The writer, a man, supports the Women’s Health Protection Act (S.1645 / H.R. 2975).
Pilot Letter: If roles were reversed
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I believe the letter writer has it correct. Men and others want control of those they don’t know, by taking away a woman’s right to choose what to do with their bodies. It is a case of “none of your business” and is between the woman, her doctor, and her higher power.
And while a bit hyperbolic, the last line rings true to me as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s the party of limited government, protecting peoples’ individual choices again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t know why abortion-on-demand advocates find it necessary to cast the issue as male vs female or even the woman’s right to control her own body. That’s not the issue. If a woman wants to get hideous tattoos or piercings that will embarrass her grandchildren, no one will try to stop her.
The issue is solely at what point there is a person in-utero who deserves the protection of the Rule of Law.
The circumstances that resulted in the pregnancy are also irrelevant. Rape and incest are serious crimes, but we do not execute children for their father’s crimes.
Either there is a person in-utero or their isn’t. Anything else is a distraction.
Science cannot answer that question, though it can provide guidance.
At conception, there is life and it is human. the DNA plan for that human being’s life is there from the start. But does that mean there is a person? That is not a question of science, it is a matter of how we define personhood.
Many people hold that there is a person there from conception, others claim there is no person until birth, and apparently some believe that even after birth the mother can choose whether the baby is healthy enough to keep.
For what it is worth, I draw the line at the beginning of self consciousness. As Descartes put it, Cogeto ergo sum.
I think, therefore I am.
But my view is not the rule. It is a question of definition, and thus is properly the provenance of the legislature This is a matter that properly should be decided by the consensus of our citizens, acting through their legislatures.
The problem with Roe V Wade is not how it was decided it is that it was decided by the courts when it properly belonged to the legislative branch.
LikeLike
“…I draw the line at the beginning of self consciousness. As Descartes put it, Cogeto ergo sum.”
Although the brain cell development for cerebral cortex starts in the third trimester, learning to utilize those cells, as for thinking or problem solving, starts after birth. And self consciousness doesn’t take place for months after. Often a common test is paired with self awareness such a recognition in a mirror.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I don’t know why abortion-on-demand advocates find it necessary to cast the issue as male vs female or even the woman’s right to control her own body.”
I agree that sex and choice are red herrings in the abortion debate. I suspect they persist because people use them to avoid dealing with the difficult logic required to grasp the legal and moral reasoning that properly defines the subject.
Personally, I don’t find consciousness to be very practical as the defining moment when personhood begins. I note that science — specifically physics (information theory) and biology (evolution theory) — is increasingly, if slowly, moving toward the view that reality itself has consciousness. I’m guessing that soon science will surpass conventional wisdom again where this particular definition is concerned.
Nevertheless, a legal standard for the moment of personhood is needed. Men have a natural interest in the survival of their offspring. Also, society as a material interest in the behavior of mothers, as it does in all its members.
Thus, every advanced legal system in history has had a definition of the moment when personhood begins, except ours. Ancient Jewish law defined 40 days as the moment a fetus becomes a person. Classical Greek and Roman law defined the quickening (at roughly 20 days) as the activating moment. Our legal system has nothing. Even Roe v. Wade is non-specific.
With the proviso that it is subject to revision as general understanding matures, the moment the fetus is known to experience pain strikes me as useful to the legal need.
LikeLike
What rule of law Doc? You mean citizenship rights? Murder? Taxes? Social Security and Medicaid (since obviously they have no income)? Free neo-natal care?
I find it amazing that the anti-choice crowd can so carefully sketch a line through the laws and morality for the unborn.
I like the self-awareness line, or meaning thought. That would make retroactive abortion easy and acceptable for 1/4 of the liberals, 1/2 of the Republicans and 9/10 of the Libertarians.
I compute, therefore IBM.
“The problem with Roe V Wade is not how it was decided it is that it was decided by the courts when it properly belonged to the legislative branch.”
A legislative branch DID decide it. They were draconian. The court, with reason, overturned that legislation as unconstitutional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” The court, with reason, ”
What reason?
LikeLike
“necessary to cast the issue as male vs female”
If you look at the vast majority of pictures taken of the legislators that pass the laws that take away a women’s right to choose you will have your answer.
As to your last point; it should not be “decided” by either. It is a matter between the woman and her doctor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really? How about a child a year old? Is continuing that life a matter for a woman and her doctor? Do we allow a woman to kill a child which has become inconvenient?
How is that different once there is a person in-utero?
Once there is a person in-utero, it has the same rights to protection of the Rule of Law as the 1 year old.
TO be sure, a woman retains the right of self defense, but to exercise that right, the in-utero person must present a threat to her that would justify killing that one year old child.
LikeLike
…”person in-utero,”…
There is NO person in-utero. It is a developing life form and is not yet a person until birth. – IMO
And comparing in-utero to a one-year old makes absolutely no sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There is NO person in-utero”
Because you say so? You are not king. Nor am I.
Such definitions are determined by legislation.
LikeLike
Should we test ALL women who are traveling abroad to make sure that they are not carrying a person-in-utero just to kill in some jurisdiction where such is legal?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did say “IMO”, Don.
LikeLike
“1 year old”??
“”Person”” in-utero”
When you proceed from a false premise you (almost always) never reach a sound conclusion…SMH.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He in particular.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What false premise?
