« How come TPM never fosters dialogue on the Basic Income Guarantee program idea? | AntiManicheist's Blog | The Pragmatic Progressive Bandwagon? »
A Pragmatic Prolife Manifesto!!!
I wrote the following post over at my main blog and felt I would share it with TPMCafe as I am interested in getting pro choice reactions to it...
dlw
Advertisement
Well at the end of the day, your position still isn't really pro-life at all. It's pro-punishment. You want the government to punish women for having abortions.
So your "pragmatism" is no different from run-of-the-mill Republican pragmatism about, say, cutting taxes for the rich. It arises from the 20% support that your true position would attract, if you argued it openly and honestly.
We already have a word for that: "lying."
--
-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --
June 27, 2006 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't want women punished. I want some of the legal protections against arbitrary loss of life currently given to the newborn infants extended to the human unborn at later points of pregnancy.
And, This is my true position. I oppose making all elective abortions illegal. I affirm that a woman has the right to elect an abortion unde defined circumstances and deserves due process in determining those circumstances. I am not lying.
This would make you, Paranoid.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 27, 2006 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
HUGE MAJOR MISSING GAP IN ARGUMENT: Where is your increased funding for EFFECTIVE sexual education? For meaningful public health initiatives to make sure birth control methods are available? And over the counter morning after pills? In other words: for making sure that unwanted pregnancies don't happen in the first place? It's nice that you, at least, seem to care about what happens to those children after they're born. But it's not enough.
If we had effective sex ed and decent family policies, then the issue would largely take care of itself.
The other thing that worries me is that I don't see you as truly willing to compromise on the issue. It seems more like you're trying to trick the pro-choice movement. If we started out saying okay, 1st trimester, we can all agree on that, who's to say it's not going to be narrowed down more? And what happens if there's a medical emergency in the 2nd trimester? I note you say 'voluntary' abortions, so presumably you'd have a medical bypass option, but I've yet to see a medical bypass plan that actually gives a woman and her doctor primary control to make the decision.
Bottom line, from a pro-choice standpoint, the answer is still NO.
June 27, 2006 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of that effective sex education stuff is part of the prolife feminism referred to in the link to the thoughts of Serrin Foster. I generally like the abstinence plus contraception plus depressing french films that deal with the psychological risks of sexual activity(like obsession).
I disagree that sex education and contraception will resolve the issue by itself. The legal status of the unborn is something that will need to be dealt with, one way or the other.
You wroteOn June 27, 2006 - 2:13pm Bama Belle said:
HUGE MAJOR MISSING GAP IN ARGUMENT: Where is your increased funding for EFFECTIVE sexual education? For meaningful public health initiatives to make sure birth control methods are available? And over the counter morning after pills? In other words: for making sure that unwanted pregnancies don't happen in the first place? It's nice that you, at least, seem to care about what happens to those children after they're born. But it's not enough.
If we had effective sex ed and decent family policies, then the issue would largely take care of itself.
The other thing that worries me is that I don't see you as truly willing to compromise on the issue. It seems more like you're trying to trick the pro-choice movement. If we started out saying okay, 1st trimester, we can all agree on that, who's to say it's not going to be narrowed down more? And what happens if there's a medical emergency in the 2nd trimester? I note you say 'voluntary' abortions, so presumably you'd have a medical bypass option, but I've yet to see a medical bypass plan that actually gives a woman and her doctor primary control to make the decision.
Am I trying to trick you? No, I'm making sure that females will have due process in deciding under what defined circumstances they may elect abortions.
I did not deal with the issue of non-elective abortions. If you followed all the links(of which there are quite a few), you'd see that I believe that we shd have general principles for doctors in determining what is a non-elective abortion and that mainly trusts the doctor's professionalism for enforcement.
I hope that answers your questions. Thanks for the comments.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 27, 2006 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most states already have laws regarding the legal status of the fetus. In Florida, it is 22 weeks and in Georgia it is 20 weeks. If a fetal death occurs after those time frames (for any cause), a death certificate is filed with the state. If the death occurs before, there is no documentation required.
...I'm making sure that females will have due process in deciding under what defined circumstances they may elect abortions.
Due process is already guaranteed under the 5th and 14th amendments. Why would I want to have less due process than men? As due process is specifically set out in the Constititution, I believe that makes it a fundamental right, even by strict constructionist or originalist standards.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 28, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but my proposal will deal with it at the fed'l level, as issues of legal personhood shouldn't be a states-rights sort of deal.
I'm using due process somewhat differently here. The determination of what defined circumstances under which females may elect an abortion or when the human unborn is first treated as a legally-protected person can be determined at the nat'l level by referendums that require a 75% majority to pass. Read my posts for the details.
The point is that this requirement would ensure due process for females as to any alteration of when they may elect an abortion. It would allow for change and prevent extreme changes, especially those advocated for by a religious minority.
Implicit here is the presumption that whether the human unborn deserves legal protection is not fundamentally a cognitive matter that shd be left to experts, like Peter Singer. What makes us believe that we shd protect someone or something is not a cognitive matter, but something of the heart. The referendums would be set up so that it would be easy to summarize the key relevant facts and people would simply vote yes or no.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 28, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the heart:
You get credit for at least considering the woman's role. But your battle is not just about life or the life of the fetus.
I'm assuming you are male. Can you try to imagine for 3 minutes how you would feel if the power of the federal government had the right to exert its force and authority on your body.
You could point me to web sites all day long that prove life begins at x. I could do the same and prove that nobody knows when life begins. But what I'm saying as clearly as I can, is that when life begins is not the issue for many of us.
If a woman's body can be put under the State's control and inalienable rights are demoted to the status of fundamental rights, then all citizens will become subject to that type of control if the state so desires.
And if you ask what about the fetus's inalienable right to life? I have to ask why does the fetus take precedence over the woman?
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 28, 2006 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why whether I am male or female has anything to do with the merit of my idea.
Even at the extreme of what I advocate for, with all elective abortions after 48 days of pregnancy, that would still give women plenty of time to elect an abortion if they are sexually active. It would put the impetus on them to monitor their periods and take timely pregnancy tests and require that the abortions be easily available without any shame.
As for when the unborn shd be treated as legal persons, know we cannot know this for certain, but that lack of certainty and unamity shdn't hamstring from making changes.
I see the issue as fundamentally about values. On the one hand you have a matter of autonomy, on the other hand you have the protection of a life.
