In Wisconsin, another case of alleged religion-based abuse is being investigated after 11-year-old girl Madeline (“Kara”) Neumann died of untreated diabetes as her parents prayed for divine intervention. The last time Kara had reportedly been to a doctor was at age three. Notably, this follows just days after the death of 15-month old Ava Worthington in Oregon in a case that will test one of the new faith healing laws.
The parents, Leilani and Dale Neumann, believe that healing comes from God but insist that they did not know she was that close to death and, according to Dale, started CPR “as soon as the breath of life left” his daughter’s body.
That would appear a bit too late since experts say that Kara must have been sick for at least 30 days.
She died from diabetic ketoacidosis due to a fatal lack of insulin in her body.
The couple has three other children and Dale insisted “We believe the word of God and live according to its precepts.”
Leilani added: “Our lives are in God’s hands and whatever we go through we are just going to trust him. We need healing. We are going through the healing process.”
Other parents have been charged criminally in such cases, but here the parents insist that they would have taken Kara to a doctor if they knew how sick she was. However, there still seems a some question of abuse given the eight years without seeing a doctor and the failure to notice a child dying for 30 days.
The Oregon case will be interesting to watch. 15-month old Ava Worthington died March 2 from from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and infection — a death that could have been easily avoided with antibiotics. In 1999, Oregon eliminated its controversial “spiritual-healing defense” in cases of second-degree manslaughter, first- and second-degree criminal mistreatment and nonpayment of child support. For the full story, click here
For the full story, click here.
There is no question how sick she is. I was diagnosed with diabetes with similar conditions and was barely eating and sleeping for 20 hours some days.
Believing as I do that tolerance keeps the world civil, I do respect the other’s person’s faith in all manner of foolishness (IMHO), but I do draw the line here. What manner of thinking permits you to risk your child’s life out of respect for some first century dogma. With all due deference, these are not Biblical times and failing to get your Type 1 diabetic daughter proper care is much worse than criminal. It is willful ignorance and dereliction of your paramount duty as a parent. I can neither understand nor forgive that transgression. I guess that makes me an “Old Testament” guy when it comes to this situation.
Faith is fine, but when a child–obviously unable to make her own decisions about health care–needs treatment, you get the kid treatment.
The Amish, of all people, have a great system, where they don’t really consider their children to be members of the faith until they reach an age where they can experience the world (called “rumspringa”) and make the decision about their faith freely on their own. And they have an unbelievably high retention rate to show for it.
The faith doesn’t suffer because children see doctors. The faith suffers when children are needlessly lost to treatable illness.
An interesting and informative site for church/state issues:
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/
Note to self: work in “rumspringa” at your earliest opportunity.
I think everyone has made excellent points. I understand that some medical treatments are so dangerous that a parent may choose not to subject their child to them (not the case here). But these parents didn’t even bother checking into medical options. They just let their child die.
Children really do need to have real information, to hear from competing worldviews, so that they can make their own choices as adults. I’ve gone to antiwar meetings where children are brought along for their “edification”. They don’t want to be there. I don’t think children should be “edified”. Of course force-edifying your child is not anywhere near refusing medical care but there is a common underlying principal in both cases. That priciple should be challenged. Children are not chattel.
I think that children’s rights are one of the next frontiers of social liberation. May it come soon.
Communism has been responsible for over 100 million deaths in less than 100 years. Religion is only responsible for 5 million deaths in over 2,500 years.
I am sure you liberal elitests think Communism deserves a second chance.
We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions.
It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance.
That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?
Michelle Obama
WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam’s regime. Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary.
The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators “have no information whatsoever” any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.
“Obviously we didn’t know it at the time,” McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. “The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That’s the only reason we went.”
During the trip, the lawmakers expressed skepticism about the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
“War is not the answer,” Bonior, who is no longer in Congress, said at a news conference while on the trip. “There is a way to resolve this.”
For you legal eagles; isn’t being a traitor a crime??? What is the punishment…….?
Niblet:
This is hardly an original observation, but Communism is nothing but a secular religion. Anytime somebody thinks God (or History) is on his side, you have a recipe for terrible mischief. Part of the genius of Liberalism lies in its scepticism concerning political truth & the tolerance this scepticism engenders.