Other than air in the lungs, how is the baby different an hour after birth than an hour before, or a day or a week?
Birth as a determiner of personhood is every bit as arbitrary as personhood at conception.
LikeLike
If I accept your “arbitrary” position then it becomes even more of a case-by-case decision between the woman and her medical professional.
Circle complete, or do you need to have the State step in and decide what its position is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I don’t know why abortion-on-demand advocates”…
You’re comment was off base with it’s first statement. It is not about “abortion on demand”. It is entirely about a woman’s right to choose. The issue is the anti-choice (who claim pro-life, but like most people of that thinking, are hypocritical in that identifier more often than not) folks who want to decide for others what they can do.
Whether you agree with Roe or not is irrelevant. The court decided based on the Constitution and therefore no other legislative action is required. IMO.
As far as the idea of personhood is concerned, I think you have a good point. But Evangelicals who are anti-choice often refer to Jeremiah and the verse “I knew you in the womb”… as their basis for personhood at conception. These are the same evangelicals who ignore the over 2,00 biblical verses about helping the other, the downtrodden and those in need. The verse does not say “I knew you when you were conceived”. The new personhood argument is just another way that people who are not faced with the dilemma in question use to not allow the freedom of choice (and free will, which many believe is a gift from G-d) to women who are dealing with the trials in their lives.
I do find it interesting that someone who believes in small (or NO) government, advocates for the government to get involved in this at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Small government is not no government. The Rule of Law is essential.
I would agree that deciding by religious view is not a good choice, but neither you nor I are King. Definitions are properly decided by the consensus of the people.
Once there is a person, that person has the same right to not be murdered as you or I.
LikeLike
“Definitions are properly decided by the consensus of the people.”
Like who is President?
But, but, if the masses are to decide such things then isn’t that the dreaded “rule by majority”?
LikeLiked by 2 people
The President is not “the people,” neither are the courts, but in a representative republic, the legislature is.
LikeLike
I think you misread Nancy’s statement. She was talking about the “consensus of the people statement” in the context as to who chooses the President.
LikeLike
“The Rule of Law is essential.” Agreed. And the law was decided by SCOTUS in 1973. No further government intervention required.
Yet it is religious views that are attempting to define the decision. To deny that is happening is disingenuous.
As far as personhood goes, I’m pretty sure you went to the “I think therefore I am” argument. But how would it be determined if a fetus thinks? And when does it have its first thought? IMHO, BIRTH is the beginning of life. As someone else argued here on another version of this topic, you don’t celebrate Conception Day; you celebrate BIRTHday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The experiments that give us an insight into when self awareness can be demonstrated, ironically, were done on recently aborted fetuses.
When, on a 3 month fetus, the eye of an aborted, but still living fetus was touched with a probe, there was a flinch, which could be awareness of pain but might simply be a reflex.
When that was repeated on a 4 1/2 month fetus, there was a flinch, but it was followed by a hand coming up to push the probe away. That was clearly a coordinated defensive movement that shows an awareness of body and action.
So, self awareness is positively present at 4 1/2 months, and might be there as early as 3 months.
Again, that’s where I draw the line, but I am not King, Neither are you. We are part of a consensus that is the only legitimate way to define the beginning of life.
Roe v Wade was decided in error because it violates the first sentence of Article I of the Constitution. (in addition to numerous logical fallacies)
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,…”
Defining personhood is definitely legislation.
LikeLike
What you described is not, IMO, self awareness. It is reaction to a stimuli. It was done with vermicelli in the 1930’s as well. Does that mean the noodle is alive?”
LikeLike
If the noodle merely flinches, no. If it reaches up and pushes the probe away, then I’m going to have to stop eating pasta.
LikeLike
For your health, you should probably at least cut back.
However, pushing it away is still just reaction to the stimuli. The same manner when you shoo a fly that has buzzed your head (on its way to you spaghetti). It is NOT self-awareness. It is reaction to the noise or close contact of the fly. I believe in medical parlance that reaction is referred to as reflex.
LikeLike
“I believe in medical parlance that reaction is referred to as reflex.”
Nope.
The flinch is a reflex. The hand reaching up to push the probe away demonstrates that the brain was capable of localizing the stimulus and defending itself with the hand. 5 month fetuses also suck their thumbs.
That’s not a fully functional mind, It’s barely even a Democrat, but it is awareness of self.
LikeLike
I haven’t said anything negative about Libertarians (and there is plenty I could say) since posting here. Yet you broke your own civility rules – IMO. While it was not an attack on my personally, you know I am a Democrat and to make the comment you made was offensive to me.
And while the swatting may not be a reflex, I do not see it as awareness of the mind. It is still a reaction to stimuli and NOT an independent move caused by awareness.
Sucking is also just a natural thing to a fetus. It is not an awareness, it is an natural action in preparation for feeding when born.,
LikeLike
“Defining personhood is definitely legislation.”
No, it is still, as I stated earlier (and you chose to ignore as difficult to refute), NOT the job of law making.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If no one can define personhood, then is it OK for a woman and her doctor to kill you?
Of course not, because the law accepts you as a person, and defines taking your life as homicide.
LikeLike
Well, Terry Schiavo.
LikeLiked by 1 person