I see nothing inalienable about autonomy, including control over our own bodies. The creation of the zygote is a hazard of sexual intercourse. It never chooses to be created. And, in the case of rape, it is easy to use abortifacient technology within the week after the rape to prevent the successful implantation of the zygote on the womb. This early technology will never be prohibited under my manifesto. It would matter more for women who choose to be sexually active and risk contraceptive failure and even then, careful planning should enable them to elect an abortion before 48 days after conception.
So, the bottom line here is more about clarifying the legal status of the human unborn than taking away the control women have over their body and fertility.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 28, 2006 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As comments on this thread have shown, abortion is a tricky issue. I've been hesitant to join the fray, but ...
AntiManicheist (whose username I adore, by the way) wrote: "I see the issue as fundamentally about values. On the one hand you have a matter of autonomy, on the other hand you have the protection of a life."
That seems reasonable, although one could argue that the term "values" is prejudicial. Still, this isn't the only case in which we must weigh "autonomy" and "protection of a life."
As an example, let's say that Anna attacks Bill. Bill, defending himself, kills Anna. As a society, we recognize and validate "self-defense" as a mitigating or exonerating factor in Bill's actions. In other words, we've given greater weight to Bill's autonomy than to Anna's life. (I know this is an extreme example -- most "pragmatic" pro-lifers make exceptions for the health of the mother.)
AM also wrote: "I don't see why whether I am male or female has anything to do with the merit of my idea."
And AM is correct on the merits. But . . . pregnancy is an experience unique to women. Even the possibility of pregnancy is unique to women. That means that abortion as an issue is more deeply personal for women, more deeply felt. It raises the question of "what would I do?" in a very real and immediate way. For women, birth control, pregnancy, and abortion can never be merely theoretical.
PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.June 28, 2006 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you viviane. For women, birth control, pregnancy, and abortion can never be merely theoretical.
Well said.
It would put the impetus on them to monitor their periods and take timely pregnancy tests and require that the abortions be easily available without any shame.
Proof that you are male. There may be exactly 6 women in the world whose periods are normal enough to to "monitor". Timely pregnancy tests? Don't look at what the box says. Another 6 women in the world have the HCG that will register the next morning. Some don't register for 30 days. False negatives are very common, although false positives are not.
I see nothing inalienable about autonomy, including control over our own bodies. The creation of the zygote is a hazard of sexual intercourse. It never chooses to be created.
So how does the zygote get more rights if nothing is inalienable? Property rights are considered inalienable in this country, for pete's sake.
On the one hand you have a matter of autonomy, on the other hand you have the protection of a life.
No. For women they both are on the same hand attached to the same body. As viviane said, birth control, pregnancy, and abortion can never be merely theoretical.
So, the bottom line here is more about clarifying the legal status of the human unborn...
The status of the unborn is...unborn.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 28, 2006 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, where can I get better statistics on the reliability of pregnancy tests at early stages? Obviously, people could use this info in voting in a referendum to alter when the human unborn is treated as a legally-protected person.
ss:So how does the zygote get more rights if nothing is inalienable? Property rights are considered inalienable in this country, for pete's sake.
dlw: No, property rights are never inalienable. Everything is potentially subject to regulation. Some people just like to claim that they are. And, as they deal with autonomy, I would generalize to say that most forms of autonomy are never completely inalienable. Freedom for the Pike is death for the Minnow.
The issue is what sorts of regulations ought we to have for the abortion industry that define when women may elect an abortion(we're presuming broad guidelines are given for Doctors that trust their professionalism as to the distinction between an elect and non-elect abortion.) or alternatively when we first treat the human unborn as legally-protected persons with rights against arbitrary loss of life.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 29, 2006 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
AM - check out womens health.gov for preliminary guidance. I'll try to find the more detailed (and acceptable to all sides) statistics later.
...people could use this info in voting in a referendum to alter when the human unborn is treated as a legally-protected person.
Not the people. If your goal is to initiate policies that represent both the woman and the unborn, you have to factor in the realities before hand. Another reason is because of the current one issue amendment scrutiny.
The issue is what sorts of regulations ought we to have for the abortion industry...
There is no abortion industry. Again, If your goal is to initiate policies that represent both the woman and the unborn. the rhetoric has to be neutral. (Otherwise, you will set me off again. :-))
And, as they deal with autonomy, I would generalize to say that most forms of autonomy are never completely inalienable.
I'll have to get back to you with the case, but the Supreme Court in the late 1890s (or around then) has recognized freedom from government on issues regarding the body.
Policies from the heart have to be formed in cognitive reality, not wishful thinking. Does that make sense?
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 29, 2006 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
AM - check out womens health.gov for preliminary guidance. I'll try to find the more detailed (and acceptable to all sides) statistics later.
dlw: Well it said that most home pregnancy tests are accurate within a week of when someone misses their period. That sounds like roughly at most 5 weeks, which would leave a fair amount of time to elect an abortion.
I wrote:...people could use this info in voting in a referendum to alter when the human unborn is treated as a legally-protected person.
SeaShell:Not the people. If your goal is to initiate policies that represent both the woman and the unborn, you have to factor in the realities before hand. Another reason is because of the current one issue amendment scrutiny
dlw: What "realities"? I'm afraid you lost me on the "current one issue amendment scrutiny". As it is, the reality I see is that Abortion is the most divisive issue in the US since slavery and I don't have a problem with having a constitutional amendment so that it won't remain a wedge issue in our elections...
I wrote:The issue is what sorts of regulations ought we to have for the abortion industry...
Seashell:There is no abortion industry.
dlw: If people use abortafacient technology for compensation of some form then there exists an industry.
Seashell:Again, If your goal is to initiate policies that represent both the woman and the unborn. the rhetoric has to be neutral. (Otherwise, you will set me off again. :-))
dlw: Saying that the matter at hand is what sorts of regulations ought to exist for the abortion industry is being neutral. All industries are regulated by gov't, just as all choice is within a legal and moral framework and it is the framework we are discussing/debating about.
I wrote:And, as they deal with autonomy, I would generalize to say that most forms of autonomy are never completely inalienable.
Seashell:I'll have to get back to you with the case, but the Supreme Court in the late 1890s (or around then) has recognized freedom from government on issues regarding the body.
dlw: please do. I am highly skeptical of that.
SS:Policies from the heart have to be formed in cognitive reality, not wishful thinking. Does that make sense?
dlw: Yup, but it's also not simply a matter of precedent. I am a constitutional constructivist advocating for redirecting prolife activism to making a specific sort of constitutional amendment with the purpose of preventing (later) abortions and acrimony.
