everywhere, to say there is no “sentient agent” to feel pain is incorrect. Your heart has “heart” consciousness. Everything has consciousness. A biological consciousness. Animal life has a continued growth cycle into reflective consciousness. Awareness of self. I have a theory that the Higgs Boson particle will be found to be a consciousness particle. My theory predates Higgs Boson and I am patiently waiting for results. Regardless, you go on to say “fetus has value as a human being”. The first question is are you generalizing with the term fetus to include zigot or other stages prior to fetus? Since many abortions take place before the growth into a fetus I’m wondering if you are allowing for those abortions or using fetus to represent anything after conception? and then if you could explain what “value” you give a fetus as a “human being” and how you reach that value? If you mean just the fact that a fetus “is” a human being. Then moving forward with the debate is moving beyond facts. And returns me to my contention that the anti-abortion movement is a selfish movement meant to appease the people over expressing their beliefs and those with responsibility will recognize a time to withhold those beliefs and keep them from public debate in the best interest of everyone. If the core of your position is the social impact of allowing women to choose…….good luck with that one. I will bow out of that debate.
Matt Henry
4 months agoPerfect JR. What a fabulous simile.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoA fetus is a human being in an early form, and it has value simply because it is human.
Robert Copher
4 months agoThen moving forward is impossible IMO, because that is a false statement.
Robert Copher
4 months agoAnd you haven’t answered my initial question. What is your definition of fetus. How are you using the term? Are you accepting of abortion prior to fetus stage?
Matt Henry
4 months agoWow, it’s like people have to be intellectually dishonest to even have a chance.
Yes, I said “fetus has value as a human being.” To be more precise I said “whether a fetus has value as a human being.” In other words, I made no statement of fact or opinion but a statement as to the nature of the debate.
Did you take me out of context on purpose in order to distort my opinion or was it carelessness? Of course Rachel did the same thing except she made her lie up out of whole cloth.
And of course, if you look back honestly, you will see that I have not been arguing a position on abortion. I have been wondering why we can’t have an honest debate on abortion. We are told to Sit down and shut up. Don’t overexpress your beliefs. You are a “woman hater”. You get lied about and taken out of context. If anything, Robert, all of you have made MY point. I have lamented the loss of our ability to have a reasoned debate. I thought maybe that we an extreme position. Considering what became of those on this board who don’t like to be questioned, I suppose I may be right.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoIt’s very easy to point to a woman who’s pregnant and tell her the fetus “has value” when you are not the person who will be carrying, birthing, then either relinquishing or caring for, feeding, clothing, sheltering, and/or nurturing after the child is born. It can’t be said often enough: If it’s not your womb, it’s not your decision.
Robert Copher
4 months agoWhat about the fetuses that are lost thru natural causes. Miscarriages, etc. Are those women responsible for murder? Involuntary Manslaughter? At what point do you stop imposing your definition of a human with rights that superceed the woman’s?
Robert Copher
4 months ago“I fail to see what in the world that has to do with whether a fetus has value as a human being” Come on Matt, now you’re just waffling and avoiding response. You can’t tell me that you made that statement in quotes and didn’t intend for us to assume you do give a fetus a value as a human being. So stop playing games. You drew the parallel. Answer the question. And this is an attempt by me to have an honest debate. You’re comments have very clearly been an attempt to present a position and you have been calling us frauds and been the difficult one to discuss this with.
Matt Henry
4 months agoThat’s because this whole thread (or least my postings in it) has been about the DEBATE between pro-choice and pro-life groups, and a core part of that debate is at what point a fetus has “humanity”. For me to mention this part of the debate makes no expression as to my opinion on the matter, nor does my poking holes in left-wing positions when the logic is flawed. For you to again distort what I have said, to twist it to the way you see fit, is dishonest and disappointing.
To me this issue is all about the structure of our government, of federalism and the rights of the states. It is about legislating from the bench. It is about how Roe v Wade found a “right to privacy” that we never apply to anything else, like prostitution or drug abuse. If I have an opinion that I would be inclined to share with this crowd it is that Roe v Wade was bad law, was classic legislation from the bench, and the legality of abortion should revert to the states. Too many ignorant people think overturning Roe v Wade would make abortion illegal. It wouldn’t. The question would revert to the states, the way the founders intended.
Now if you want to extrapolate my thoughts on the morality of abortion, knock yourself out. But you would most likely be dead wrong.
Next.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoYou’ve already shared plenty of your opinions with this crowd. You’re not exactly the soul of restraint here.
I daresay that if the Supremes “legislated from the bench” that abortion should be banned, you’d be all for them. Amazing how that perception thing works.
There is no need to return the question to the states. Women of all states enjoy equal freedom, which is as it should be.
Matt Henry
4 months agoAs for miscarriages and whatnot, are there any other parts of the law in which INTENT is important? Of course there are. What about situations where a pregnant mother is hurt or wounded, either intentionally or not, and the child is harmed or killed. Does the child have any legal standing? In most states they do. How do we rectify these positions with abortion legalities and opinions as to when a fetus has “value”?
