Redstate

I don't understand what this has to do with Roe; it seems to be an argumet over interpretation of a virginia statute, not a question of its constitutionality in light of Roe or Casey.

As for the acceptabiltiy of the result; well I find nothing wrong with her not getting jail time but there is nothing here that is acceptable. She probably needs at least short term psychiatirc evaluation (she did shoot herself in the stomach) and we might want to dive deeper to figure out why she didn't have the abortion done in a time frame which would ahve legally allowed her to do it in a safer environment. We might also want to question whether she was using any form of brith control in the initial instance but that is a debate for another time.

'well I find nothing wrong with her not getting jail time...'

How about if she had waited til the baby was born and then shot it. Different? How about a year later? Is the line more distinct?

'why she didn't have the abortion done in a time frame which would ahve legally allowed her to do...'

Is there an 'illegal' time frame? Roe and Casey have made any abortion legal at any time for any reason.

And yes she needs serious psychiatric care. As should anyone not appalled by this.

"How about if she had waited til the baby was born and then shot it. Different? How about a year later? Is the line more distinct?"

If you can't see a different between shooting ones self in the stoamch and shooting a baby after it is born than I guess the line is less ditinct. I see a clear difference between the two.

"Is there an 'illegal' time frame? Roe and Casey have made any abortion legal at any time for any reason."

That is of course patently untrue. Both Roe, and to a greater extent Casey, permit restrictions on both the time and the reason for abortions (see for example bans on specific late-term abortion procedures in Ohio, Georgia and Montana among others).

"And yes she needs serious psychiatric care. As should anyone not appalled by this."

Appalled by what? Appalled at the situation, absolutely, appalled that she's not in jail, hardly.

AA: "If you can't see a different between shooting ones self in the stoamch and shooting a baby after it is born than I guess the line is less ditinct. I see a clear difference between the two."

Perhaps you missed the parts of Leon's post where it stated "...in which a woman, on the day in which she was scheduled for delivery, shot herself in the abdomen" and "She shot herself in the abdomen, killing her unborn child, on the very day her daughter was to have been born".

You claim that there is a clear distinction between shooting one's own infant through the stomach on the very day of its birth and shooting it after emerging from the birth canal.

Aside from one to two minutes of elapsed time, what pray tell is the difference?

...you to shoot yourself to get at the infant the other doesn't. That seems like a clear ditnction to me; inside her body vs. outside her body.

What if the mother had not shot herself in the stomach, but waited until she was in labor, and then gone to an abortionist?

What if, unable to make it to an abortionist, she waits until the baby is partially born, its first limb or head out, and then changes her mind about having it?  What gruesome act would then be her legitimate choice?

What about after the baby is born, and crying, but before the cord is cut?  If she discerns some deformity in it, or simply doesn't want the hassle of a child, is she within rights to end the crying forever?

What if the baby is not crying yet?

What about during a Caesarian birth; if instead of being born, cleaned up, and cord cut, the medical practitioner ends the pregnancy in a different manner?  At what point is it still her choice?

I find no difference at all between the inside and outside of the mother.  The baby is a separate life, and she does not have the right to end it.

A well-known Mafia hitman, Alfonso "The Undertaker" Silvestri, exploited a little-known loophole in the law to escape imprisonment for his many assassinations.

Silvestri's technique was to place his own hand over the end of his rifle's muzzle as he shot his intended victim. The prior wounding of himself in the murder of his victim automatically exonerated Silvestri, despite the end result of death of an innocent victim.

Eventually, the hole in Silvestri's hand became permanent and even though he no longer suffered injury during his shootings, the bullet's actual passage through his body was still accepted as a valid defense.  Merely shooting between one's fingers is not seen as a directly equivalent, because only bodily self-penetration by a bullet (or any other weapon) excused the subsequent death of another.

with your notion of it being a separate life while still inside the mother but it is also immaterial to this discussion as Casey permits abortion restrictions post-viability and about 40 states don't allow abortion in the third trimester (save for the health of the mother).

So society does recognize that at this point the choice is not solely the mothers. That is why this is not about Roe or Casey but about the interpretation of a specific Virginia statute (of which I really can't comment ebcause I do not know the relevant cases).