This will only work if it elicits more dialogue from prochoicers so that there can be multipartisan support for the amendment.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 29, 2006 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Roe v. Wade.
Specifically, Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford (1891) says:
The issue is what sorts of regulations ought we to have for the abortion industry that define when women may elect an abortion...
Regulating the technology of abortion will not and cannot protect the unborn. Pure rhetoric. But then you have another issue:
I see the issue as fundamentally about values. On the one hand you have a matter of autonomy, on the other hand you have the protection of a life.
In the last post, I said you have to deal with realities and also the single issue scrutiny.I should have said 'single subject'. There is a case before Georgia's Supreme Court now about single subject issues, comparable to this one from Illinois.
This will only work if it elicits more dialogue from prochoicers so that there can be multipartisan support for the amendment.
I'm trying to do that now.
I am a constitutional constructivist...
The snark in me wants to say that you should first become more acquainted with the constitution. :-)
All emphasis are mine.
Edited to add:
Well it said that most home pregnancy tests are accurate within a week of when someone misses their period. That sounds like roughly at most 5 weeks, which would leave a fair amount of time to elect an abortion.
You want 45 days after conception. Now subtract 35 days IF the test shows positive at the end of a week. That leaves 13 days -less than 2 weeks-for an election. That's not a fair amount of time.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 29, 2006 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You cited:"The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity: to be let alone."
This directs the attention back to the issue of legal personhood and how to deal with interdependence. Ie., often in law the issue is whether party A has the right to impose a duty upon party B or party B has the right to impose duty on party A.
So does the fetus have the right to have the gov't act on its behalf against an arbitrary termination of its life after x days of incubation or does the woman have the right to elect to abort the fetus after choosing to carry it up to x days?
I wrote:The issue is what sorts of regulations ought we to have for the abortion industry that define when women may elect an abortion...
SeaShell:Regulating the technology of abortion will not and cannot protect the unborn. Pure rhetoric.
dlw: Whatever. I didn't say that. I used the term abortafacient technology to define the abortion industry.
dlw:I'm still missing the point of what you said about single subjects.
Seashell: You encourage me to read the Constitution.
I recommend try reading my whole position first, particularly the post on "How to Depoliticize Abortion." It draws heavily on Anthony Kennedy's interp of RoeVWade as fundamentally guaranteeing a woman's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances.
dlw: I said 48 days. That leaves 13 days, two weeks, which is plenty of time to act in a worse case scenario and, don't forget, I'm not advocating right now for preventing all elective abortions after 48 days. I'm advocating for us to make the legal change of when we treat the human unborn a legally-protected person at the Fed'l level only through nat'l referendums.
Obviously, such a change would foster these sorts of debates that we are having at the nat'l level and both allow for legal change and protect against extreme changes.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 29, 2006 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm advocating for us to make the legal change of when we treat the human unborn a legally-protected person at the Fed'l level only through nat'l referendums.
Such a legal change involves so much more than abortion. Here is one example: Say a 7 month pregnant woman tries to commit suicide and she lives but the fetus dies. If she thought life was bad before, does she now find herself charged with murder, too?
I wrote:The issue is what sorts of regulations ought we to have for the abortion industry that define when women may elect an abortion...
What are these regulations going to say? You can't sell RU-486 to anyone who is over 48 days pregnant? And they will be able to ascertain this how? Or do you plan on having the doctor not give it to a patient after 48 days? In which case you are are regulating the medical 'industry', and not the technology.
Again, I applaud your motives, but the technique needs some work. I read this, but didn't see any mention of an Anthony Kennedy. Link?
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 29, 2006 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Single ideas may work in law, but often not in medicine. Abortion industry?
Is there an industry for the protection of the stomach lining from irritation from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), commonly used for arthritis, dysmenorrhea, and headache? After all, misoprostol (Cytotec) was developed for just that purpose.
Is there an industry for immunosuppression in autoimmune disease, as well as for the treatment of cancer? Methotrexate was developed for cancer chemotherapy, but has an extremely wide range of applications in diseases from asthma to psoriasis.
RU-486, mifipristone, was principally developed as an abortifacient, but it has other applications such as reducing bleeding after normal delivery. Many protocols for its use in abortion combine it with misoprostol.
Just to confuse things, it is quite possible to induce abortion with a combination of misoprostol and methotrexate.
I find myself confused as to which industries we are discussing.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 30, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, thanks for the comment Howard. My quote, "If people use abortafacient technology for compensation of some form then there exists an industry." does not imply that other uses of said technology undermine the existence of said industry, nor the fact that the issues at hand are the proper regulations of said industry.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 30, 2006 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
More to the point is that you haven't demonstrated that there is other than a theoretical "abortion industry", if "industry" is used in the sense of a commercial entity motivated by money. I'm rather baffled by the idea of "proper regulations of said industry", when such industry is so hard to define.
Is there, for example, a birth defect industry? After all, the FDA requires "black box warnings" in prescribing information, and sometimes (cooperatively with the manufacturer)patient contracts to agree to contraception as a means of preventing birth defects from valuable drugs categorized as "pregnancy category X", known causes of birth defects.
Such drugs include the poster child of teratogens, thalidomide. It's returned from the tragic use as a sedative and treatment for morning sickness, to a drug with a wide range of applications where it can neutralize tumor necrosis factor alpha. TNF-a is part of natural defenses against cancer, but is also part of the more devastating effects of leprosy (the official approved use), with off-label uses and clinical trials for a wide range of autoimmune conditions such as Behcet's syndrome, transplant rejection, and multiple sclerosis.
Another such class includes isoretinoin, the most effective drug for severe, disfiguring acne and related conditions.
The potential for teratogenicity of several such drugs is that even if the drug is being administered to the male sexual partner of a woman of childbearing potential, that woman is required to use two forms of contraception, because enough of the drug can transmit in semen to cause damage, or that it may affect spermatozoa.
I'm afraid that I'm hearing a great deal of medical policy coming from someone that does not seem terribly steeped in medical knowledge. This is not, unfortunately, uncommon in politics. Some amazing restrictions on legitimate treatment have come from grandstanding about substance abuse -- even though the drug in question is not especially abusable and has great value for purposes completely unrelated to substance abuse management.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 30, 2006 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that for someone so knowledgeable and smart that you are very good at missing the point.
Yes industry is non-standard language. However, by the def'n of industry, it is valid. People do make money off of the use of abortafacient technology. I used the expression of "Regulations of the abortion industry" as a counter to the use of libertarian-style language by some prochoicers that tends quite often to obscure the real issues in discussion.
