Sixth Circuit Upholds Ohio Law Banning Aborting Babies With Down Syndrome

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit this week upheld an Ohio law that bans doctors from performing abortions when they know the reason a woman is seeking an abortion is that her baby has Down syndrome. It is a major win for pro-life advocates but could face an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The new law, H.B. 214, provides in pertinent part: 

No person shall purposely perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the person has knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, because of any of the following:

(1) A test result indicating Down syndrome in an unborn child;

(2) A prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome in an unborn child;

(3) Any other reason to believe that an unborn child has Down syndrome.O.R.C. § 2919.10(B). 

Those violating the law are subject to a charge of a fourth-degree felony with the possibility of up to 18 months in prison.

What is odd about the law is that it turns on actual knowledge (“the person has knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion” due to an unborn child with Down Syndrome). Doctors who avoid such knowledge could not be charged. It also means that one woman has a constitutionally protected right to abortion if she does not state her motivation while another can be barred from an abortion if she is honest about her motivation.

Judge Alice Batchelder wrote for the 9-7 majority in writing that the law does not violate a woman’s right to abortion because “There is no absolute or per se right to an abortion based on the stage of the pregnancy.” The majority notes:

“In this case, Ohio does not rely on its interest in protecting potential fetal life as support for H.B. 214, at least not expressly. Instead, Ohio relies on its interests in: (1) protecting the Down syndrome community from the stigma it suffers from the practice of Down-syndrome-selective abortions; (2) protecting women whose fetuses have Down syndrome from coercion by doctors who espouse and advocate the abortion of all such fetuses; and (3) protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession by preventing doctors from enabling such targeted abortions. Neither the intent, effect, validity, nor importance of any of these interests turns on the viability of the fetus. The majority declared that “As limitations or prohibitions go, this is specific and narrow,” she continued, and therefore it does not present a “substantial obstacle” to a woman’s ability to get an abortion.”

The majority concludes that “[a]s limitations or prohibitions go, this is specific and narrow,” and is not a “substantial obstacle” to a woman’s ability to get an abortion.

In his concurrence, Judge Richard Allen Griffin was even more blunt and referred to the practice as akin to eugenics:  “Many think that eugenics ended with the horrors of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, it did not. Eugenics was the root of the Holocaust and is a motivation for many of the selective abortions that occur today.”

In dissent, Judge Bernice Donald declared that “Before viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition on abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure.”

This case could present a challenge for some members of the Supreme Court like Chief Justice John Roberts.  If it is upheld, it could allow for similar limitations based on the motivation of a woman in seeking an abortion in other cases of disabilities.  The assumption has been that the right to an abortion was likely to be curtailed gradually by the Court rather than raise an outright overturning of the Roe cases.  This would be a major win in that strategy in creating a myriad of exceptions that could ultimately swallow the rule in Roe.

Here is the case.

 

151 thoughts on “Sixth Circuit Upholds Ohio Law Banning Aborting Babies With Down Syndrome”

  1. Physical disabilities are different from Down syndrome (and mental illness is different again), but given the topic, I recommend the documentary Crip Camp, one of this year’s Academy Award nominees for best documentary.

  2. CHILDREN WITH DOWNS SYNDROME REQUIRE LIFELONG CARE

    Retarded children are very expensive to raise. A single mother with limited income will be greatly challenged by the needs of a retarded child.

    Retarded children require far more attention than physically normal children. That attention will come at the expense of siblings; some of whom might need attention themselves.

    Retarded children require ‘babysitters’ even in their teens. And they don’t ‘leave the nest’ upon reaching adulthood. They are, instead, a lifelong responsibility of their parents. Which becomes an issue as the parents age.

    So anyone who thinks there’s something ‘noble’ about this mindless Ohio law is tone-deaf to the realities of raising retarded children.

        1. Self-defense is a human and civil right. The elective abortion of life for social or medical progress, for light and casual causes, is translegal (e.g. Twilight Amendment) and transhumane (e.g. Pro-Choice religion).

          1. Keeping and bearing arms to throw off a tyrannical and oppressive government is a constitutional right.

            That right cannot be infringed on in any aspect or degree.

            The right to keep and bear arms is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute.

          2. N.N. explain what happens to retarded people when their parents age-out. Who cares for them at that point?

            1. People make plans. They save money. Other family members take the person in. There are sometimes community organizations to help families. Sometimes, due to the disabilities, the child is unlikely to outlive the parents.

              1. Look at how many poor and relatively ignorant immigrants from Asia with specific cultures succeed in elevating their status one generation at a time.

        2. Mespo, then all guns should be illegal.
          ***********************************
          Under your “logic” all weapons. Yeah intentionally killing to make you feel better is the same as self-defense. Do you read this stuff before sending?

    1. “That attention will come at the expense of siblings; some of whom might need attention themselves.”

      I know several families with Downs children or autistic children and even though life is hard sometimes, they wouldn’t trade their family member for anything. The kids love their sibling–even with their limitations.

      That’s one of the things we are called to do–love people, limitations and all.

      1. Rose, I know families that say that too. But I always wonder how honest they’re being. Just a basic family vacation can be greatly complicated with a retarded child in tow. But parents will never admit these things.

        1. I know people who chose to adopt 2 special needs kids. They loved their kids and went on vacation anyway. They accepted their kids for who they are, met them where they were, and raised them to be the best they could be. Sorta how any kid ought to be raised.

          Why should parents admit “such things”? It would make them look petty and self-centered. In private moments of stress, they might voice frustration, I don’t know, but don’t we all do that with those we love? This family worked to uplift and support each other and they sought help when they needed to.

          Someday, we’ll all have limitations and we’ll want to be loved and cared for in spite of them.

          1. Prairie, I wonder and have read reports on this subject, is the selfishness of the left part of the reason for a reduction in births? Does that specific group have less children? Some of my conservative / libertarian friends that have devout leftist children have no grandchildren. Those where the children don’t have that devout affiliation of leftism or are more to the right have children. This is an anecdotal observation similar to others. I love children and want as many as can be provided. I will take care of the grandchildren at any time.

            I think there is an extreme selfishness among the devout leftists and I think their leftism and anti-religious feelings provides them cover to believe they are the center of the world.

              1. I like most individual human beings that I know because they are part of my US and not of my THEM. I do not consider you one of THEM or I wouldn’t be talking to you.

                But the human race over all, if I had the chance to advise an agent of an extra-terrestial race on relations with humanity I would advise don’t let humans get a foot hold in space exterminate them before that happens, if they get loose they will commit speiesocide on you and their males won’t even rape your females because they find their tentacles disgusting.

                I watch the BBC TV series “Dr Who” and am stunned by The Doctor’s affection for the human race and that he has not noticed how similar humans are to the Cybermen and Daleks.

                I like dogs and cats and value them more than I would value defective humans, dogs that is to say wolves are social animals and the reason humans get on so well is that their social bonding behaviour is compatible with ours but for some pairs of human groups intergroup bonding does not work, eg white people and N e g r o es or Israelis and Palestinians.

                1. I get the idea that you would like to “ exterminate” all human life.

                  I will quote one word from a post most will remember, but it is part of a theme you promote from one post to the next. “HATE”

                  1. SM

                    Exterminate all human life, well if I had the power to do it I would but you will be pleased to know that I do not have that power.

                    In any objective view the human realm is one of misery and cruelty, speciocide of humanity would be a kindness both to humanity and other life forms on Earth.

                    I have been spending too much time reading blogs and other info on the internet and commenting on blogs so goodbye for a while I need to do other things.