By the way, I’m not about to give Communism or any other brand of Utopianism a first chance, let alone a second. Good old Liberal meliorism works a lot better.
So far as the Saddam financed trip is concerned, it will be interesting to see if this terror indictment collapses as so many others have. Even if it holds up, I don’t see that the Congressmen did or said anything traitorous. Their participation was unwitting & what they said was simply true: Saddam wasn’t stockpiling nuclear weapons & some sort of diplomatic solution would certainly be better than the mess Bush & Co. got us into.
The penalty for treason? Oh, I know this one! The medal of freedom!
“Note to self: work in “rumspringa” at your earliest opportunity.”
Maybe that’s it – a backyard trampoline with a safety net..?!
How stupid was this speech? I guess the legal eagles here are tongue tied……:
“We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions.
It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance.
That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?”
Michelle Obama
So Michelle thinks America is ignorant? Does that include all of you, or just regular America and not the elitists….like her, like her husband, like you all, like….well, you get the drift.
Regular America is much more brighter than the dimmest bulb that has been pandering to Mr. Turley here, a person born, out of pure chance, with a good brain but has yet to put it to good use.
From the sky:
Foo! Foo!
Patty C,
Delphic.
DW
I’m just wondering why “Niblet” has such difficulty addressing the topic of this column, which was that over-religious parents let their daughter die because they refused to get her the medical treatment she needed. A decision I definitely do NOT agree with, and I also think some criminal charges apply in this case.
Gee, its kind a quiet around here tonight!
Hellooooo? Helloooooooo? Anybody hoooome?
Place is as empty as a Mensa meeting in the Republican House Caucus!
Well, just to stir up trouble, I will repost a wondrous thing I wrote last night but posted too late to get all the attention it deserved. I know it will offend both Patty C AND Niblet. That counts for something! Anyway, here goes:
“I am in a dangerous mood tonight. An old employee who I had to let go years ago, had the temerity to write me requesting a recommendation letter! This irritates me.
So to pitbull fanciers: [this was a pitbull thread]
A questionaire for you.
Do you drive an
(a) Subaru, or
(b) Hummer or other SUV, F-series truck etc.
Do you vote
(a) Democrat, or
(b) Republican
Do you approve of
(a) strict regulation on gun ownership, or
(b) unlimited and unregulated gun ownership
When one of your friends tells a sexist or racist joke, do you
(a) squirm inwardly and remain silent, or
(b) compete with the rest of the guys in laughing loudly
Do you get your information from
(a) books written by academics, or
(b) talk radio
The biggest tragedy of the last year was when,
(a) you missed an issue of the Nation, or
(b) your meth lab blew up.
The second biggest tragedy of the last year was when,
(a) your daughter’s soccer team lost the city finals, or
(b) someone stole the spinner wheels off your Honda VorTec.
Your second pet is,
(a) A cat named “Mr Slinkster”, or
(b) A boa constrictor you feed live hamsters to
Do you blame pitbull regulations on
(a) actuarial statistics on pitbull attacks, or
(b) “Elitest” liberal snobs.
scoring: 1-2 “a” answers: you’ve got a point. I will listen to your arguments. 3-9 “a” answers: you mistook the breed: its probably a black lab. 1-2 “b” answers: I don’t want to argue with you, you’ll probably sic’ your pitbull on me if you lose; 3-9 “b” answers, tell us about the 50 cal. machine gun that you got at the gun show.”
Maybe that will stir up things.
Or maybe not.
Elitist snob DW
Well hi Susan!
Glad to see someone is still up and about.
I don’t know why his nibs is not addressing the issue. I think he uses the thread topics generally as platforms for his patented Turley attacks and Obama assaults (not to mention KO and his “hottie” mentions). Who can say what is going on in his noggin?
I’m glad to see he’s back though. I was beginning to experience Liberal Guilt in the thought I might have been complicit in his feeling unwelcome here.
Deeply:
I am beginning to reconsider my faint praise of niblet. I really think we need to have more of him. His posts remind me of why the pretty girls in high school always seem to have plain friends. They look so good by comparison–as do our posts. Have a good evening.
@ Jill,
“I think that children’s rights are one of the next frontiers of social liberation. May it come soon.”