Those issues do not require a detailed knowledge of abortafacient technology and their alternative medical uses. The issue is not the medical procedure, but rather the proper legal status of the unborn.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 30, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thoughts.
S:Such a legal change involves so much more than abortion. Here is one example: Say a 7 month pregnant woman tries to commit suicide and she lives but the fetus dies. If she thought life was bad before, does she now find herself charged with murder, too?
dlw: I guess she would or reckless manslaughter. I'm sure that a good judge would probably be lenient and recommend psychological treatment for the woman. Have you read the facts of fetal development at 7 months or observed a catscan? Most people would only have an abortion then if it was to save the life of the mother.
S:What are these regulations going to say? You can't sell RU-486 to anyone who is over 48 days pregnant? And they will be able to ascertain this how? Or do you plan on having the doctor not give it to a patient after 48 days? In which case you are are regulating the medical 'industry', and not the technology.
dlw: Well, that is also a good question. Thankyou. If this site is correct, practically speaking, RU486 needs to be taken at the Doctor's office and is not available OTC. It also is no longer so effective at 7 weeks.
Even then, it's like an 86% effectiveness rate and not appropriate for everyone.
So yes, the change in law would change some regulations for doctors. And doctors, being professionals, would be able to tell the stage of fetal development. It's very easy to tell when a fetus is past 7 weeks, because it looks very different than before.
I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but perhaps you will agree that I offer a way to resolve the issue of the legal status of the unborn that promotes compromise and keeps the separation of Church and State and guarantees that a politician or judges personal private views on abortion will not matter for her or his selection to office.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 30, 2006 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Is this a typo for 7 weeks, the time you cite elsewhere in this post?
Again, I am not filled with confidence by your post. First, CT scanning delivers sufficient ionizing radiation, especially some of the newer high-resolution modes, that physicians are being more cautious with balancing the expected benefit from the radiation risk in all patients. Radiation risk is significantly higher in pregnant women.
Unless there was an overwhelming reason to need CT of the abdomen -- perhaps some extreme abdominal trauma situations where the mother's life is clearly at risk -- the appropriate imaging modality would be ultrasound or MRI. You mention malpractice; CT without a very strong justification could well be considered malpractice.
The seventh week is especially significant in fetal development, as Mullerian differentiation takes place between the seventh and eighth weeks of gestation. Prior to that point, the fetus has vestigial female and male sexual organs. During that week, the mother generates a flood of male sex hormone. If the fetus has a Y chromosome and otherwise is genetically normal, the female organ precursors atrophy and the male characteristics begin to form. If the fetus has no Y chromosome, or has certain other genetic defects such as 5-alpha reductase deficiency, it will develop as phenotypically female.
You correctly point out that doctors are professionals. You appear to be looking for a magical instant, other than conception, at which a fetus acquires a right to life.
Tell me, what is the right to life of a full-term anencephalic fetus? Of a full-term ectopic pregnancy that develops in the abdomen rather than the Fallopian tube?
Sorry, I find your argument fundamentally faith-based, with no sound medical basis.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 30, 2006 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
H:Yes. Is this a typo for 7 weeks, the time you cite elsewhere in this post?
no. Seashell brought up 7 months in her previous post.
H:Again, I am not filled with confidence by your post. First, CT scanning delivers sufficient ionizing radiation, especially some of the newer high-resolution modes, that physicians are being more cautious with balancing the expected benefit from the radiation risk in all patients. Radiation risk is significantly higher in pregnant women.
Unless there was an overwhelming reason to need CT of the abdomen -- perhaps some extreme abdominal trauma situations where the mother's life is clearly at risk -- the appropriate imaging modality would be ultrasound or MRI. You mention malpractice; CT without a very strong justification could well be considered malpractice.
okay, I stand corrected. What matters is not the method, but the ability to observe the unborn and estimate therein its point of development.
H:The seventh week is especially significant in fetal development, as Mullerian differentiation takes place between the seventh and eighth weeks of gestation. Prior to that point, the fetus has vestigial female and male sexual organs. During that week, the mother generates a flood of male sex hormone. If the fetus has a Y chromosome and otherwise is genetically normal, the female organ precursors atrophy and the male characteristics begin to form. If the fetus has no Y chromosome, or has certain other genetic defects such as 5-alpha reductase deficiency, it will develop as phenotypically female.
Thankyou. I'm sure there are other significant changes that take place during that week. That's why in my Pragmatic Prolife Manifesto I only promise to seek longterm to change people's hearts about making the human unborn legally-protected-persons 48 days after conception.
If you have a suggestion of a more precise medical def'n, I would appreciate if you could share it with me.
You correctly point out that doctors are professionals. You appear to be looking for a magical instant, other than conception, at which a fetus acquires a right to life.Tell me, what is the right to life of a full-term anencephalic fetus? Of a full-term ectopic pregnancy that develops in the abdomen rather than the Fallopian tube?
Tell me, did I post earlier about nonelect abortions? Did I claim that doctor's professionalism was not going to be relied on for making the more difficult technical calls? Do these questions have any relevance to my position?
Sorry, I find your argument fundamentally faith-based, with no sound medical basis.
I'm sorry, I find all arguments about what makes us human beings to be based on our ontotheological beliefs, with science/reason serving an ancillary role. This is why I believe nat'l referendums are how we shd determine what law governs us all. I will reiterate, I am against states rights on matters of legal personhood. It shdn't matter much whether one is in Texas or NY for whether the human unborn is treated as a legally-protected person.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 30, 2006 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got a fair bit of convincing to do to override quite a bit of medical and laboratory observation for me to consider a fetus, until the unambiguous event of a vaginal or Caesarean delivery, to have any more human rights than a fecal impaction. Mind you, when I had to draw blood from newborns, their humanity was still rather theoretical, their self-awareness and communicative ability rather less than that of the charming cat next to me.
Even delivery is sometimes a difficult place to bestow rights, as in anencephaly. While many anencephalic fetuses are aborted, while the reality isn't all that publicized, obstetric teams may very well not make external efforts to start respiration -- which may be immediately futile, and will invariably cease within a few days. Essentially, all higher brain functions are physically absent, and the brainstem often impaired.