                    CM

                    1. “Exterminate all human life, well if I had the power to do it I would”

                      Thank you for being honest. I think a lot of people will better understand why what you write isn’t something that normal human beings would write. It is hateful and explains your mindset in addition to your hate for all human advancement.

                      Good-bye.

        2. But I always wonder how honest they’re being.
          I was going to tell you take your mind reading act on the road…but you are so far from truth, it would only work as a comedy act.

          The state championships of the Special Olympics are held every summer. You need to go volunteer there for a day, to learn something. Absent that, stop opining about something you know nothing about.

      2. “. . . they wouldn’t trade their family member for anything.”

        Which is, of course, their choice. The government, though, has no business forcing such a choice on all women or families. Morally, there is no difference between a government, such as China, that makes it illegal to have more than one child and a government that makes it illegal to not have a child.

        1. The Nazis wanted to be rid of those who weren’t “fit”, too.

          A child with Downs can be helped by taking the green tea extract EGCG. Their bodies don’t make it. I don’t know the research, but perhaps a mother who finds she’s pregnant with a Downs child could take this supplement and mitigate some of the problems. Following birth, the baby could be given this supplement, too. Might help quite a bit.

          It speaks poorly of a society that treats people like they are disposable.

            1. “It speaks poorly of a society that treats people like they are disposable.”

              All societies treat some people as disposable but use different ways than euthanasia or the death penalty.

              In the US prison is the most popular method for disposing of unwanted members of the UNDERLASS that is UNPEOPLE.

          1. “It speaks poorly of a society that treats people like they are disposable.”

            Absolutely, but embryos aren’t people, and it also speaks poorly of a society that forces women to bear children if they don’t want to.

            1. Take a look at the 20th century where people were treated as disposables by leftists causing over 100 million to be killed outside of war. You want to parse words and say that some of that 100 million should never have been let to live in the first place. Forgetting that opinion which might have some validity, in the end YOUR ABILITY TO KILL THE FEW ENABLED THE LEFTISTS TO KILL THE MANY.

              1. “. . . YOUR ABILITY TO KILL THE FEW ENABLED THE LEFTISTS TO KILL THE MANY.”

                Such a conclusion hinges on a massive equivocation: Between private and government action, between a collectivist view of unlimited government power and an individualist view of limited government power.

                That the individual’s life belongs to the state is the cause of the horrors you mentioned. And now you want to double-down on that evil premise.

                1. Sam, I’m not sure who you are directing your comment to. My comment had to do with a particular mindset whether in a collective atmosphere or not. A mindset can lead persons to political decisions that can be right or wrong. It can be a step toward the slippery slope.

                  “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
                  Because I was not a socialist.
                  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
                  Because I was not a trade unionist.
                  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
                  Because I was not a Jew.
                  Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    2. Retarded children are very expensive to raise

      So that’s it? Rule by spreadsheet? But it’s not really money is it? You and Margaret Sanger, Brothers in Arms.

      1. Economy Czar. Environment Czar. Transportation Czar. Communications Czar. Education Czar.

        Up next: Family Czar.

        Two things always amaze me in this debate: How cavalier some are about the extraordinarily difficult decisions a young woman faces. And the presumption of believing that the government should compel her to ignore all of those considerations — that her lot in life is to be a brood mare.

  3. It’s already being upheld it most of the nation using the viability system. The percentage the odds that a newborn born early has in living and if it does is worthy like any unable to protect his or herself from being executed with a trial by jury like any other criminal heading for a death sentence.

    The current standard to accomplish that is end of second trimester plenty of time to make a mother’s decision and uphold a viable citizens rights.

    Most of this argument is arguably without foundation for those reasons. So let’s examine one from Texas on the baby’s heartbeat. it isn’t is the heart beat of the mothers system pumping through the fetus.

    I’m for the Viability rule and consider execution after viability without trial is in fact a crime of murder. Added to that the only source that’s reliable to make that decision is a panel of obstetricians not a panel of obstinate death merchants.

    1. Any woman who has ever had an abortion knows in her heart that it is a death. She knows she has chosen her life over her child’s life, which is her legal right. Arguments about viability are just a way to avoid seeing and feeling the profound emotions surrounding this decision.

  4. FYI:

    The vaccines are showing they seem very effective if these were the type of results the mfg’s were looking for.

    vaccineimpact (dot) com/

  5. Biological life of an individual human begins at conception. Conscious life correlating with nervous system development begins around one month.

    The right to abortion is found in the Twilight Amendment (i.e. penumbras and emanations). Viability is a religious and social apology. Fetus is a technical term of art to socially distance technicians and abortionists. Planned Parent/hood is transhumane philosophy and practice, the wicked solution.

    That said, whether genetic; phenotypic; Sex-selective (i.e. male or female); ethnic (e.g. Jew); Hutu/Tutsi redistributive and retributive change; Great Leaps etc.; one-child and selective-child; there are diverse precedents for anthropogenic choice (i.e. elective abortion for causes other than self-defense) of human life for secular lucre (e.g. capital, control), for social progress (e.g. keep women and girls appointed, available, and taxable), and medical progress, too… one step forward, two steps backward.

    1. “Biological life of an individual human begins at conception”

      Nope. There’s no guarantee that it’s “an individual human.” One blastocyst might split into twins, or two blastocysts might merge and develop into one person. Often, a zygote has no biological capacity to develop into a person, which is why so many embryos die prior to implantation or miscarry in the first few weeks after implantation. Biology is more complex than you’d like to make it out to be.

      “Conscious life correlating with nervous system development begins around one month.”

      Nope. The kind of brain waves associated with consciousness don’t develop until ~5 months.

  6. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s earliest opinions that abortion should be decided by the states. I don’t know if her opinions changed, but her reasoning rings true to me.

    When abortion is left up to the states, then people have direct say over how they evolve. They can move in one direction or another, even going back and forth, but they will accurately reflect the will of a majority of the people in that specific area. People will be free to move to another state that reflects their opinions if they disagree.

    But by making abortion a federal issue, with Roe v Wade, it was shoved down the throats of people who no longer had that direct say, to the same extent. Some felt it was too permissive, while others felt it didn’t go far enough, and all of them lacked the direct say they wanted.

    I don’t think there would still be the same hostility in abortion debate if it had been left up to the states, and if the feds had stayed out of it.

    I also believe that medical professionals should never be forced to perform or participate in abortion, as so often happens in Europe.

  7. Imagine that!

    The judicial branch finally found occasion to support the “manifest tenor,” the whole “manifest tenor” and nothing but the “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, so help it God, and under the pains and penalties of perjury, as it is properly sworn to do.

    Will wonders never cease!

    Coming soon, the Supreme Court will discover that it is compelled to exercise, not its power, but its duty of “judicial review” and strike down the entire, communist American welfare state.

    To wit,

    Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.

    Government exists to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

    The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional, including but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
    __________________________________________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…[will] do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  8. I don’t know if the law will hold up in court. However, there is no denying that the mass abortion of Downs Syndrome people is a modern day genocide. They are deemed unworthy of life and executed.

    1. If you know that a fetus once born will grow into a human that will be despised as inferior by a significant proportion of humans allowing it to be born is CRUEL.

      The idea of eugenics is not bad in principle but it is bad when racist bigots implement it. When white medicos sterilized N E G R O women because they were feeble minded it was not because they had objective evidence of low intelligence but that as anti-N E G R O racists they considered that all N E G R O E S were inferior and that the women were just the low hanging fruit that they could justify picking.

      1. If you know that a fetus once born will grow into a human that will be despised as inferior by a significant proportion of humans allowing it to be born is CRUEL.

        wow, that’s a full bucket of puke.