I would add that the recognition that the choice is not solely the mothers does not depend on whether the fetus is on equal footing with the mother vis a vis being a 'life' but on society's shared interest with the mother over the fetus' survival.

I guess you eventually get numb to it but still, ouch. Anyway, I hope they dealt with that loophole but that is the nature of laws of man; they are as prone to error as their drafters.

that it's not a separate life on biology or metaphysics?

of morals, ethics, right & wrong I base it on metaphysics (assuming that by that you mean religion and philosophy).

Biology is a great science and has found answers to a myriad of questions about how we work, where we come from etc. but it offers nothing to help us understand what it is that makes us as human beings unique among all creatures.

of, for lack of a better word, a magical or mystical nature that on one side makes a fetus and on the other makes a person?  Where is this barrier, or if it's not a 'where', how do you characterize the barrier?

is when the head emerges outside the mother or the majority of the body (whichever happens first)

If the head has emerged but the trunk has not, it wouldn't be okay for an abortionist or even the mother to shoot the half-fetus/half-baby in the head?

If there is some drug that when injected in the womb kills the baby oops I mean fetus without harming the mom, then can't you envision a scenario in which an abortist inserts the needle and has it set up so that the mother throws the switch that causes the drug to be released? Then they can argue that it was an act by the mother against her own body and not legally an abortion.

But if I saw a trunk emrging I think that would be grounds for some depsarate action.

Going to play games? I say you should play elsewhere.

I was a troll?

to the discussion, you certainly haven't added anything to the discussion.  If A=C and B=C, then A=B.

At 49% of the body out, it's still a fetus, but at 51% it's a baby?

What about 50%?  That's not a majority. Is it murder, or a simple medical procedure?

And what if the abortionist chops off an arm, but in trying to do the rest ends up pulling out 51%, or the head?  Is it ok to proceed?

I started the coversation with the first comment and have replied in all seriousness to serious replies. The one response from bk which I admittedly did not reply so seriously too did not deserve it as upthread I clearly said this was a philosophical definition; not a legal one.

As for your use of the transitive property it should be pointed out that while all trolls may never add anything to the conversation, some people may occasioanlly not add anything to the conversation, it does not follow that all people who are not adding to a given conversation are trolls

I do enjoy the goalpost moving.

That's just the thing-- my brother's an obstetrician, and while he refused to participate in abortion training, he had to study the process. And in late-term abortions, the "fetal calvarium" or HEAD, for people with their head out of their rectum, is removed. It looks about as tasty as it sounds, a baby's head cut off but maybe missing the lower jaw or something.

Is it 9 months that makes a fetus a human? No, you could legally abort a baby that is overdue, and you can't abort a birthed preemie, God only knows why. So is it coming out of the womb that makes a fetus a human? No, because the head needs to come out to get clipped off, and that's totally legit too. And pro-choicers would never agree to that line even if that weren't the case, because fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier.

It's cold comfort, but the pro-choicers are truly fighting a losing battle, and will rightly be remembered as complete and utter barbarians when we look back on third-trimester abortions of totally viable human beings.

of the definition is for feet first delviery - which affects only 3-4% of all pregnancy but that is not really the point.

The definition of when the fetus becomes a person is separate from the question of when abortion is permitted or not. It need not be murder to be wrong.

What goalpost did I move?

Don't you know that it's impolite to actually read Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey  before opining on what the decisions do and do not say?

You may be wondering why I'm spending so much time with you on this.  I'm not an anti-abortion fanatic, though I do hold strong views.  I just remember a time when I thought as you do, that something about being inside the mother made it her decision.  

Back to our regularly scheduled debate:

So if it isn't murder, what is it, and why is it wrong?  Who are you, or anyone else, to decide what is right and wrong?

Surely, then, you can find some instance in the last 33 years of a doctor being successfully prosecuted for performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy whatsoever?

If you can find ten in the last 33 years I'll eat my left sock.

that AA's point was that the State of Virginia actually are the "who" that decided what is right and wrong in this matter and that Roe and Casey were not relevant to this matter since they gave the state the latitude on this specific matter.

He also said, at least twice, that he is unfamiliar with the Virginia law.

Moving from the post that was on topic (debatable if your first post was much on topic anyways) to sematics posts.

He was trying to make a funny - if a "trunk" emerges, it's time for desperate measures... get it? Yuk, yuk.