So far, your arguments seem to come across as statements of faith. I don't know, perhaps it's that I find the Manichean theory more descriptive of the human experience than treating it as a heresy. While I have no evidence of the Adversary, the work of such seems more in keeping with human history than a benevolent anthropomorphic deity.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 30, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Howard, I don't need to convince you. I need to convince 2/3rds of the US senate that nat'l referendums are the way to go in altering whether or when the human unborn shd be treated as a legally-protected person and then I'd need to convince 3/4s of the US citizenry that a proposed change was a good idea.
Now, I'd be counting on you to make your own case for your own views, drawing on your wealth of experiences and knowledge before the referendum and while the amendment was being debated. After all, that is democracy and what I'm mainly calling for us to find a way to make democracy prevail on this most divisive issue, the most controversial and acrimonious issue in the US history since slavery.
I see birth as a dramatic change in autonomy. Autonomy, including one's communicative ability, is a slippery-slope criterion for whether we are human beings. And, I think that using self-awareness as a criterion sounds a bit too much like solipsism to me. Given the importance of the subconscious for our actions, just how self-aware are we really?
I don't think its manicheistic vs antimanicheistic thing. I know this because I'm up in arms on this issue with "both sides".
My belief is that the combination of the potential for us to recognize ourselves in another and our future expectations for them would be a reasonable and egalitarian permanent referent for what makes someone a human being. I see this as an improvement over metaphysics of soul that are divorced from our physical beings(or limited to our dna, being biologically alive and potential to develop) or the notions that it is the degree of mental/physical autonomy that matters most.
I worked this out intuitively from debate and deliberation and some interaction with the relational turn in philosophy. I'm still working on comparing this with other approaches. I can point to the comments at my blog that so far the prolifers have liked my strategy, even if they disagreed with me on the proper telos. Which gets at why my idea works, it doesn't presume we need to agree ontotheologically as to when we become human beings for us to be able to make critical legal changes that would render the politics of abortion inert as a wedge issue in elections and a factor in judicial appointments.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 30, 2006 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shd also mention that I have been inspired much in my notion by the Eastern orthodox understanding of soul, through the writings of Christos Yannaras, which is closer to the original hebraic understanding and distinct from the greek notion that tragically came to influence much of Xty.
You can take that as you'd like. As a CS Peirce-style Pragmaticist, I think progress comes about by the process of abduction, the fallible application of ideas from one area into another.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 2, 2006 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shd also mention tht I have been inspired much in my notions by the Western disciplines of embryology, and cognitive sciences enhanced by functional neuroimaging.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 2, 2006 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you know what, the facts alone are not going to settle this matter. If that were the case, this would not have dragged on as long as it has. Our ontotheological beliefs matter, regardless of varying extents of immersion in embryology and the cognitive sciences.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 2, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I suppose facts have little to do with it, nor, in the minds of many driven by emotion, will ontotheology. I seem to have missed that part of the Constitution that suggested ontotheology as a basis for law.
I remember when abortion was an underground process, and women hoped the person doing the abortion was competent. Be as ontotheological as you want; unless you jail pregnant women, you'll have abortions.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 2, 2006 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may say you are pragmatic and not dogmatic, but it does seem dogma to you that, at some point, a fetus gains human rights. Whenever challenged that you are dogmatic about that, you change the subject to such things as the matter not being tractable to facts.
I continue to ask about the ethics of delivery and life support for an anecephalic neonate, which I consider an important reality test for any proposal about the acquisition of human rights.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 2, 2006 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the compliment on the User-Name. Anit-Manichaeist is the name of my blog and is a critical ontotheological belief that underlies my writings.
Viv writes:That seems reasonable, although one could argue that the term "values" is prejudicial. Still, this isn't the only case in which we must weigh "autonomy" and "protection of a life."
dlw: Yes, and if you'll notice, I'm not saying "Thus says the Lord" in my manifesto. My point is to clarify and reframe the issue as as being about how we determine the defined circumstances when women may elect an abortion or, alternatively, when the human unborn are first treated as legally-protected persons, with protections against arbitrary loss of life similar to that currently given to new born infants. I also advance my own notion of what the answer shd be but in a pragmatic, not dogmatic, manner.
Viv also wrote:pregnancy is an experience unique to women. Even the possibility of pregnancy is unique to women. That means that abortion as an issue is more deeply personal for women, more deeply felt. It raises the question of "what would I do?" in a very real and immediate way. For women, birth control, pregnancy, and abortion can never be merely theoretical.
dlw: And I am not trying to remove the control women have over their fertility through birth control. My referendum idea, by guaranteeing that a woman will be the decisive vote in any proposed change in the defined circumstances when women may elect abortions, guarantees that the deeply personal nature of the question for women will be key to any alterations in the regulations surrounding the abortion industry.
I think men still shd have the right to vote as I think we are all capable of deliberating on the facts of the human fetal development process and the meaning of what it is to be a human being as well as the practicality of the choice set that would then exist for a well-informed female.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
June 29, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think men still shd have the right to vote as I think we are all capable of deliberating on the facts of the human fetal development process and the meaning of what it is to be a human being as well as the practicality of the choice set that would then exist for a well-informed female.
I didn't mean to imply that men shouldn't have a vote on the matter -- but I was trying to explain why it made sense to me that seashell asked whether you (dlw) were male. Men and women naturally interpret "reproductive health" issues differently. That's not saying that men and women cannot reach the same conclusions, only that policy decisions around these issues have greater import for women.
In my experience, women don't see the abortion question as a debate over "the facts of the human fetal development process and the meaning of what it is to be a human being." It's practical question as well as a moral one -- a question that has the potential to influence one's daily life, whether that's making choices on sexual activity or taking birth control (which comes with another whole batch of issues).
To make a gross generalization, pro-choice women have thought about these aspects of their pro-life position much more thoroughly then pro-life men.
PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.
June 29, 2006 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the delay in replying, Viviane. I overlooked your reply.
Viv:In my experience, women don't see the abortion question as a debate over "the facts of the human fetal development process and the meaning of what it is to be a human being." It's practical question as well as a moral one -- a question that has the potential to influence one's daily life, whether that's making choices on sexual activity or taking birth control (which comes with another whole batch of issues).
dlw: Sure, but wouldn't or shouldn't the practical and moral aspects of the question involve deliberating on the facts of fetal development and what makes us human beings?
Otherwise, it might come across as perhaps reflecting a self-centered focus on our own autonomy or a postmodern, "well we can't be completely sure, so let's just let everyone do their own thing". It'd also might be like me, as a factory-owner, deciding to fire workers because of a decline in demand without considering at all how this would affect their well-being.