        I wish I had the power to get your head right. I would require you to work half a dozen State special olympics. That would expose you to pure joy like you have never seen.

    2. Embryos and early stage fetuses are being aborted. They aren’t people (though they may develop into people if not aborted, or they may be miscarried), and it’s not a genocide.

      If you consider all abortions to be executions, OK, but people’s opinions about that clearly vary.

      My opinion is that prior to viability, women should not be forced to continue pregnancies they do not want.

      1. “My opinion is that prior to viability, women should not be forced to continue pregnancies they do not want.”

        And it would seem to be the opinion of most Americans.

        1. “My opinion is that prior to viability, women should not be forced to continue pregnancies they do not want.”
          Those women should learn what causes babies, and take responsibility.

          1. Yeah, men don’t need to learn what causes babies and have no responsibility for preventing unintended pregnancies.

            I was stating my opinion. We’re both free to have the opinions we want, and you clearly have a different opinion.

            The following are facts, not opinions:
            All forms of birth control have failure rates.
            All humans are sometimes fallible.
            Women are sometimes raped.
            People’s lives can seriously change during a pregnancy (a husband might die, someone might lose their job, an older child might develop a health condition that requires a lot of care, …)
            Intended pregnancies can have serious complications for mother and/or fetus.

            1. All of those are life’s inconveniences. Life happens, sometimes it really,really sucks. But killing a baby is not a solution.
              I would hold mailes responsible for every pregnancy. The woman would declare the father or all govt aide would be off the table.
              Uncle Sam has been proven to rear non productive, feral children.

              Marriage, extended family, and the church, evolved to handle all of lifes disasters, big and small.

              1. How disgusting that you refer to things like rape, the death of a spouse, and serious medical complications as “life’s inconveniences.”

                You may consider your stance moral, but I consider it immoral (and yes, I recognize that you may feel the same way towards me).

                “killing a baby is not a solution.”

                It’s not your decision to make, unless you’re the one who’s pregnant (but you come across as male).

                As for the church, freedom of religion guarantees Americans the right not to live their lives according to your religious views.

                1. I know a lady who was the product of a rape. Her mother was raped but chose not to abort. The lady, unsurprisingly, is very pro-life. She is grateful for her life and her mother’s decision to carry her anyway.

                  1. Yes, PR, many women who’ve been raped choose not to have an abortion. No one should force them to abort. Neither should they be prevented from having an abortion if that’s what they choose. The choice should be theirs to make.

                    My point to iowan2 remains: rape is not an “inconvenience,” and it’s disgusting to refer to it that way.

                    1. freedom of religion guarantees Americans the right not to live their lives according to your religious views.

                      You need to read some history. Your point of reference has warped your reasoning.

                      We are living as an unprecedented time of peace, comfort, and wealth. The very poorest in the United States have never had it so good.
                      I don’t know what adjectives you demand I use, but life is fleeting, Life expectancy continues to raise. But death will take us all. Crime is as old as man, but, never as low as it is now. We also enjoy a freedom unheard of around the globe, which comes with the attending risks, which those of us that posses some level of self awareness are willing to balance with the freedom.

                      The fact is, violent crime will befall some of use. Yell and scream, pull your hair out. Search your thesaurus for adjectives, if that is where you find peace and acceptance.

                      At the end of day, as much as life sucks, we are still living in a modern day utopia.

                    2. “We are living as an unprecedented time of peace?????”

                      I think if you look at the world nation by nation you will find that most are either engaged in a HOT WAR or inter-communal conflict , eg AUSTRALIA, INDONESIA, ISRAEL, THE US, YEMEN……,

                2. freedom of religion guarantees Americans the right not to live their lives according to your religious views.

                  You are oblivious to evolution. Man evolved a culture to better survive. That early evolution centered on males protecting females and their offspring. That included the extended family, and expanded to the tribe. Early religions were an expansion of that safetynet.
                  All of that functions very successfully today….unless a person makes a choice to abandon all of it.
                  The Govt then takes on the need, as a way to expand power. The problem, Govt is totally incapable of rearing children. I don’t know what to do with people that make bad choices. But the govt only provides guaranteed poverty, and despair as the ceiling attainable, by depending on govt help.

                  1. “You are oblivious to evolution.”

                    No, I’m not. I may well have a better biology background than you do.

                    Nothing you just wrote addressed my comment: freedom of religion guarantees Americans the right not to live their lives according to your religious views.

                    You are free to have whatever religious views you want. You are not free to foist them on the rest of us. Evolution is science, not religion. Humans have cultures, and those cultures developed diverse religions and also atheism and agnosticism.

                    “You need to read some history. Your point of reference has warped your reasoning.”

                    I’ve already read quite a bit of history, though there’s plenty more to be read. You didn’t quote anything from me that involved warped reasoning. It’s a FACT that the First Amendment guarantees Americans the right not to live their lives according to your religious views. You are free to live according to your religious views (within limits), and others are free to live according to their religious views (within limits) or to live without religion. Deal with it.

                    1. Anonymous, You might be an expert in one specific field, but that does not mean your expertise expands elsewhere. Based on your comments it certainly doesn’t expand to the realm of thinking about complex problems that involve more than your specific field of interest.

                      You are also neglecting a conflict of rights so that your potential understanding of biology doesn’t permit you to handle the problem as a whole. In your discussion you didn’t even recognize that conflict of rights.

                    2. “You are free to live according to your religious views (within limits)”.

                      But those limits are defined by law which has in turn historically been defined by the dominant religions of prior days. I consider that if people are recognized as belonging to a religion that allows parents to have their children euthanized if they become a problem (or for any reason at all) and are younger than 18 then that should be allowed although the law should not apply to people not of that religion or to recent converts.

                  2. “Man evolved a culture to better survive.”

                    Iowan2, that is one of the most significant statements made. Cultures take centuries and even milenia to develop with a lot of trial and error. We don’t know why or how all the pieces fit together, but they have made man better and more successful. Tinkering with success can be dangerous, but that is how we advance.

                    A leftist can come up with what he thinks is a brilliant idea and without thinking can put it into law removing something that may or may not be important. They have such a high opinion of their abilities that they advance such ideas without principle in a rapid sequence that frequently creates more harm than good. That is one of the reasons that outside of war more than 100 million people were killed by leftist ideology.

                    Hammurabi didn’t create a whole new set of laws rather mostly codified laws created over the milenia. Laws created that are tried and tested are more likely to survive than laws suddenly enacted by a few elites that wish to satisfy their vanity.

                  3. “Govt is totally incapable of rearing children.”

                    YESSS!!!

                    If it is necessary for the government to take children away from their parents the only merciful way to proceed is to administer a sedative at the point at which child protective services takes the children away and before they awake take them to the nearest veterinary surgery for painless euthanasia.

                    In the US the problem is the inability of the respectable classes to realize JUST HOW MUCH they hate the underclass. This hatred leads to treatment of the underclass via social mechanisms like law that makes escape from the underclass impossible. When Americans talk of crime they mean crime committed by CRIMINALS not crime committed by respectable people LIKE for example BERNIE MADOFF. and all members of the underclass are assumed to be criminals even if for some their crimes may not yet have been detected.

                    It doesn’t matter whether children taken away go into government institutions, foster homes or religious run orphanages they would be less unhappy if dead. Not all NAZI ideas were bad I consider that the euthanasia of disabled children was enlightened.

                    Humans have the silly idea of “HUMANITY” but for members of species homo sapiens sapiens HUMANITY only exists for those they consider HUMAN not for UNPEOPLE with whom they are at war. The respectable classes in the US are AT WAR with underclass including most N e gr o e s, drug users, the extremely poor and hopeless failures.