It's a play on multiple meanings of the word "trunk," don'tcha see?

that was certainly a "quip".

I was referring more to his larger point.

I am pro-choice.

I deduce my views of right and wrong from my own religious traditional and philosophical underpinnings. I also recognize that I have no unique claim on absolute knowledge in this area and am loathe to enforce my views on others. In other words, I am nobody to be deciding what is right and wrong.

I also believe that government is nobody to be deciding what is right or wrong for others, and in fact government's primary purpose it to create the structure which enables human society to exist (recognizing that as discrete individuals with no order we cannot survive). Thus, in areas such as this I prefer to leave the decisions to the individuals involved and their take on morality rather than allow the ruler of the day to determine for everyone right and wrong.

As for the base question regarding abortion: even though it is not life, even potential life has value and it should (under my morals) not be ended lightly. Thus, while circumstances may permit allowances to end the potential life (and such circumstance are far less of burden than when talkign about ending actual life) they are narrowly defined. I could go into greater detail on some of those definitions if you would like but I think this suffices to answer your base questions.

I also believe that government is nobody to be deciding what is right or wrong for others, and in fact government's primary purpose it to create the structure which enables human society to exist (recognizing that as discrete individuals with no order we cannot survive). Thus, in areas such as this I prefer to leave the decisions to the individuals involved and their take on morality rather than allow the ruler of the day to determine for everyone right and wrong.

So why does the government outlaw rape or murder?  Why does it outlaw pedophilia, even consensual pedophilia?  Are not all these acts considered immoral?

The government legislates morality all the time.  You can argue that it should only do so when there is a clear and overwhelming majority but it certainly does so.

that outlawing rape and murder are not about the immorality of the act (even though I would say they are) but the instability permitting it would cause for society. Murder is an obvious one, in a society where all killing was permitted no one could function as fear for life would dominate and keep people in seclusion. Rape is a similar argument; though historically it was viewed as less of a trangression as women are seen as equals in society that has changed.

Consensual pedophelia the problem is one of the ability to grant consent (this is why laws against sexual harrassment are right to include any request for relations from a direct superior).

I also am not saying that government does not legislate morality (resitrction on pronography, prostitution and gambling are better examples) but I would argue that it shouldn't.

but is it possible that the reason there have been no prosecutions is because with the changes in laws (and increased flexibility in particular) the need to commit illegal abortions have dissipated?

The vast majority of the criminal law is the legislation of moral judgments. Laws against murder reflect a moral judgment on the worth of human life. Laws against theft and trespass reflect a moral judgment on the sanctity of property. Different societies (ones that are either Communist, or Eastern, or both), will legislate this morality in very different ways. To say that society should not legislate morality is to say that society should not have criminal law - which is patently absurd.

The only reason this tired old canard comes up is when someone suggests a law that conflicts with the moral judgment of a particular individual (in this case, you), who then seeks to avoid having to justify his moral perfidy by making the indefensible statement, "We shouldn't legislate morality."

You said...

outlawing rape and murder are not about the immorality of the act (even though I would say they are) but the instability permitting it would cause for society

By your own reasoning, isn't the instability that permitting abortion causes to our society much the same thing?

That 40 some states have laws restricting abortions in the 3rd trimester. That directly contradicts your argument.

"say that society should not legislate morality is to say that society should not have criminal law - which is patently absurd."

There are other basis for criminal law than morality - I provided one above. Do we think it is immoral to drive over the speed limit? Is it immoral to jaywalk? Is it immoral not to wear a seat belt? Criminal laws exist for myriad of reasons from notions of safety, social order, maintiang the power of those who have it, faciltiating cleaner governance etc.

"The only reason this tired old canard comes up is when someone suggests a law that conflicts with the moral judgment of a particular individual (in this case, you)"

With all due respect it is you who thinks current law does not reflect your  morals, for the most part I am okay with thr state of abortion law in this country. That said, there are plenty of areas where my morals conflict with the law in being both more restrictive and more permissive and the only I ask is that people justify said laws with argumetns that require appeal to authority, religion or morals which are at the end of the day their own and supported by assertion alone.

I do wish that people would just say something like "people ought not regulate matters of taste as if they were matters of morality" where they meant that.