Viv:To make a gross generalization, pro-choice women have thought about these aspects of their pro-life position much more thoroughly then pro-life men.
dlw: I get your point and I completely concede that the immediate practicality of the issue for females is something I will never face in the same way. I would only add that the facts and ontotheological questions I mentioned above shd be part of the deliberations for females and males and that I 100% agree that the decisive voice on this issue must be by a female. That's why I'm pragmatically prolife.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 2, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please read the comments below on my promise that they are sincere.
I was once absolutely stunned to hear Jerry Falwell, presumably under the effects of something mind-altering, give what I still regard as one of the best succinct summaries of the entire abortion issue. A fairly close paraphrase would be: Neither side in this, I believe, wants to kill children. One side does not believe a fetus is a child. From the perspective of my side, we pray they change their minds.
You said,
Do you accept the possibility that some of us have sincerely gone through such deliberation, to a point at which it would seem further deliberation would be a matter of diminishing returns, and concluded that a fetus is not human?
In my case, that is primarily medical and to some extent pragmatic, and also that I do believe in the physical autonomy of clearly human women. When I say "pragmatic", I deal with difficult bioethical situations such as the delivery of an anecephalic neonate.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that anencephaly is compatible with independent respiration and heartbeat of more than a few hours or days. If that neonate takes no voluntary respiratory effort, is it morally incumbent to take all measures...some measures...to induce respiratory effort? Assuming the neonate does start to breathe, should it be put on a ventilator when it inevitably struggles to breathe, and then would stop without mechanical support?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 2, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
You quoted Falwell, as summarizing the issue:Neither side in this, I believe, wants to kill children. One side does not believe a fetus is a child. From the perspective of my side, we pray they change their minds.
dlw: This is consistent with my recurring emphasis that ontotheological beliefs about what makes us human beings matter.
Howard:Do you accept the possibility that some of us have sincerely gone through such deliberation, to a point at which it would seem further deliberation would be a matter of diminishing returns, and concluded that a fetus is not human?
dlw: Sure. And I wouldn't villify you as baby-e(h)aters either for drawing that conclusion.
H:In my case, that is primarily medical and to some extent pragmatic, and also that I do believe in the physical autonomy of clearly human women. When I say "pragmatic", I deal with difficult bioethical situations such as the delivery of an anecephalic neonate.
dlw: Well, I find it hard to believe that it can simply be medical. I also believe in the autonomy of women, as I do for men, but none of our autonomies are absolute.
When I say pragmatic, I mean looking for practical solutions that let us adjudicate between our notions. To do this, I simplify with assumptions that presume we've worked out or can work out the complicating bioethical cases.
And so my answer is no, I would not be dogmatic on the questions you raised above. I am an ethical consequentialist and fallibilist and do not believe in either deontology or utilitarianism, though I believe one of the most important consequences of our choices is the sort of people we become. I believe in the importance of loving God and neighbor, the latter closer to how we love ourselves. I also believe in the final resurrection of the dead and that those who die before the age of accountability will go to heaven. I think the best way one can love our neighbors in this tragic circumstance is to terminate the life of the anecephalic neonate when it is safest to do so and then donate the organs to help save other lives or critical research that may save lives.
Now, my question to you is what does this question have to do with the issue of when we first begin to treat the human unborn as legally-protected persons or why should the right to elect an abortion inalienable? Can you respect my own and others belief that the humanity of the unborn is not based on their cognitive ability or self awareness?
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 2, 2006 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue arises when, for whatever reason, the anencephalic fetus is not aborted. Once that neonate is delivered, if all neonates have human rights, than not starting its respiration is arguably manslaughter.
I admit that discussion moves into some that I cannot separate from the basic right to life: the right to death, and the recognition of futile treatment.
I can recognize that you believe you have thought sincerely about it. Unfortunately, to me, that is founded on an experience of, or a belief in, a deity. Personally, I do not deny the existence of such, but until I actually experience it, I cannot base my actions on the assumption or faith that one exists.
Unfortunately, I see no way to resolve these viewpoints, no compromise position. My criterion that human rights begin at delivery is itself a compromise.
To examine that compromise, consider an anencephalic neonate that has a complete brainstem, such that there will be successful control of respiration, heart, etc. Most such neonates are more damaged than that.
It is absolutely impossible that neonate, even if it survives to age 90, will ever develop self-awareness or cognitive ability. Personally, I would have no problem giving it a lethal dose of pentobarbital, and harvesting organs if usable. Practically, I don't see that as possible. Sadly, what we do see is a sometimes prolonged death of a nothingness in human form.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 2, 2006 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard:The issue arises when, for whatever reason, the anencephalic fetus is not aborted. Once that neonate is delivered, if all neonates have human rights, than not starting its respiration is arguably manslaughter.
I admit that discussion moves into some that I cannot separate from the basic right to life: the right to death, and the recognition of futile treatment.
dlw: I defined someone's personhood based on both our potential to recognize them and expectations for their development. As ne cannot reasonably expect the anencephalic neonate to live, the issue is not whether it will die, but when.
In my Christian Social Ethics class last year, I pointed out when we studied Euthanasia that, from a consequentialist standpoint, the issue at hand is not whether someone dies, but what sort of life they are going to live for the rest of their life. I also affirmed that even a life with a lower functionality can still glorify God and be worth saving. In my group, we agreed that it was necessary to consider the detail in the many different cases and to err on the side of life when in doubt.
I can recognize that you believe you have thought sincerely about it. Unfortunately, to me, that is founded on an experience of, or a belief in, a deity. Personally, I do not deny the existence of such, but until I actually experience it, I cannot base my actions on the assumption or faith that one exists.
Unfortunately, I see no way to resolve these viewpoints, no compromise position. My criterion that human rights begin at delivery is itself a compromise.
It's all based on beliefs. I see no "natural" compromise position, but I'm not a utilitarian and am a social constructivist when it comes to the legal and cultural laws/norms that govern us. I also am a moral realist.
To examine that compromise, consider an anencephalic neonate that has a complete brainstem, such that there will be successful control of respiration, heart, etc. Most such neonates are more damaged than that.
It is absolutely impossible that neonate, even if it survives to age 90, will ever develop self-awareness or cognitive ability. Personally, I would have no problem giving it a lethal dose of pentobarbital, and harvesting organs if usable. Practically, I don't see that as possible. Sadly, what we do see is a sometimes prolonged death of a nothingness in human form.