  9. “No person shall purposely perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the person has knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, because of any of the following:…”

    A poorly written law that is essentially unmanageable. It can be bypassed by the mother. What the law creates is a monster that will set up a confrontation between the mother and the legal guardians of the law. That will lead to major societal unrest.

  10. Darren if you see this please help.

    I think I used some banned words and have one of my WMD SARCASIC rants stuck in the SPAM or NAUGHTY word filter. I hate banning words if a word is banned its replacement over time acquires the same perjorative meanings of the original word.

    1. Carlyle,

      I checked the moderation and other filter traps and I did not find anything. There must have been some other kind of error in the transmission or reception of your commment but I do not know what happened in its failure to display. It seems to happen occasionally with WordPress unfortunately, but that is something the developers of the underlying software would have to take up rather than we the end users that do not have the tools or debuggers to find out why.

      A practice that I found sometimes mitigates some of the damage caused by these bugs is to after having composed the message/comment to then copy the text written to a clipboard, if it is of long length, just before sending the text just so that you have a copy of it in case of failure. That way you don’t have to suffer retyping it again.

      1. Darren.

        On several occasions I have done something, I am not sure what that has resulted in my losing position in the comment field. Sometimes I have been able to return to my comment and sometimes not. Normally I take a copy of my comment after submission but I really should develop the comments in a word processor and copy/paste to the comment field.

        Most of these losses have been in the Mozilla Seamonkey browser which was very buggy in my 4GiB note book PC but now I am using a 16GiB computer and it is still buggy. Today I switched to Mozilla Firefox and so far it seems to be more stable.

        Carl.

        1. Carlyle,

          Sorry for the late reply. I went out of town on business and just got back. I suspect the switch might be the best choice. There’s likely some interoperability conflict between the wordpress site and the Seamonkey browser you are using, as you suspected. The devs at wordpress, or at least acting on the behest of some “more features = best product” type of program manager there, seem to spring new changes to the workings of the site unexpectedly upon us and it causes all sorts of conflict. Just last week the Administration UI acted up on some new “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature” type of change and it horked up the Search function for the comments page. I had to find a workaround for it and the solution I found was rather convoluted. On balance it could have been some change that Seamonkey suddenly put out and it broke whatever intreoperability tests WordPress had screened for. The reality is that because everyone wants more and more extraneous features or functionality built into their webbrowser, and complicated by the fact there are a dozen or so browsers with differing build numbers, operating on many types of computer/phone operating systems, and supporting countless languages in a great many form factors such as screen size, etc while still maintaining ADA compliance by allowing screen readers, high-contrast and low-vision displays. It’s almost a wonder that anything works after trying to support that degree of client-side variance.

          Composing in a word-processing software prior to pasting into the wordpress site is a good idea, though it might be a bit clunky in doing so.

          After all that I can understand why some people would prefer to have websites just stick to standard, decades old flat html pages without all the bells and whistles. I can appreciate that. In fact, I often times will use a text only browser to read websites. Much faster, less distracting, fewer ads and nuisances.

          1. Darren.

            There is no need to apologize for a slow reply, it amazes me that I can attract your attention with a post that is not a reply to one of yours. Mind mind BOGGLES at the amount of time that you must spend on this blog and it SUPERBOGGLES at the time JT must spend.

            Yes I must admit that my devotion to old software is a fault. I started with NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR more than 23 years ago and SEAMONKEY is its ultimate descendent. Seamonkey is supposedly based on the same code as firefox and one can tell it to identify itself as firefox but although that fixes some bugs it does not fix all. I have not tried identify as seamonkey with firefox compatibility.

            I am a fan of standards, the current http standard I believe is 5.x.x and I consider it unwise for any browser or we designer to go to the bleeding edge until 95% of the world is using it. There should be programs for validating browsers and web pages against standards and web designers are unwise to use anything too new.

            I now use both firefox and seamonkey at the same time, I read comments as emails in sea monkey and then the post in firefox to capture the url and date/time information.

            “More features = best product” to that I say ARRRGGGH.

            About websites sticking to old software a classic is Moon of Alabama (https://www.moonofalabama.org/) an interesting political discussion site.

  11. I hate CHRISTIANS but much more than ordinary GOD BOTHERERS I HATE RIGHT TO LIFE TYPE CHRISTIANS as such people in conjunction with advances in medical science are turning natural selection off with respect to species homo sapiens sapiens.

    In my view if the life life of any human is saved by medicine that did not exist in the 18th century that human should be irreversibly sterilized. When I was 4 years old I had acute appendicitis and was saved from death by surgery. In my view I should have been sterilized then. While my acquiring the infection may have been bad luck rather than bad genes there is no way of proving that for any instance of disease there is not a genetic contributor. If one can tell that a fetus has an abnormality such as DOWNS SYNDROME before it is born it is COMMON SENSE to abort it and KINDNESS to the future born child, it parents and society. The same goes for any other fetus that is discovered to be seriously defective if born.

    It is nonsense to pretend that we attach the same value to all specimens of homo sapiens sapiens. When working out a value of the life of HUMAN A we can only do it for each one of several billion other humans as a function LIFE_VALUE(A,B) eg LIFE_VALUE(George Floyd, Derik Chauvin) or LIFE_VALUE(N i g g er, White Person).

    I recommend that a child is born or better yet when a pregnancy is detected and is sufficiently advanced there should be a LEGAL HEARING to decide whether it should be allowed to continue living. This should include a genetic analysis for any known problematic genes eg for cancer or that disease whose name I cannot recall at the moment that results in mucus build up in the lungs and a shortened life. If it is obvious that the child will be seriously disabled or if that fact is discovered after birth eg blindness, spasticity, deafness or extreme ugliness the hearing should be repeated. A rehearing should be allowed up until the age when the child understands the concept of death. Cats, Dogs or people do not fear lethal injection if they do not know about death eg the death row prisoner with half his brain missing who left the dessert for AFTER his sentance.

    The thing about natural selection is that it not only creates species it keeps species stable. Consider a pure white tiger in the wild it will not be as effective hunter for lack oeffective camouflage and is less likely to send its genes into future generations.

    In the hearing social factors should also be considered like parental wealth, class and racial status and likeliness of contact with the (IN)Justice system or being taken into state care. If 46 years ago such a hearing had been held for the birth of George Floyd George Floyd would not have been murdered nor condemmed to 46 years of life as a member of a despised criminal underclass. The Nazis treated their Jewish victims more kindly than colonial settler states treat their indigenous or their people descended from slaves.

    1. Carlyle – forcibly sterilizing people against their will is a violation of human rights, and an aspect of eugenics. Would you be the one to kill deaf children?

      You said, “The Nazis treated their Jewish victims more kindly than colonial settler states treat their indigenous or their people descended from slaves.” At this point, I’m not sure if you’re attempting satire. Is this supposed to be “A Modest Proposal?” The Nazis exterminated Jews as fast as they could, stuffed pillows with their hair, and made lampshades out of their skin. Do you honestly believe that the US treats its black or Native American citizens in such a manner?

      1. Sometimes I use industrial strength sarcasm to make an argument opposite to the one I appear to be making but in this case I am serious.

        There are worse things than genocide and modern medicine is turning natural selection off for the human species. Natural selection created the human race but I question whether if in several thousand years we lost our advanced technology the human race would be able to survive without the medical part of it.

        There are worse things than a quickly and efficiently conducted genocide. About 30 years ago Australia’s Indigenous people called Australian Aborigines were protesting about deaths in custody and killing by police. The number of deaths in the relevant period was almost a hundred and the circumstances were grotesque. For example one man went to the hospital because he had a respiratory disease. The nurses could not communicate with him so they called the police who locked him up in a cell where he died. IIRC he was locked in a cell with multiple other people.