On top of that, I wish that people would just say something like "when the enforcement of a law leads to greater injustice than the lack of a law, the law itself is immoral" when they mean that.

Instead, you get people saying "you can't legislate morality" when they mean one or the other of the above and it makes everyone who thinks one or the other of the above look dumber for it.

because in the case of murder and rape, continuous reprisal and inability to act becuase of fear of said reprisal is a legitiamte concern (see any of the many mafia wars or tribal wars); it prevents societies shared development and growth. On the other hand, no such concern for the whole of society arises from abortion. The past 30 years of this society serves as proof of that.

it doesn't mean anybody has violated them. I would imagine the number of circumstances where you are forced to wait until the third trimester to have an abortion are quite rare.

In fact the total number of third trimester abortion (at least according to this) is just 100. It is easily believable that that number happens in the states that do permit it.

There are other basis for criminal law than morality - I provided one above. Do we think it is immoral to drive over the speed limit? Is it immoral to jaywalk? Is it immoral not to wear a seat belt? Criminal laws exist for myriad of reasons from notions of safety, social order, maintiang the power of those who have it, faciltiating cleaner governance etc.

The traditional answer is that there is a difference of kind between malum in se and malum prohibitum, but I reject this artificial distinction. Are you saying there is not a moral judgment about the desirability of placing human lives in danger by driving at reckless speeds? Ditto jaywalking, except substitute the value of the life of the jaywalker, and while I view seat belt laws as illegitimate, there's still a moral judgment involved in there about not burdening society with costs you can easily avoid.

Nevertheless, for malum in se laws, there is simply no explanation for their existence apart from moral judgments.

With all due respect it is you who thinks current law does not reflect your  morals, for the most part I am okay with thr state of abortion law in this country.

Reading comprehension is at a premium here - see, "SUGGESTS a law."

That said, there are plenty of areas where my morals conflict with the law in being both more restrictive and more permissive and the only I ask is that people justify said laws with argumetns that require appeal to authority, religion or morals which are at the end of the day their own and supported by assertion alone.

This sentence is next door to nonsensical, but the principle of representative democracy is that the authority appealed to is the moral judgment of a sufficient portion of the population.

On the other hand, no such concern for the whole of society arises from abortion. The past 30 years of this society serves as proof of that.

And it is unlikely that illegal abortions are included in that number. You also don't have to be "forced to wait until the third trimester to have an abortion" to decide to illegally kill your baby in the third trimester. Example #1 is the girl in this story. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

It is just ridiculous to assume that no illegal abortions have occurred in the past 33 years. Is there any illegal act of any kind that hasn't occurred in the US in the past 33 years many times?

That malum in se laws themselves derive not from morality but from the neccesary building blocks of society; they have been ingrained in some form in every legal code becuase without them society collapses. That is why you generally don't see prostitution regarded as malum in se but rather the basics of protecting one's life and property from forced taking (murder, assault, thet etc.). If you then confuse the origin and basis for these laws with all moral judgements you make the fallicious claim that all moral judgements of (insert your wuthority who happend to be in power) should be law.

"Are you saying there is not a moral judgment about the desirability of placing human lives in danger by driving at reckless speeds? Ditto jaywalking, except substitute the value of the life of the jaywalker"

i would say that those were not lost becuase of some moral judgement but we may be running into equivocation issues with the use of the word moral.

"but the principle of representative democracy is that the authority appealed to is the moral judgment of a sufficient portion of the population"

And that is why the constitution exists - to restrict the authority of the majority.

the worse instability America faces we are in good shape. We are in quite the luxurious position that we can base electoral and judicial decisions on the issues that are debated here and not the availability fo the bsic neccesities of life.

That malum in se laws themselves derive not from morality but from the neccesary building blocks of society; they have been ingrained in some form in every legal code becuase without them society collapses. That is why you generally don't see prostitution regarded as malum in se but rather the basics of protecting one's life and property from forced taking (murder, assault, thet etc.). If you then confuse the origin and basis for these laws with all moral judgements you make the fallicious claim that all moral judgements of (insert your wuthority who happend to be in power) should be law.

It surely is an unexplainable phenomenon, then, how many Eastern societies thrived for millenia without laws against murder (in particular, murder by a certain class against another)? Ditto communism for decades, which respects no right of personal property?