And what of the rights of the unborn? I do not intend to diminish the tragedy described in this post, but I’m interested in the various lines that people draw when it comes to parental/constitutional rights vs. children’s/human rights. I think we all agree that children should be protected by their parents, but then the exception for unborn children just doesn’t make any sense.
@ D.W.
That Mensa crack…LOL. Have you heard about Obama’s new campaign slogan? Vote Barak: It’s easier than thinking!
“Well, just to stir up trouble, I will repost a wondrous thing I wrote last night but posted too late to get all the attention it deserved. I know it will offend both Patty C AND Niblet. That counts for something! Anyway, here goes:…”
Huh? DW, why are YOU lumping ME in with the Nutball?
You honestly don’t like American Pit Bull Terriers – as a breed?
Jay:
I too am interested in the “rights” of the unborn. I find it an odd concept since it is hard to tell when any rights accrue. Historically rights to inheritance, primogeniture, and other family based rights started at birth. This made sense because an unborn had no ability to control property or anything else. What I am seeing advanced is some form of substantive rights being granted to the unborn based on some notion of religious dogma. The concept is fraught with problems, not the least of which is when these rights accrue: conception, viability, partial birth etc. I also need to know how to separate the rights of the unborn from those of its host parent who may have equal rights in declining to carry the fetus to term. These are issues that the law is ill-equipped to resolve since the beginning of life is not well defined and thus the legal rights of that “life” must necessarily be likewise amorphous.
Stop it, you’re killing me!
Nite, Jay.
DW
niblet told us: “Communism has been responsible for over 100 million deaths in less than 100 years. Religion is only responsible for 5 million deaths in over 2,500 years.I am sure you liberal elitests think Communism deserves a second chance.”
I say how about we give both of these concepts a proper burial and start again with a philosophy dedicated to reason and ethics, and then see if we can do better than our ancestors.
Patty C,
Lumping you together as polar opposites!
If you go to the Pit Bulls go to the Supreme Court thread, you will see the original test.
Then the all-important disclaimer post immediately following.
I do admit I am cautious around unfamiliar pit bulls. They can be intensely protective and emotional lads and don’t always cotton to over-familiarity on the part of strangers to their “family”.
Mespo,
Only 5 million dead from religious disputes? Obviously people’s faiths were not strong enough! I’m sure we can push that figure higher if we believe hard enough!
And niblet,
Yes, I will take your bait: I think we ought give Communism a second chance. But this time try it out in a non-authoritarian, non-barbaric society, and see what happens. Probably get something better than the predatory capitalism we have now.
*for those who may have missed my Easter bunny fun pun…
The “Foo” bird
” In ancient times there was a community known as the Goodnu’s. As all communities did in these times the Goodnu’s lived right on the river bank for trading, transportation and sustenance. Water was almighty and worshipped as a God. One day there was a tremendous hurricane far out in the ocean. It’s ferocity blew a large flock of “Foo” birds way off course sending them inland many hundreds of miles and in the vicinity of the Goodnu’s community. The Goodnu people had never seen a “Foo” bird and were quite curious as to it’s sudden and obviously evil presence. The “Foo” bird, as we all know, is a very ugly, evil-looking bird. This caused the Goodnu people to become very uneasy believing they did something wrong to God and that this bird should be avoided. One day a “Foo” bird flew overhead and screeched: “Foo, Foo” and shit on a Goodnu’s head. The man ran screaming into the river believing the Holy powers of the river would cleanse him of this evil turd and its consequences. As soon as the man washed this unholy turd from his ear canal he suddenly keeled over and died. The Goodnu’s were now convinced of the “Foo” bird’s evilness. The next day a woman was outside and heard: “Foo, Foo”. Before she could react the “Foo” bird dropped a bomb landing a syrupy turd across her face. Shocked and panicked she ran into the river furiously washing her face of this sloppy stew. The village watched in horror as this woman also died once cleansed of the runny turd. The very next day a village wiseman heard those famous words: “Foo, Foo”. He like others had witnessed the terrible deaths of two of his villages’ people in the last two days. He too was struck right in the forehead by the “Foo” birds accurately guided turd missile. His first reaction was confusion and he sprinted towards the river. However, he stopped short and thought of his obvious demise should he cleanse the turd wafer from his forehead. He did not cleanse the poo pile from his forehead and lived. So the wiseman went to the other people of the village, gathered them around and stated to them: “There is an obvious lesson here my good people. The moral of this story is: ‘If the Foo shits, wear it.”