        A Royal Commission was established and produced nearly 400 recommendations nearly a hundred of which have NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED and it questionable how well many of the other 300 have been. Now 30 years later the Aborigines are again protesting about deaths in custody and by police action and the numbers that have occurred since the Royal Commission are over 400. One of the recommendations of the Royal commission was to not lock up so many Aborigines but in the 30 years since the proportion of Australian prisoners that are aboriginal has doubled.

        Aborigines have inhabited the continent for at least 40,000 years and evidence is accumulating that the period for which they have been here may be 60,000 or 80,000 years. After the Europeans arrived on the 26th of January 1788 early arrivals noted that the Aborigines were in better health than people in the UK at that time. That is not the situation today, they are a despised underclass and the majority of Australians and the police see them as a problem. Their health is appalling, their rate of unemployment high When police see an Aborigine they feel the need to stop him, search him for drugs and if he reacts by using bad words he will cop The trifecta, and be arrested for offensive language, resisting arrest and assaulting police. Alcoholism and illegal drug use are rampant. It is estimated that only 2% of Australia’s population use opiates but the rate of use for Aboriginal teenagers in Redfern (Sydney NSW’s Aboriginal ghetto) is 70%. Members of an underclass use drugs for different reasons than recreational users. They find the normal state of consciousness is so unpleasant that they use alcohol, petrol and illegal drugs to blot it out. Aboriginal teenagers commit suicide at seven times the rate of teenagers in the community as a whole. In a TV program I watched recently the suicide of a 10 year old boy was mentioned.

        Australia was initially a prison colony for those of the London underclass criminal scum not worth hanging. Australia showed that given the resources of a new continent the British underclass could be redeemed but the cost was the conversion of the indigines to a new underclass.

        The US N e g r o problem is similar. Most N e g r o s have not benefited from the American dream of upward social mobility as multiple waves of European immigrants (and then Asians and East Asians) have elbowed them away from the lower level ladders resting on the social pyramid. The European immigrants were initially subject to discrimination but not as badly as the Blacks and after a couple of decades were accepted as members of the master race.

        This is why I say that there are fates worse than mere genocide.

    2. “In my view if the life life of any human is saved by medicine that did not exist in the 18th century that human should be irreversibly sterilized.”

      Wow, that’s a lot of people. I sure hope that few people take your view. Some of the diseases that lead to people’s deaths today didn’t even exist then (SARS-CoV-2, HIV, Hep-C, …). Some people are saved by new medicines for old diseases, like malaria. Some people are saved from death from injuries caused by objects that didn’t exist then (like cars).

      “If one can tell that a fetus has an abnormality such as DOWNS SYNDROME before it is born it is COMMON SENSE to abort it and KINDNESS to the future born child, it parents and society. ”

      Nope. Many people whose kids have Down Syndrome are very happy that they chose to have their kids. It’s not our decision to make for anyone else. Let each pregnant woman choose for herself in consultation with those she chooses.

      “I recommend that a child is born or better yet when a pregnancy is detected and is sufficiently advanced there should be a LEGAL HEARING to decide whether it should be allowed to continue living.”

      That’s eugenics. It’s a horrendous view. Lots of disabled people lead fulfilling lives and contribute to society. It’s not society’s decision to make.

      As a result of natural selection, we evolved brains and a capacity to care for people who might otherwise die. Caring for people is part of our natural selection mechanisms, not apart from it.

      1. “That’s eugenics. It’s a horrendous view.”

        In principle there is nothing wrong with eugenics. The problem is when eugenics is practised by racists who perceive all members of certain races as defective.

        “As a result of natural selection, we evolved brains and a capacity to care for people who might otherwise die. Caring for people is part of our natural selection mechanisms, not apart from it.”

        As a result of natural selection humans evolved intra group cooperation and inter group war. Humans have enough affection for some people in their own group that they will save their lives but hate people of competing groups enough to kill them. Concider all US wars except World War II.

    3. To Ebenezar Scrooge:
      “It may well be that, in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man’s child.”

      1. If I believed that the Christian God existed I would be rushing down to the recruiting office for the Armies of Hell like a shot.

        The nicest thing one can say about religion is that it is STUPID

  12. This is another example of criminalizing THOUGHT. It’s no different than charging someone with a HATE crime instead of just whatever the crime is by itself.

  13. “Ohio law that bans doctors from performing abortions when they know the reason a woman is seeking an abortion is that her baby has Down syndrome.”

    This is insanity. Either abortion is legal or it is not. Motivation is irrelevant. A woman’s motivation for an abortion is a *private* matter, and at most is an issue between her and her doctor. It is the nadir of despotism for the court to rule that a woman be compelled to populate the world with children who have Down syndrome.

    “. . . from coercion by doctors who espouse and advocate the abortion of all such fetuses . . .”

    “Coercion”?! I didn’t realize that doctors in Ohio were permitted to hold a gun to the heads of their female patients. As with those against voter ID laws, here too we see a disgustingly low view of human beings. In this case, it’s women who are (allegedly) too feeble and too irresponsible to know what’s in their best interest. They (allegedly) can’t be trusted to act responsibly, so the government will force them to do so.

  14. We all know its a game.
    This is more of the game

    Why not pass a law that prevents the abortion if the doctor knows the baby is human?

    This is all so silly. SCOTUS had no jurisdiction on abortion. As already pointed out, abortions were legal. It was local jurisdiction. It was a decision between the Doctor and the woman. As long as true medical counsel was being exercised, no problem If a doctor came into the community and performed 20 abortions a month, the people, through theie elected judicial officers would explain to the doctor, local morals exercise strict scrutiny of abortions, and true need, and not desires must exist or the legal process must become involved.

    It was all driven by the people. The people elected local law enforcement, local prosecutors, and local judges. It was the peoples voices that regulated abortions.

  15. “Judge Richard Allen Griffin was even more blunt and referred to the practice as akin to eugenics”

    It isn’t. Eugenics is “the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population’s genetic composition” (Merriam Webster).

    There’s actually research about women’s reasons for choosing to have an abortion, including those who choose abortions after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. For example, “Multiple factors influence women’s decision making following a diagnosis of DS, including demographic factors such as religion, maternal age, gestational age, number of existing children, and history of induced abortion. Psychosocial factors including perceived parenting burden/reward, quality of life for a child with DS, attitudes toward and comfort with individuals with disabilities, and support from others also are important influences.” An individual woman saying that a Down Syndrome fetal diagnosis influences her to seek an abortion is not indicating that she’s choosing to have an abortion “to improve the population’s genetic composition.” These are very personal choices, not populational ones.

  16. Abortion is an uncompromisable example of the culture war- between those who believe in science on the one hand, that is, life begins at viability, and those who believe in religious superstitions, namely, life begins at inception.

    1. If you drive from New York to California, does your trip begin when you start your car in New York or when you arrive in Ilinios?

      1. “If you drive from . . .”

        Good analogy; wrong question. The important question is: When does your trip *end*? And the obvious answer is: When you (or the fetus) arrive.

      1. What “tripe”? Do you deny that some people don’t accept scientific findings or are scientifically ignorant?

        1. People draw different conclusions, moral judgments, from the science. Stop saying only one side “believes in science.”

          1. I didn’t say that “only one side ‘believes in science,’” so there’s nothing for me to stop. I accurately noted that some people don’t accept scientific findings or are scientifically ignorant. I did NOT suggest that they are on “one side.”