Again, there is no such thing as malum in se, in the most general sense. It is based on the fallacious assumption that Western morals are universal morals, and fails to account for the existence and longevity of societies that do not share those morals. The only thing we really mean by malum in se is that a sufficient number of people share the moral judgment that it has ceased to be questioned by a significant faction, within that particular society.

i would say that those were not lost becuase of some moral judgement but we may be running into equivocation issues with the use of the word moral.

Okay, you lost me.

And that is why the constitution exists - to restrict the authority of the majority.

If a majority gets sufficiently large, the right to free speech could suddenly be absent from the Constitution. See the 21st Amendment for historical proof.

That "not being dismembered and sucked through a vacuum" *is* a basic necessity of life. Others are less concerned.

the basis for murder laws is the sixth commandment, so all such laws and related convictions should be ruled unconstitutional.

The vast majority of the criminal law is the legislation of moral judgments. Laws against murder reflect a moral judgment on the worth of human life....

those who staunchly oppose abortion have argued that illegal abortions before Roe were not signficant in number.  If that is the case why should we think that illegal abortions are significant in number AFTER Roe?

Between significant and nonexistent. The theory that they are non existent now or have ever been doesn't hold water. It's not a viable explanation.

But if the number is statistically insignificant it is also reasonable to believe that the very few illegal abortions that do ok would go undetected by law enforcement, since law enforcement isn't likely to be looking to stop such crimes.

would the majority be by length or mass? You know we have to have a definate line so we would know that we're just terminating an undesirable tissue mass as opposed to a human being.

He cannot defend his assertion "that it's not a separate life while in the mother" from a biological standpoint. The unborn human has a complete HUMAN chromosome set, a unique DNA sequence (for simple minded folks this means not the mothers DNA), and satisfies all of the biological criteria of life (metabolism, reproduction, response to stimuli).

as debater's technique.  I already knew the answer was not biology, or if it were then I was dealing with an idiot.  No one can stop at answering "metaphysics"; they must go on to explain themselves.  I was trying to show him the mental house of cards it takes to be pro-choice, and perhaps someday he'll see it.

Set, Match..........

some refences for this:

"It surely is an unexplainable phenomenon, then, how many Eastern societies thrived for millenia without laws against murder "

I understood murder to be part of confuscian criminal codes and it certainy was contained in tribal customs such as the Semai and Iban. It may be true that they excepted classes of people from what was considered murder but so long as those classes do not ahve the power to retaliate that poses little threat to society.

"Again, there is no such thing as malum in se, in the most general sense. It is based on the fallacious assumption that Western morals are universal morals, and fails to account for the existence and longevity of societies that do not share those morals. The only thing we really mean by malum in se is that a sufficient number of people share the moral judgment that it has ceased to be questioned by a significant faction, within that particular society. "

This is fair enough - and I excluded from my lsit certain common law conepts traditionally considered in se for just this reason. But I would contend that acros all functioning human societies there are some basic concepts which hold true, not becuase of universal moral, but because they are neccesary bedrocks of our species social existence.

"i would say that those were not lost becuase of some moral judgement but we may be running into equivocation issues with the use of the word moral.

Okay, you lost me"

When I read the post below comparing taste and morality it occured to me that we may have different understanding of 'moral'. It is an unfortuante consequence of human communication.

"If a majority gets sufficiently large, the right to free speech could suddenly be absent from the Constitution. See the 21st Amendment for historical proof"

This is absolutely true - I would submit though that it would also likely be the last time we have a non-violent exchange of control over government in this country as well.

I'm sure you knew what I meant but of course the necceisties of a fetuses life are not so much my concern as I don't equate them with persons.

If I was lazy I would fallback on it has been the same position my religion has lived by and continues to do so.

Since I'm not that lazy I am willing to explore hte reasons behind it. While you can argue at the margin of 49/50% of a breach delivery out - it really doesn't change the matter. We are smart enough as people to realize that nothing magically happens when you turn 18 that makes you responsible for your decisions or at 25 that makes you a safer driver but the precise line is required for our distinctions. While the difference between 49 and 50% is visually meaningless, the difference between a 2 day infant and a 2 day fetus is quite striking (as is the 55 year old and 15 year old).