Mespo, It’s been a while since you’ve been to law school so let’s parse your thoughts in light of what we now know.
“I find it an odd concept since it is hard to tell when any rights accrue. Historically rights to inheritance, primogeniture, and other family based rights started at birth.”
— Yes, but “quickening” and other common law concepts recognized unique protections to the unborn human life with regard to crimes committed against the mother and her baby, etc. Incidentally, many criminal laws recognize the unborn individual as a victim in some crimes even today. And just because it may be hard to tell when rights accrue does not mean we should scrap them all together.
“This made sense because an unborn had no ability to control property or anything else.”
—Newborns don’t control much either. And “infancy” extends through age 18 in most states.
“What I am seeing advanced is some form of substantive rights being granted to the unborn based on some notion of religious dogma.”
—Actually, science is becoming more and more the basis of substantive rights being granted to the unborn. (This only reaffirms the pro-life positions of people of faith who believe that the sacred writings already reveal truth before science has advanced enough to confirm it.) Plus, the litigation concerning rights over cloning, frozen embryos, in vitro-fertilizations, surrogate pregancies, and “donor” mothers & fathers all makes science much more relevant to these significant issues than ever before.
“The concept is fraught with problems, not the least of which is when these rights accrue: conception, viability, partial birth etc.”
—Human life has a neat beginning at conception: http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/human-life-begins-at-fertilization/
“I also need to know how to separate the rights of the unborn from those of its host parent who may have equal rights in declining to carry the fetus to term.”
—We’re not talking about a parasite here. We are talking about another individual human being who should have equal rights to life. The all-important “choice” should be made before the pregnancy. But in instances of ectopic preganancies or other situations where the mother’s life (not “health”) is at risk, the final decision should be the mother’s. The argument is akin to self-defense.
“These are issues that the law is ill-equipped to resolve since the beginning of life is not well defined and thus the legal rights of that “life” must necessarily be likewise amorphous.”
—Can’t say I concur. The law constantly deals with diffcult issues and concepts that need to be resolved, often with imperfect results. Science will continue to illuminate the life issue, and maybe someday even the unborn will be included with the rest of us who possess certain unalienable rights.
Jay:
The fundamental problem is that religion, rather than science, is driving this debate and you will get no credibility without scientific data to back up the claim. Granting human rights to a 100 cell blastocyst is a long way off and probably should be. As Sam Harris says if you accord this stage of life human rights you would have to prosecute everyone who scratches their nose for a holocaust since every cell harbors the potential to generate fully developed human beings.
Hi DW! Sorry I couldn’t stay up later last night. Found myself nodding off a lot earlier than usual right after submitting that last comment, so I thought I should retire early before I wrote something completely idiotic. I just found it rather comical, not to mention a bit strange, that “Niblet” wrote almost five comments in a row, not one of them addressing the topic for discussion.
I always have to wonder why some folks get VERY uncomfortable, if not outright hostile, when religion is criticized, either directly or indirectly. Personally, I think ANY religion that would allow a child to die because it made the parents feel “guilty” about getting critical medical treatment doesn’t inspire respect, but the opposite.
Of course, that’s only my opinion, and there are those who will disagree. Some will say I shouldn’t blame the religion or the parents. Well, sorry, but in this case I blame both. Medical treatment would most likely have saved this child’s life, yet the parents wouldn’t seek it. I don’t believe they should hide behind religion to get a pass on what in my view is criminal negligence.
Mespo727272 wrote:
I say how about we give both of these concepts a proper burial and start again with a philosophy dedicated to reason and ethics, and then see if we can do better than our ancestors.
**************
Excellent idea. Personally, I’ve never seen the benefits in either Communism or Christianity, but that’s just me. Growing up in a religious home, I didn’t have much of a choice but to attend church, but it never made any sense to me. As a young adult, I was finally able to abandon the shackles of hard-line religionist thinking, and have enjoyed the benefits of light and reason ever since.