            1. Jeffrey S above, shared the line we hear from Dems, that there are those who “believe in science” (Dems, of course) on the one hand and those who don’t on the other.

              I am saying broadly, generally, just stop with the BS that only one side “believes in science.”

      1. No, scientists are more precise and call the developing cells things like “zygote” or “blastocyst.”

    2. Science does not say that “life begins at viability.” Science points out that there are multiple competing points at which life could be said to begin, including that there is no starting point (because the sperm and egg are alive), and no scientific reason to choose one versus another. Here’s a good discussion of these different views –
      https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

      The abortion debate shouldn’t be about when life begins, but about when personhood begins and about the balance of interests between the pregnant woman and the state.

      1. your were doing just fine and then this.

        and about the balance of interests between the pregnant woman and the state.

        Abortion is about the baby, not the mother. That’s like saying domestic abuse must balance the interests of the state, with abuser. That’s not the way things work. much of the law centers on protecting the vulnerable.

        1. No, abortion is about the mother and the state. The embryo/fetus is not a person and has no rights. The woman and the state do have rights.

          “That’s like saying domestic abuse must balance the interests of the state, with abuser.”

          Terrible analogy. In abortion, the pregnant woman is not an “abuser.”
          In domestic abuse, there are three entities who have rights and whose rights have to be balanced: the abused is a person with rights, the abuser is a person with rights, and the state has rights.

          1. It’s against the law to disturb sea turtle eggs. Why do sea turtle eggs have the legal right to protection by the state but a preborn human does not?

            1. Because sea turtles are endangered species and humans are not.
              Because sea turtles have no rights, and pregnant women do have rights.
              Because sea turtles lay their eggs and after that, the eggs do not affect the mothers’ physical well-being, whereas pregnant women carry an embryo/fetus and pregnancy always affects the pregnant woman’s own health.

              Relevant differences here aren’t hard to see, if you only look for them.

                1. Redheads are not a species. Blondes are not a species.

                  Do you understand that there is a single extant human species, H. sapiens? We’re not going extinct.

                  Take your own advice about listening to science. Learn what a species is.

                  1. “We are not going extinct”!

                    I wouldn’t be too sure of that now.

                    A few thousand years ago there was a 100 year long drought in the fertile crescent and the 3 rivers Tigris, Euphrates and Nile did not do their regular floods and the empires dependent on their agricultural output collapsed for a century. In about 900 AD the Mayan civilization in what is now Mexico collapsed because of a drought. Stable Civilization requires stable climate and things that ALARMIST CLIMATE SCIENTISTS were saying would happen in 50 years from 20 years ago if we did not respond adequately are happening now:-

                    Destabilization of arctic and antarctic ice shelves;
                    Wild Fires in Australia, the US and elsewhere;
                    More and stronger cyclones;
                    Release of methane hydrates in the arctic and antarctic, methane is 28 times as strong a greenhouse gas as is carbondioxide;
                    Slowing of The Gulf Stream.

                    I figure may be less than 10 years away from the total collapse of civilization due to global warming and we are so dependent on globalized supply chains that the collapse of one important country may bring others down in an example reverse domino theory. For example China is the main source for rare earth metals that are necessary for the very powerful permanent magnets needed for generators in wind turbines and engines in electric cars. If China goes the technology in the rest of the world would be disrupted. Also whether a disruption to globalization would cause famines that in turn cause population flows that then cause waralso could kill civilization.

                    I recommend that everyone obtain a supply of painless poison as the collapse of nations will cause conditions that even the most determined survivalists can not survive.

                    1. Carlyle – you would rather commit suicide than try to survive? Cockroaches and alligators have survived major calamities, but maybe they are made of sterner stuff.

                      It appears you view the human race as lemmings. Given a certain trigger you would run them all off a cliff.

                    2. I am retired and subsist mainly on superannuation from a government job. Were the governments in Australia to fall that pension would end. Also I am diabetic and the true costs of Insulin are very high so to get it at a reasonable price I depend on Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which would also end.

                      I believe that global warming is very far advanced and capable of knocking organized society out in some Nations. Famine caused by civilizational collapse can mean no food at all. Also war including wars using nukes can cause such a high cancer rate that long lived animals like humans and elephants can’t produce enough viable progeny.

                      Sometimes suicide is a sensible choice. Quality of life matters more than quantity.

                    3. We aren’t close to extinction.

                      Global warming may result in a large fraction of our species dying. But we have a large population, and a sizable fraction should survive.

                      “the collapse of nations will cause conditions that even the most determined survivalists can not survive.”

                      I doubt it. H. sapiens survived before nations existed. We survived before there was electricity, before there were hospitals, before there was agriculture, … It will take a lot to kill off the entire species, as we’re quite adaptable. We’ll die off eventually, but I doubt it will occur in the near future.

                    4. Homo sapiens sapiens survived through periods in which climate change happened slowly. Human caused climate change is happening FAST.

                      Today’s humans are dependent on complicated technology requiring many different work specialities for its creation and hence a large population. If we could no longer maintain our current technology we may not be able to fall back on simpler tech because we have forgotten it.

                    5. You might want to spend some time in very poor countries, and you’ll learn just how many people globally survive without much tech in their daily lives. Again, I can imagine a large fraction of people dying quickly from the side effects of AGW and war, but I don’t see our entire species going extinct anytime soon. I accept that your opinion is different than mine.

          2. The embryo/fetus is not a person and has no rights.

            That would be a determination made by the people. Judges lack any constitutional standard to offer an opinion. Ignoring the baby would invalidate all the state protections put in place by the people through their elected representatives. Pro Life people did not riot, burn down cities and assault their fellow citizens. They set about electing people to the legislature and executive positions to craft the laws we are governed by, concerning the taking of a human life. What has taken almost 5 decades are state laws all across the nation that put limits on abortion, protecting the baby.
            You are claiming all of those laws as unconstitutional because only the State, and the Mother are stakeholders. But, no person is so dense as to pretend the baby does not matter in all the debate.

            1. “That would be a determination made by the people.”

              Yes.

              The authors of the Constitution were people. SCOTUS Justices are people. If people want to define personhood so that it begins before birth, it’s possible for people to amend the Constitution.

              But this is where it currently stands in the Constitution, as SCOTUS noted in Roe: “The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to ‘person.’ The first, in defining ‘citizens,’ speaks of ‘persons born or naturalized in the United States.’ The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. ‘Person’ is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art, I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emoulument Clause, Art, I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electros provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application.

              “Judges lack any constitutional standard to offer an opinion.”

              Nope. The standard is the text of the Constitution. “In nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application.”

              “Ignoring the baby would invalidate all the state protections put in place by the people through their elected representatives. ”

              I didn’t say to ignore it. I said that it has no rights. Those two are not the same thing.

              Again, the STATE has rights. The STATE can have an interest in the embryo or fetus as a prospective person. Roe again: “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

              “You are claiming all of those laws as unconstitutional”

              BS. I said nothing of the sort. You inferred that from what I wrote, and the problem is with your inference, not with what I wrote.

              1. Nope. The standard is the text of the Constitution. “In nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application.”

                So now you are back to “just because its not mentioned, doesn’t mean its not there” Rendering the Constitution meaningless. Despite the 10th
                The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                The power to determine life is not mentioned. That power was never delegated to the Federal Government by the people. As such the power remains with the States, or the People.
                Exactly where it resided since the constitution was ratified.
                The Federal judiciary overstepping its delegated power is the problem.
                Even the left “discovered” federalism during the administration of President Trump, until covid provided the pathway to unchecked federal power,

                I have seen no evidence the people of the States cannot self govern.