Me too, because birth is arbitrary as far as the proper legal status of the neonate or fetus to me. Yes, we make compromises, but given that they are compromies, we can and should remake them. My idea is to pass a constitutional amendment making these new compromises only possible through nat'l referendums that would require a 75% approval of a proposed change to become law.
My question is why shd your technical expertise and lack of a personal experience of deity give you veto power over such a mechanism for the remaking of compromises? And if we did restrict elective abortions during the term of pegnancy and still allowed for non-elective abortions(through any safe and reliable procedure) in the later terms of pregnancy, wouldn't that imply that the termination of the neonate you described above could also be legally countenanced, as making the best of the situation?
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 2, 2006 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that making compromises that specifically include religious positions violates the existing Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Honestly, I'm not saying that to be snarky; I don't think such a compromise, if it did include religious concessions, could get through the Supreme Court without changes to the First Amendment.
I need some clarification here, and I'll only touch on some of the ethical issues. First, if the anencephalic neonate appeared to be capable of basic life functions, although it would be quite likely that the higher brain just isn't there, is that grounds for a non-elective abortion? Assume -- this is not unreasonable -- that there's no strong reason to believe the fetus cannot go to term and be delivered. It's survival after delivery that is problematic.
There then become all manner of neonatal issues. If the neonate is not breathing at delivery, is it manslaughter not to try to start it breathing, or is there a loophole in your argument that once it gets to a certain gestational age, it has human rights?
In most cases, the situation is known well ahead of delivery. What if the parents are absolutely pro-life and want all possible life support? Incidentally, just as most hospitals make it a personal option for staff to participate in an abortion, there would probably be a choice given to staff whether or not to participate in the delivery and probable resuscitation in this case.
Let us assume the mother had no prenatal care, and the anencephaly literally is detected only at birth, the mother having arrived in active labor with no time for an ultrasound. Does that change any requirements on the birthing team?
In part, I've been trying to make the point that decisions about abortion and the assignment of human rights are difficult or impossible to separate from some other issues in medical ethics, such as neonatal resuscitation, futile care, right to voluntary death, etc.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 2, 2006 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
dlw:My question is why shd your technical expertise and lack of a personal experience of deity give you veto power over such a mechanism for the remaking of compromises?
H:I believe that making compromises that specifically include religious positions violates the existing Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Honestly, I'm not saying that to be snarky; I don't think such a compromise, if it did include religious concessions, could get through the Supreme Court without changes to the First Amendment.
DLW:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ... I fail to see how allowing new compromises to be established based on "religious" ontotheological beliefs establishes religions who teach or hold those beliefs as the religions of the land. If ontotheological beliefs matter, willy-nilly, in such law, I fail to see the relevance of discrimination against some beliefs because they are associated with some people's religion. There are atheist prolifers who hold beliefs not unlike many theistic prolifers but within a different overall belief system.
As for what you talked about, I would treat that more as a euthanasia issue than a prolife issue. I am not dealing with the question of non-elect abortions or euthanasia. I do not believe that we are ethically bound to take heroic measures to keep people physically alive at all cost.
I would take issue with those who believe that pat slogans can deal adequately with these difficult situations.
But I do disagree with you that the issue of when we first treat the human unborn as legally-protected persons is inseparable from other issues.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 3, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that is your position, Sir, does it not suggest that you called this thread "pro-life" in error? You seem to reduce "pro-life" to "pro-fetus" or "anti-abortion".
The idea of protection of human rights and human life is inextricably complex, involving situations as complex as voluntary assisted suicide when quality of life is unacceptable, to capital punishment, to elective abortion without restriction. I suggest, Sir, that even within an ontotheological context, not to treat these as interlinked suggests the real goal is focusing on the politics of abortion.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 3, 2006 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't deal with all of the rubrics of issues that deserve the label prolife. It specializes on the politics of abortion, as such has been the most divisive issue in our country since slavery, it crowds out too easily other prolife issues in our elections and judicial appointments.
So the goal is to advance prolife issues in general, but it does so thru a specific focus on reframing and depoliticizing the politics of abortion.
Reality is complex. We instrumentally must make simplifications and distinctions to improve our communication and coordination wrt it.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 3, 2006 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand, and pointed out, that the title does not address "pro-life". Can you understand that people that oppose the existing "pro-life" movement might be more willing to work with them if they actually addressed all the issues involved, difficult as they may be? Otherwise, it seems all a single-issue politicized matter.
In the neonatal intensive care unit of a hospital at which I worked, there was a poster on the wall, from some manufacturer of life support equipment for newborns,
under which a staff mamber had penned, in large letters,
In all sincerity, will you examine how you are arguing? You have said the issue won't be decided on medical facts, partially because they are little known to much of the electorate. Do you really believe that much of the electorate will understand a philosophical nuance as fine-grained as ontotheology?
Either pose the discussion at a lay level both in medicine and philosophy -- unless you admit the latter is more correctly theology -- or participate in detailed discussions in both areas.
I have trouble understanding your .sig comment of "...reduction of the faith-based acrimony..." when your ontotheology apparently assumes that all participants have religious faith. Your discussion doesn't seem to allow, in real terms, for other sorts of faith.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 3, 2006 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
H:I understand, and pointed out, that the title does not address "pro-life". Can you understand that people that oppose the existing "pro-life" movement might be more willing to work with them if they actually addressed all the issues involved, difficult as they may be? Otherwise, it seems all a single-issue politicized matter.
There are more consistent life organizations that have been growing in importance. Unfortunately, I don't they're going to be as influential until the politics of abortion gets reframed inasmuch as most anti-abortion single issue voters understand implicitly that taking on other issues would likely make it harder to reach their current goals of making all abortion illegal again.
The religious single issue voter reflects a mentality that is due to the particular form of Christianity that emerged in the US in the early 19th ctry and was influenced by the pessimism that stemmed from the horrors of the US Civil War and that overreacted to the Liberal maximal accomodation to the Enlightenment Zeitgeist of Modernism with its materialistic reductionism and selective idealizations of the "Scientific Method". The underlying theme is that they moved from a political quietism to an activism that is concentrated based on their (mis)perception of certain political goals as a-political and the otherwise general apathy among the rank-n-file and a distrust of liberals/MSMedia and what-not.
The good news is that the religious right tend to value agreement a whole lot and tend to easily fall into endless divisions and quarreling if their consensus gets disrupted. That's why this idea, and others of mine, that focus on reframing the cultural wars issues will undercut the political solidarity of the religious right and maybe reduce their tendency to turn out in large numbers. Something that would have been nice in the past election...