My “epiphany” came, I think, when the Church changed the rules to allow eating meat on Friday. No one has yet answered my question, made in childhood, about what happened to all those poor end-of-the week carnivores who were consigned to hell under the old rule. Did they get a reprieve, or even an apology?
Hello Jay,
I will try to address your question to the best of my ability. Pregnancy occurs in a unique physical context. As of yet, it is not possible for an embryo to have life and grow into a human being outside of the body of a human female. Therefore it is necessary to honor what women experience when they become pregnant.
Before I go further I want to agree with mespo when he states that science does not support the view that life begins at conception. That is a belief held by some religions and not by others. Approximately 1/4 of all embryos are spontaneously aborted so I’m not certain how people who believe god demands every pregnancy should be brought to term deal with this fact.
Pregnancy takes place in a social context where both women and children are devalued. Violence against women and children is the most common form of violence in the world. Nearly a quarter of our teenage girls are victims of sexual assult. Sexuality is not something we claim proudly. Most of us, men and women, are taught that sex is dirty and evil–that our bodies are a source of shame, not joy. (And believe me I include pornograhpy in the perpetuation of especially, but not exclusivly, the hatred of female sexuality.)
Increasingly, fundamentalist religious believers have insisted on blocking access to accurate information concerning not only the physical nature of sexuality, but its emotional and spiritual component as well. There is within these same groups a blatant insistence on the inferiority of women to men. It is said that women should be obediant to men, that women’s purpose is to bear children for men. This powerful social context of pregnancy should not be ignored. The disdain women are held in drips from every statment such as “convemience abortion” and “selfish bitch”.
So you have a power inbalance between men and women, a lack of knowledge concerning our own body and a great deal of sexual violence having occurred to children and adult women. If you want to end abortion then you have to end all these things. Religion needs to embrace the human body and human sexuality as a good. Knowlegde of and research into safe and effective birth control is one of the best ways to obviate the need for abortion. Gender eqaulity is another. Stopping the violence against women and children is a must.
Honoring the fact that it is a woman who will bear a child, that she is the person whose body will be changed, whose life will be risked, who will most intimately face the outcome of pregnancy is the reality before all decision. This is a momentous decision, one that must be made by the person most deeply affected by that decision. Forcing a woman to have a child does not seem like a moral act to me. We do not force the father of a child to give up a kidney (one of the few things that could be done that would approximate a forced pregnancy).
I truly wish that people who hate abortion would get on board with safe, effective birth control. That they would teach knowledge of the goodness of houman sexuality and that they would work towards ending gender based violence. I would hope everyone could agree to these principles as these are the best way to end the need for abortion.
(A)”As Sam Harris says if you accord this stage of life human rights you would have to prosecute everyone who scratches their nose for a holocaust since every cell harbors the potential to generate fully developed human beings.”
Well Mespo, I think most of us can distinguish the difference between the cellular human life growing as a result of fertilization and all other human cells with DNA–and hence, harboring “potential” human beings. There are different types of cells. Sam Harris is wrong first, because such potential for human beings is not a naturally occuring phenomenon and cannot occur without scientific intervention and manipulation.
Sam Harris is wrong second, because any cell in my body or your body will only be useful for replicating our own DNA, i.e. cloning. One exception and the main point: human (male and female) reproductive cells contain only 1/2 the necessary DNA, but once joined in fertilization, the reproductive cells create a new and different human life. Sam Harris is then, shall we say, overbroad in his conclusion.
(B)”The fundamental problem is that religion, rather than science, is driving this debate and you will get no credibility without scientific data to back up the claim.”
Well, I’ve already provided a handy science-based link above. (Do you need to provide lots of scientific data with your comments, or is the requirement limited to me?) When it comes to determining when human life begins, biology and embryology make the answer clear. I guess some people choose to ignore the scientific evidence. But if you want to learn more about soul and spirit, religion will help you with that I guess. You are the one confusing the issues–not me.
So I’ll pose the question again: Where do you draw the line when it comes to protecting human life and why?
Jill, I’m glad you relpied, but I wish you could appreciate the irony of your words:
” Violence against women and children is the most common form of violence in the world.”