                1. “The power to determine life is not mentioned.”

                  Abortion doesn’t involve “determining life.” It’s a conflict between the woman’s right to privacy and to control her own body and the state’s right to regulate medical procedures and its interest in the embryo as a prospective citizen. The Supreme Court absolutely has standing to rule on that conflict and to specify where the woman’s right takes precedence and where the state’s right takes precedence.

          3. Anonymous:

            “The embryo/fetus is not a person and has no rights. The woman and the state do have rights.” That is both a cultural and legal issue, which will change over time, sometimes oscillating back and forth.

            For example, most people consider an unborn, full term fetus to have a right to life. The law in most states reflect this. It’s still a fetus. It’s still inside the mother’s body. But at some point, most people agree that the mother no longer has the right to kill the unborn.

            For example, if a 9 months old pregnant woman breaks up with her boyfriend, and then has an abortion on a full term, healthy fetus, a couple of days away from being born, the mother would be considered abusive. Most people would believe that the human being she killed had the right to live, and many state laws indicate this.

            1. “most people consider an unborn, full term fetus to have a right to life”

              People might think that, but it has no rights. The state has a right to protect the fetus, despite the fetus not having rights. Some might think that that difference is inconsequential, but it’s quite meaningful. It’s a huge difference in whether the fetus itself has rights, or whether it’s only that the state’s right takes precedence over the mother’s right at that point.

              CDC: “about 700 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications.”

              Most people would also say that if a viable fetus is endangering a woman’s life, it’s should be legal for her to have an abortion and save her life (and some would say the same if a fetus is endangering the life of another fetus, if the woman is carrying more than one). Her life as a fully-developed person with rights is valued more than the life of the fetus that’s not yet a person. Do you agree, or are you in the subset of people who thinks that abortion should always be illegal at some point, even if the pregnancy causes the woman to die?

            1. Some law is, but probably less than the amount of law fashioned to protect the most powerful, including the wealthy, the government, and large businesses.

      2. Those of you who believe that the slippery slope argument is a sound one will have an impossible task of drawing a line anywhere other than viability which is a definitive point between what it was and what it is. Science may not deem viability as “life” as determined under the law, but science does determine viability. The only basis to regard “life” beginning at conception is based upon religious belief ascribed by Bronze Age men.

        1. Science may not deem viability as “life” as determined under the law, but science does determine viability.

          “The law” was working just fine before THE LAW stepped on their neck. At issue here is judges making determinations outside their jurisdiction.
          I have yet to see anyone, other than lawyers that see the problem with the way abortions were handled before Roe

          1. Judges are not “making determinations outside their jurisdiction” when they rule on constitutional issues.

            1. @8:50
              You have to mean the Mothers constitutional right to an abortion. A right found nowhere. Dont forget, abortion was legal when Roe was decided
              ALL constitutional scholars have panned the Roe decision a some of the worst constitutional reasoning since Dredd Scott, or Brown . All are rulings untethered from the constitution.

              1. “You have to mean the Mothers constitutional right to an abortion. A right found nowhere.”

                It’s a subset of the right to privacy. Do you believe there is no right to privacy, simply because the word “privacy” doesn’t appear in the Constitution? If so, reread the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Per the Constitution, people have rights that aren’t specified, and the right to privacy is one of them.

                “ALL constitutional scholars have panned the Roe decision a some of the worst constitutional reasoning since Dredd Scott, or Brown ”

                I claim for which you provide no evidence whatsoever, and that’s highly doubtful. For the record, Roe is no longer the current caselaw. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is.

              2. “A right found nowhere.”

                So an individual’s right to life does *not* include the right to one’s physical body?! Human beings are not ghosts.

                1. So an individual’s right to life does *not* include the right to one’s physical body?!

                  Do you mean like working as a prostitute, or using meth? How about wearing a helmet on a motorcycle? Selling a kidney or taking a drug not approved by the EPA?

                  1. My mistake. I thought that the subject was abortion.

                    But if you want to test the consistency of my principle, then yes — those, too. (I think you meant the FDA.)

        2. Silverman, you sound so wise. Life is perhaps not as clear a notion as we assume.

          let’s start with something related, and perhaps easier to define.

          Tell us, how does science define “consciousness?”:

          Awaiting your wisdom

          1. Let’s start with something simpler: brain waves. Do you agree that there are different kinds of brain waves, and that doctors look for a specific kind of brain wave in determining whether someone is brain dead (say, after a car accident), even if the person’s heart is beating?

          2. Let me wise you up to the correct spelling of my name- SilBerman. Since I am one of the few people here willing to put my name where my mouth is, the least you can do is correctly spell it, whomever you are anonymous.

    3. JS:
      Well, science hasn’t ruled on the question of when life begins so it’s sort of an unfair fight. Maybe on viability but that’s a separate question. Courts and legislators have ruled on when life begins and, believe me, they’re not scientists. Like you, they’re true believers — either way.

      1. Hi Mespo:

        The scientific definition of life: “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.”

        A fetus has its own DNA that replicates, it grows, it has functional activity, and will continue to change until death. Therefore a fetus or embryo is alive.

        If the fetus were any other creature besides human, there would be no debate as to whether or not it were alive or a member of its species. The embryo of a sea turtle is deemed alive. Destroying sea turtle nests can get you charged with killing an endangered species. There is no question as to whether the embryo can be considered a real sea turtle, or whether it is protected under the law prior to hatch.

        Different cultures have different standards of conferring “personhood” with rights. In some cultures, someone was not a “person” until 8 days after birth. They could be killed with impunity at any time beforehand. Some tribes of Brazil don’t confer “personhood” until age 2. Prior to that, any child exhibiting slow development, or any twins, are killed, often by burying alive.

        A person will full rights under the law would be a culture or legal issue, while life is not. I have observed scientists engage in linguistic gymnastics trying to impose a different standard of life to the unborn than they would for any other organism, including prokaryotes.

        1. “The scientific definition of life: ‘the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.’”

          That’s a standard dictionary definition (Oxford Dictionary), not from a scientific source. It’s not a scientific definition, because if you read what scientists have to say about it, you’ll find that there is no agreed-on scientific definition. A couple of discussions of that –
          https://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516796/

          “If the fetus were any other creature besides human, there would be no debate as to whether or not it were alive or a member of its species.”

          Most abortions occur at the embryonic stage, not the fetal stage, so it’s interesting that you focus on fetuses rather than embryos. I don’t think anyone questions that an embryo or fetus is alive (unless it dies, which occurs often — most embryos die). But there’s a big question about whether it’s a person, and there’s also a question about whether “there would be no debate as to whether or not it were … a member of its species.” An embryo or early stage fetus cannot breathe, cannot regulate its temperature, cannot digest, cannot think, … If it’s born prior to viability, it dies. You assume that it’s a distinct member of the species, but it’s not clear to me that scientists agree.

          That something is alive doesn’t imply that it’s a member of the species. For example, our blood cells are alive. They are not members of our species. If you want to discuss the science, then dig into the scientific complexities. But I’d say that the key issue is personhood, not species membership, and that’s not a purely scientific question. According to you, are conjoined twins one person or two, and why? How about someone who is brain dead but has a beating heart: the body is still biologically alive, but legally, the person has died. Do you agree that that person is dead even though the body is alive?

          Human embryos are not like turtle eggs. We are mammals, not reptiles. Turtles lay their eggs and then leave. We gestate embryos and fetuses in uteruses. A woman provides oxygen to her developing embryo via the woman’s respiratory and circulatory systems; a turtle does not. A woman provides nutrition to her developing embryo via the woman’s digestive and circulatory systems; a turtle does not. If you want to draw an analogy, at least use a mammalian species.