DISCLAIMER: The questioning of the logically fallacies in the preceding in no way should indicate a position on the topic held by the author.
Matt Henry
4 months agoAgain, Rachel is completely wrong. ad nauseum.
Robert Copher
4 months ago“He’s remembering that it was a flawed decision. Should good and moral Americans have shut up and lived with Dred Scott? You’re asking a lot of people who believe, deeply, that there is no constitutional right to murder children to stand down and not even have the conversation anymore, especially in the face of more and more evidence that the life of a fetus is much more complex than believed over 40 years ago. That something isn’t a person until it has “reflective consciousness” is so rife with logical and moral pitfalls we could discuss / argue it for weeks and get nowhere. You certainly can’t make that statement with any kind of certitude. It is an opinion, no more. Are you prepared to agree with medical ethicists who argue that we should be able to euthanize children within the first six months after birth? That’s the logical extension of your position…. Does this relate to gun control? Of course not. This is the government having found a right for a human being to harm another, defenseless one (or at least this is a reasonable argument). The same can’t be said about the right to peacefully keep weapons.”
Your first comment and every one after, that I read just now, clearly was not as you have just explained. You never mentioned any of what you just said in previous statements. Clearly attempting to make the case for anti-abortion. And if we can’t read what you write and respond without you claiming that we are twisting your words because you can’t defend them, leads me to believe you have no opinion and are only interested in argueing.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoJust keep talking, Matt … Planned Parenthood and NARAL are thrilled when people like you spout off.
Robert Copher
4 months agoAt least now you are being clearer about what you are saying and I’m realizing it isn’t even about abortion any more? Its about the Federal sovereignty? Which of your previous statements could lead us to believe that was all you were addressing?
Robert Copher
4 months agoLater guys. JR. Rachel Matt,
We’ve beat on this enough.
Matt Henry
4 months agoWow.
I’m pointing out the flaws in the logic of those who are so sure this is a settled deal. Those who say there should be no more debate. Those who say this is only a “women’s rights” issue (it’s clearly not because of all of the other ‘privacy’ situations which are not allowed to be such). I think the debate obviously rages on and those who dismiss the other side as foolish are only making things worse.
I really don’t know how to make that more clear. You keep hearing what you want to hear, not what is being said.
Want a great example? You are the one who said that “reflective consciousness” mattered. And you were saying this as if it were fact and that the rest of us should just shut up about it. I immediately pointed out how ridiculously flawed that position is, in a way that you have still not addressed. That alone is a perfect example of what I was trying to suggest, that those who say this is settled and that we should just shut up about it are foolish at best.
I can’t try to plow through this wall much longer. Try paying attention to what I say this time.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoIt is a settled deal. It was settled forty years ago. Try to keep up.
Robert Copher
4 months agoNo Rachel, He makes my point again. There are seemingly flawed Supreme Court decisions. We all have the right to challenge those decisions. Some of us are willing to accept the seemingly flawed decisions, understanding that we may not have all the necessary data and should let it play out, or that our points need not be made at the present time for the good of the country and as a law abiding citizen. Matt and others do not seem to have that same discipline or respect for others. They must make their point and make it now and get the attention. He claims we can not have an honest debate about it because we aren’t consistant in our rational or are using flawed premises. (I think. Its a little hard to pin him down) My point is exactly that these people who can’t give it a rest are causing more harm than they will ever acknowledge because they believe their point is too important to ignore and we should realize that. That is the narcisistic core of the anti-abortion movement. It has nothing to do with the issue and everything to do with their belief that they must be heard. The more we dispute their claims the more their point moves around in order to maintain attention until someone gives in and gives them their way. I gotta go to work now. I had a few minutes so I checked back and finally realized what I think is going on. See ya.
Matt Henry
4 months agoDiscipline and respect for others. That’s rich coming from Mr. Sit Down and Shut Up. My new nickname for Robert will be Lt. Dan.
You are not consistent. Answer the sentience question. You won’t because you can’t. It’s a spear to the heart to your position.
Yep Rachel. And if were up to you and how things are “settled” then separate but equal would still be the law of the land. Good for you. Do you have an opinion on Citizen’s United? Was that a mistake? If you think so, well you should just shut up about it. It’s a done deal, right?
Foolishness.
Rachel Elaine Hines
4 months agoYou really aren’t interested in anything but hearing yourself talk, so I’m done, too. Have fun arguing with yourself.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoNow Rachel has checked out too. Robert has checked out of the conversation about 6 times now. I think perhaps he can’t remember it, but that is something else.
Sorry, this just points to relativistic thought, played out nicely by two 60’s rejects who are great with sound bites, but who don’t or can’t formulate an original thought between them (except perhaps that infanticide should be legal). Pretty sad state of affairs.
Again, at least with the Pro-Life argument, I don’t have to make mental gymnastics or suspend reality.
I suspect they will respond in 5,4,3,2…
Robert Copher
4 months agoReal classy JR
JR Beillenhouser
4 months ago;)