Does violence against women then give women the right to commit violence against their own unborn? Abortion perpetuates rather than prevents violence in this world.
Intentional abortion is the ultimate child abuse.
Hi Jay,
I don’t accept that abortion is an act of violence. I know we will not ever believe the same about that but I’m hoping we both would like to make it so women don’t have to have an abortion in the first place. I’m not accusing you of this so don’t take it that way, but it’s easy for many antiabortion people to condemn women and bomb clinics. It’s much more difficult to look at the real conditions that create abortions and work together to eliminate them. I can’t really say more but I am speaking with a good will towards you.
Jill
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread. So naturally here comes a fool.
This is a serious serious topic and one that has divided our nation, changed electoral politics and changed the Article III judiciary’s very composition. Arguably Roe v Wade empowered the forces of reaction and fueled the rise of the conservative legal establishment.
For me, Roe v Wade is settled law. Even Justice Roberts admitted as much on his confirmation hearings. It will remain law, and there is very little likelihood the core ruling will be trimmed away or overturned entirely. Or at least so is my read of the current court’s makeup and aggregate philosophy.
As law, we will all abide by it or move to a jurisdiction where it is not in force…
In the end, I hope it will prove a false choice: abortion or carrying to term. I think all life deserves a chance, but it need not be with a biological mother who does not welcome it. Other welcoming hearts can be found.
Deeply:
You might be interested to know that the Roe v. Wade trimester rationale has its origins in the thoughts of Greek and Roman philosophers and early Church fathers:
“Plato (428-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) supported abortion in their views on the individual. Both philosophers distinguish between necessary and unnecessary abortion. Aristotle’s concept of “delayed ensoulment” deeply penetrated into the intellectual world. In his teachings on delayed ensoulment, Aristotle distinguished between vegetable, animal and human life. He believed that the human soul entered the body when the foetus was fully formed. He placed the human ensoulment at forty days for males and at eighty days for females. In Roman law, abortion and infanticide were really not distinguished. An infant did not have legal status until the head of the family, the “pater familias”, accepted it. Until accepted, the infant could be destroyed.”
Even the early Church fathers found abortion permissible in certain circumstances: Thomas Aquinas was deferential on the subject saying that while he opposed abortion — as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage — he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being. Aquinas had said the fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then — when its body is developed — a rational soul, again adopting the Aristotelian framework.
Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not “animated.” Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” – when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.
In Roe v. Wade we can still see this concept of delayed hominization serving as the backdrop for the Court’s granting of broad discretion to the mother to abort in the first two trimesters but a more limited right in the third trimester where hominization is really beyond doubt.
Jay:
Your points on Harris are well taken but the point is that a blastocyst is not a human being in any meaningful sense. I do take issue with your assertion that the scientific community accepts conception as the beginning of life since the issue is best described as undetermined. I can provide citations but I am aware of no group of scientists postulating this theory unless they are religiously affiliated.
In fact the Court in Roe took up this very issue saying “Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
Thanks Mespo. I hadn’t seen that history before.
I did a high school term paper in 1973 on the, then, recent Supreme Court decision. Much of my research included the religious aspects, as Mespo (and I, in a past post) cited.
Little did I know, even then, that Roe vs. Wade and the resultant legalization of abortion would, in many ways, be even more controversial today – 35 years later!
http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/24/engineering-deaf-babies-for-deaf-
couples-us-and-britain-debate-the
p.s I got an A- for being ‘emotional’
Jill,
Thanks again. I think we agree on several things, but in other areas we will not. But you might like to peruse this post: http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/why-are-you-pro-life/
Mespo,
It’s a bit confusing when you introduce all the very interesting, ancient, religious and completely unscientific history of the abortion issue (which promotes abortion), but then charge that religion is still the driving force behind the pro-life movement (which is against abortion). While I readily admit that many religious people are pro-life, the opposite is also true. And as Justice Blackmun points out in Roe, science really couldn’t tell those Justices very much 35 years ago. But science advances rapidly and is now the driving force behind challenges to abortion rights. Stenberg v. Carhart is an excellent example.
You have yet to address the blatant inconsistency in our legal system, i.e. how an individual may be charged with two deaths for example in a car accident involving a woman and her unborn child even if she were on her way to haven an abortion? Or how a pregnant woman has the Constitutional right to abort her own unborn 9-month old female baby who may be moments away from being born with her own Constitutional rights.
It doesn’t make any sense.
You say that “a blastocyst is not a human being in any meaningful sense.” Okay then, please tell us when it was that you personally became a human being in a meaningful way. (And I won’t make any lawyer crack here.)
Does “human meaning” depend on a mother’s love? What’s scientific about that?
Jay:
I am not sure what is scientific about history but clearly the Church and Philosophy were split on the issue. I say that because the religious crowd tries to convince us that the Church spoke with one voice on this when it clearly did not. The driving force of religion is what got these protections for the fetus passed. At common law, murder did not include the unborn, so I think you have the argument backward. The change in the law did not predate the religious influence but instead was caused by it. Some states distinguish between killing a natural person and killing a fetus but at common law, murder only occurred against a person born alive.
My personal feeling is that I became a person when I was born. Until then I was a part of my mother without much awareness of my world or my place in it. After birth, I met the classic definition of life in that I was able to adapt to my environment through internal processes without reliance on my mother. I could also grow independent from my host and respond to stimuli. To me, the essence of personhood was my independence from my mother which could only occur after I was born.
Thanks Mespo,
I know you’re sincere. But I think that your thoughts here reflect more ideology than sound reasoning based on scientific observation. Moments before you or I were born, we were still, practically speaking, human lives with meaning. We were and continue to be persons.
The independency line of reasoning is interesting. In my experience, children remain highly dependent on their parents (or others) beyond birth (for even 18 years or more
). But parents do not retain the right to extinguish their existence. And what of disabled people who remain dependent their whole lives? Do they achieve any essence of personhood?
Again, I’m not at all sure your “classic definition” of life squares with the biological definition of when human life begins. I think we jut disagree at what stage in human growth and development, we as a society, should protect that life. And if lines must be drawn, they shouldn’t be arbitrary. And the birth-only line (while a bright line) doesn’t reflect reality or what science proves to us.
I very much avoid Roe v Wade arguments. But I will weigh in briefly then step aside.
I have to agree with Jay. Human life must begin at conception. Any other starting point (before or after) faces philosophical objections in my view.
Jay:
I know you are sincere as well, and I agree that ideology influences much of what we say and do since our beliefs are our representations about the world and how it works. I can certainly accept that moments or even some weeks before our birth we are viable and could live independently and thus deserving of some protection. I am just caught on that scale of justice between the state reaching out it’s cold hard hand and compelling the mother to do something with her body that she is not predisposed to do. As you know, some proposals require the mother to give birth even in the case or rape or incest, and inexplicably, the Catholic Church even bans it if the life of the mother is at stake.
My objections are thus more “state and citizen,” rather than “church and state.” I certainly understand the other’s side point of view that this is more rescue that usurpation of rights, but, as you say, I am ideologically opposed to granting this much of an intrusion into our rights by an entity that the Founders knew was incapable of moderation.
I think the independence counterexample you cite is probably inapposite in that financial dependency does not affect the definition of life that I postulated. Anyone born alive retains their ability to adapt and respond. And no one would say they are in any sense “not alive.”
These people would be shot if they said they were praying to the power rangers….
And god did provide them with a solution, by providing them with the services of a hospital and docter…
What morons
I’m wondering if the parents just didn’t want to pay for treatment so they told the police they were “praying over her” instead. You can not know something serious is going on when your child has diabetic ketoacidosis. Kids with that are in the PICU! That is unless they didn’t see her for the month before her death. Heck, maybe the prayer thing was a cover-up of their kid being locked in a room for a month while suffering diabetic ketoacidosis!
“God helps people who help themselves” (Ben Franklin) She was too young to help herself, it was her parents’ job! You can’t just sit there and do nothing! How much or how little faith you have doesn’t determine healing! Sure, faith probably helps, but God heals when He chooses for reasons only He knows.
If they “believe the word of God and live according to its precepts.” then why did they manage to forget the parts like this?
“Proverbs 24:11-12
11 Rescue those being led away to death;
hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
12 If you say, ‘But we knew nothing about this,’
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who guards your life know it?
Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?”
Yet they managed to do the exact opposite of that.