    4. JS:
      Lots of great scientists were devout. Gregor Mendel, a monk and scientist, comes immediately to mind. So it’s not an either/or choice.

    5. Jeff S — speaking of “those who believe in science”….we have Dr. Fauci who “follows the science” right? Remember the 6 Foot Social Distancing Mandate? You know that was totally made-up, non-scientific bullsh*t, right?

    6. “Life begins at viability,..”

      Premature third trimester fetuses survive all the time. So would you ban abortion in the third trimester?

      Also, you sound awfully confident religion is superstition. In an infinite universe how do you know there isn’t a God? I can answer that — you do not. So stop demeaning people who chose to believe. They are just as entitled and no more wrong or right as you are about life and when it begins.

      1. If a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, it’s viable. Viability generally starts to emerge ~22 weeks, but it varies with the fetus (many fetuses born at 22 weeks won’t survive), and some fetuses (those that have conditions that are incompatible with life after birth, such as total anencephaly) never become viable.

        “They are … no more wrong or right as you are about life and when it begins.”

        When life begins is a scientific matter, not a religious one, or at the very least people need keep clear whether they are discussing life in a scientific sense (based on facts) or a religious sense (based on faith).

        1. Aninny:

          “When life begins is a scientific matter, not a religious one, or at the very least people need keep clear whether they are discussing life in a scientific sense (based on facts) or a religious sense (based on faith).”
          *************************
          It’s a mixed question but science hasn’t reached an opinion (if so,please show me) on that while many religions have. Bottom line is that you don’t know when life begins anymore than SCOTUS. We do know that viability can’t be the test lest we start going around to nursing homes/hospitals, find people surviving on palliative care or on mechanical life support and then whack ’em Soprano style. Those helpless folks aren’t “viable” either.

          1. “Those helpless folks aren’t “viable” either.”

            Sure they are. “Viable” means capable of surviving outside the womb. There is no constraint that the person must be able to survive without support. Someone who is being kept alive on a ventilator is viable. If they’re not viable, they die no matter what medical support is provided.

            I find it amusing that you always denigrate my intelligence with your foolish “Aninny” name-calling, but then demonstrate your ignorance about the terms you’re using.

            1. Aninny:

              “I find it amusing that you always denigrate my intelligence with your foolish “Aninny” name-calling, but then demonstrate your ignorance about the terms you’re using.”
              ***********************
              It means lots of things and we were talking about a working definition of when life begins which, of course, is biology:

              viable
              [ˈvīəb(ə)l]
              ADJECTIVE
              capable of working successfully; feasible.
              “the proposed investment was economically viable”
              synonyms:
              workable · feasible · practicable · practical · applicable · usable · manageable · operable · operational · possible · within the bounds/realms of possibility · within reach · [more]
              botany
              (of a seed or spore) able to germinate.
              biology
              (of a plant, animal, or cell) capable of surviving or living successfully, especially under particular environmental conditions.
              medicine
              (of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth.

              Oh and I find it amusing you’re an ironic, smug, humorless clod with a grasp of the nuances of the English language that only a Fifth Grader would be jealous of and who can’t seem to keep up with the blog dialog.

              But, hey, that’s just my opinion.

              1. And it’s my opinion that your insults describe you better than they describe me.

                “[‘viable’] means lots of things and we were talking about a working definition of when life begins”

                “viable” and “when life begins” are not the same. Again, by your own choice of definition, your claim that “Those helpless folks [in nursing homes/hospitals] aren’t “viable” either” is false.

                1. Aninny:

                  Keep reading the definition I gave you of “viability” running your finger under the words as you say them aloud. Sooner or later you’ll get it. I can make flash cards for you, too.

              2. “But, hey, that’s just my opinion.“

                Mespo with regard to this character your opinion is right.

                I particularly like your statement regarding him as “an ironic, smug, humorless clod with a grasp of the nuances of the English language that only a Fifth Grader would be jealous of…”

                I wish I had written that.

        2. You didn’t answer my question. Since you state life begins at viability, which according to your data is sometime about or after 22 weeks, would you favor banning some abortions after 22 weeks”.

          Also, appreciate the valid clarification on your life definition.

          1. “Since you state life begins at viability…”

            I didn’t say that. I take the metabolic view of life, discussed here:
            https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf. A zygote is alive, an embryo is alive, a fetus is alive, the unfertilized egg and sperm are also alive. But just because they’re alive, that doesn’t imply that they’re people. I believe that personhood begins at birth, and prior to that, the balance between the woman’s right to privacy and the state’s right to protect the fetus shifts over time: the woman’s right entirely takes precedence initially, and the state’s right generally takes precedence starting at viability.

            “would you favor banning some abortions after 22 weeks”

            I would generally ban abortions once the fetus becomes viable, with a few exceptions, such as the mother’s life or health being seriously at risk. But the gestational age at which viability develops varies with the fetus, so I wouldn’t specify a fixed # of weeks. Most fetuses aren’t yet viable at 22 weeks. As the pregnancy continues, more become viable. Some fetuses never become viable. If a woman learns at 7 months that her fetus has total anencephaly (so it will never become viable), I think it should be legal for her to have an abortion, even though I’d want it to be illegal in most other cases. I think it’s unbelievably cruel to force a woman to continue carrying a fetus she knows will die after birth. On the other hand, if she wanted to carry it to term and spend a few minutes or hours with the newborn before it dies, I’d support her decision. It should be her decision to make.

            1. Technical terms of art are used by technicians and abortionists to socially distance themselves from their victim(s). Thar said, exceptions do not dictate the rule. The baby is viable until a natural or elective abortion. The current legal rule was established under the Twilight Amendment (i.e. penumbras and emanations) and guidance of the Pro-Choice religion for the purpose of social progress (e.g. social liberalism) and medical progress (e.g. clinical cannibalism) by feminists and masculinists to keep women appointed, available, and taxable. Life deemed unworthy, profitable, or inconvenient (e.g. “burden”) has diverse precedents with secular motives. However, a voluntary evolutionary dysfunction is a novel, forward-thinking choice. Women and men have four choices, then Pro-Choice including the wicked solution.

              1. “The baby is viable until a natural or elective abortion.”

                Nonsense. The majority of embryos are never viable. They die prior to implantation. There is no spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) because they never implanted.

                “the Pro-Choice religion”

                Being pro-choice isn’t a religion.

    7. Jeff:

      Scientific definition of life: “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.”

      Note that it lacks the word “viability.” Sea turtle eggs in an nest are alive. Fossilized dinosaur eggs are not. A prokaryote without a nucleus or organelles is alive. A rock is not.

      There is some debate about whether or not a virus is alive or not, and whether it is killed or just deactivated.

      There is no debate about whether a sea turtle embryo should be considered a sea turtle, or if it is protected by the Endangered Species act pre hatch as well as post hatch. If you stepped on a sea turtle nest of eggs, you killed sea turtles.

      A human embryo has the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and will continually change until it dies at whatever age. Science considered it “alive”. People just quarrel about whether he or she is entitled to any rights before birth, but scientifically, that embryo is alive, and homo sapiens.

  17. This is a test of whether the so-called originalists on the Court are actually originalists.

    As SCOTUS has noted, when the country was founded, abortions were generally legal prior to “quickening” –
    “It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before ‘quickening’–the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy–was not an indictable offense. The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins.”

    Women should have a constitutional right to have abortions for whatever reason they want prior to viability (a bit later than quickening, but in my opinion, a better dividing line), and they should be able to discuss their reasons with the person providing the abortion.

Leave a Reply