In all sincerity, will you examine how you are arguing? You have said the issue won't be decided on medical facts, partially because they are little known to much of the electorate. Do you really believe that much of the electorate will understand a philosophical nuance as fine-grained as ontotheology?
I said the issue won't be decided only based on medical facts. The referendum-based approach I advocate for will make it easier to summarize the relevant facts on the fetal development process for people.
They won't need to understand ontotheology, that term matters simply for those who claim their ontological systems are in some sense more objective than the scholastical philosophies of the past. For most people, it can be explained simply that what makes us human beings is not an exact science and there are different beliefs out there that people can disagree on, and yet we need to agree on how to determine what rules will govern us all, despite our disagreements.
H:Either pose the discussion at a lay level both in medicine and philosophy -- unless you admit the latter is more correctly theology -- or participate in detailed discussions in both areas.
Aye-yay-yay. Okay. I'll dumb down the philosophy for you. ;)
I think the details of the facts matter, but not all the details matter equally. The details of most abortafacient technology are not important, as are the cases of the tough situations and whether they mandate a non-elective abortion or not.
I have trouble understanding your .sig comment of "...reduction of the faith-based acrimony..." when your ontotheology apparently assumes that all participants have religious faith. Your discussion doesn't seem to allow, in real terms, for other sorts of faith.
I allow for non-religious faiths, I just don't privilege them as more objective, as some are wont to do so. As such, my sig still holds as the acrimony destroying our democracy in the US is based on differences in faith/beliefs that are not being reconciled well...
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 3, 2006 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's rather a shame. I would be more willing to work with a group that looks at the spectrum of life and death issues, but, for groups that simply want to ban all abortion, I consider them my utter enemies.
No, I don't think you really allow for any faith or non-faith that doesn't believe in some restrictions on abortion. If I were the most holy of an animist faith that did not believe that spirit entered a fetus until birth, I would be outside the parameters of what you describe as reduced faith-based acrimony. Again from your words, I don't hear you wanting to have the United States witness to the world anything but a faith-based democracy.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 3, 2006 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
H:That's rather a shame. I would be more willing to work with a group that looks at the spectrum of life and death issues, but, for groups that simply want to ban all abortion, I consider them my utter enemies.
I agree, though they are being consistent with their beliefs on abortion, although inconsistent and unpragmatic in their politics. I can allow them that, but I do not share their beliefs anymore and my idea in my manifesto would pretty much guarantee that they will fail in banning all abortions....
H:No, I don't think you really allow for any faith or non-faith that doesn't believe in some restrictions on abortion. If I were the most holy of an animist faith that did not believe that spirit entered a fetus until birth, I would be outside the parameters of what you describe as reduced faith-based acrimony. Again from your words, I don't hear you wanting to have the United States witness to the world anything but a faith-based democracy.
No, um, I would want to treat you the same way if your belief that the fetus shd be treated legally-protected person after birth was embedded in a religious or non-religious faith system. And, if we all have faiths then our democracy will inevitably be based on compromises worked out between those faiths. The faith-based acrimony we see today has a lot to do with the poor inter-cultural communication and how both sides frame issues very differently in ways that circumvent the possibility of working out anew different compromises...
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 4, 2006 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not include as "faith" the process described by Roger Bacon and influenced by William of Occam as proposing a testable hypothesis, testing it with a review of prior art and experiments, allowing that review to be independently replicated, and accepted or rejected as the results of hypothesis testing. When you say
I do not necessarily agree that all do have faiths relevant to this issue, specifically the single issue of abortion.
I simply do not understand your comment
I don't know if this is legitimate miscommunication or your attempting to recast my words for your purpose. Let me be more explicit in both the assumption of the religion, whose beliefs are not inconsistent with a number of traditions, and in my interpretation toward abortion.
The faith believes that a soul enters a new person at the moment of physical birth. As a consequence, the fetus has no soul, and thus is not a person. As a non-person, it has no human rights, and can be aborted on demand, absolutely in keeping with the traditions of the faith. This faith, therefore, has no justification for any compromises that grant legal protections to the fetus. Granting such protections would be, to them, more like practitioners of Voudoun granting human rights to the undead, and potential undead rights to dead bodies.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 4, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
H:I do not include as "faith" the process described by Roger Bacon and influenced by William of Occam as proposing a testable hypothesis, testing it with a review of prior art and experiments, allowing that review to be independently replicated, and accepted or rejected as the results of hypothesis testing.
Faith is involved here though in the process of the formulation of hypotheses whose implications would then be worked out and verified against experience. This was well described by Charles S Peirce as a fallible process of abduction wherein ideas get reapplied in new settings and evaluated and modified therein. A faith underlies the scientific process, and values of selflessness and a willingness to consider different perspectives.
H:When you say: And, if we all have faiths...
I do not necessarily agree that all do have faiths relevant to this issue, specifically the single issue of abortion.
Let me restate my position, both the facts of fetal development and our beliefs about what makes us human beings that deserve protection against arbitrary loss of life are relevant for the ethics/politics of abortion. It is our beliefs as mentioned above that tie our "faiths" into this issue.
You didn't understand my statement:No, um, I would want to treat you the same way if your belief that the fetus shd be treated legally-protected person after birth was embedded in a religious or non-religious faith system.
H:I don't know if this is legitimate miscommunication or your attempting to recast my words for your purpose. Let me be more explicit in both the assumption of the religion, whose beliefs are not inconsistent with a number of traditions, and in my interpretation toward abortion.
The faith believes that a soul enters a new person at the moment of physical birth. As a consequence, the fetus has no soul, and thus is not a person. As a non-person, it has no human rights, and can be aborted on demand, absolutely in keeping with the traditions of the faith. This faith, therefore, has no justification for any compromises that grant legal protections to the fetus. Granting such protections would be, to them, more like practitioners of Voudoun granting human rights to the undead, and potential undead rights to dead bodies.
Well, such a religion would still need to deal with the implications of this notion of soul as it is related to the autonomy of the self in their ontotheological belief systems. The could not simply just make it all up as they go along. People still value consistency in religious circles and right understanding of what the authors of their sacred writings meant, as it was likely understood by the original audience.
However, even if this belief would imply that extending legal personhood to the unborn would be seen as pointless by its adherents, it would not also justify virulent opposition to all changes of the defined circumstances when a woman may elect an abortion. They would presumable be able to see how other see things differently and would want such legal changes and need not insist that the law reflect their beliefs and their beliefs alone.
dlw
A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.
July 6, 2006 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
ack! misspost.
June 28, 2006 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink