Would a President Gingrich Ban the Birth Control Pill?
If history is any guide, Newt Gingrich’s views on birth control, abortion, and the controversial “personhood” movement will be likely targets for Democrats if he wins the 2012 GOP nomination for president.
Gingrich recently signed the “Personhood Republican Presidential Candidate Pledge” which affirms that “unborn children” should be regarded as persons with full legal rights “from the moment of conception … without exception and without compromise.” Gingrich signed the pledge after taking heat for an earlier statement stating that human life began after embryo implantation in the womb (which occurs a few days after fertilization). His campaign has since clarified: “Newt believes that human life begins at conception, that is, at the moment of fertilization.” If enacted into law, this seemingly small distinction could have serious implications for the legality of many forms of birth control.
The “personhood” movement represents the most ideologically consistent endpoint of the anti-abortion movement. In their view, once a human sperm fertilizes an egg, the zygote deserves full protection as a legal “person” comparable to a born child. Under this standard, abortion would become illegal even in cases of rape and incest — one of the goals of “personhood” advocates. However, recognizing fertilized eggs as legal persons would also have serious implications for issues other than abortion. As Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh describe in their 2010 paper, this includes potentially limiting women’s ability to receive in vitro fertilization and physicians’ ability to treat women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies. But one of the biggest political issues would be the legality of many forms of birth control.
According to Personhood USA, “birth control that causes the death of a living human being would be affected.” Hence, IUDs would also become illegal because they are “designed to kill the tiniest children by preventing implantation.” Medications such as “Plan B” or the “morning after pill” (which can block implantation of a fertilized egg) would also be outlawed.
“Personhood” advocates would likely also ban most (if not all) forms of birth control pills. The prescription information for popular birth control pills Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Trinessa states:
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).
For these reasons, the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists argues that birth control pills are not merely contraceptives (preventing fertilization), but also abortifacients (abortion-inducing drugs). Mississippi “personhood” advocates similarly opposed “forms of the pill which act to prevent implantation of the newly formed human into the lining of the womb.” Because birth control pills can prevent implantation in the same manner as IUDs, the logical implication is that they would also have to be outlawed, even if some “personhood” advocates claim otherwise. (Methods of birth control that worked solely by preventing fertilization would remain legal, including condoms, spermicidal foam, and the “rhythm method.”)
“Personhood” ballot measures have been soundly defeated in every state where they have come before the general electorate. Colorado voters rejected “personhood” measures twice (2008 and 2010) by a 3-to-1 margin — in a swing state divided nearly evenly between Republicans, Democrats, and independent voters. In strongly conservative Mississippi, the 2011 “personhood” measure was defeated by a 58-42 margin due to opposition not only from pro-choice voters but also many generally anti-abortion voters concerned about potential restrictions on birth control and in vitro fertilization.
So what does this mean for the 2012 presidential election? The hard-fought 2010 U.S. Senate race in Colorado may provide a lesson.
In 2010, Democratic incumbent Michael Bennet narrowly defeated GOP challenger Ken Buck by 48% to 47% (with the remaining votes going to minor party and independent candidates). Originally Buck supported the Colorado “personhood” measure, even though he later attempted to soften this view. He became an easy target for Bennet, who repeatedly portrayed Buck as “too extreme for Colorado.” After the election, the Colorado state Republican Party chairman admitted that Buck lost because he alienated independent women voters alarmed by Buck’s views on birth control and abortion.
If Gingrich wins the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, it would be the first time that a “personhood” supporter would be on the national ballot. In 2008, John McCain declined to endorse the “personhood” movement. Rather, American Right to Life, which describes itself as “the personhood wing of the pro-life movement,” attacked John McCain in 2008 as “pro-abortion“ for supporting legal abortion in cases of rape. In 2012, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachman have also signed the Personhood Pledge. In contrast, Mitt Romney is anti-abortion, but has not signed the Personhood Pledge and supports legal abortion in case of rape or incest.
If Gingrich (or any other “personhood” supporter) wins the 2012 GOP nomination, the future legality of birth control pills and IUDs would immediately become a national political issue, to the detriment of the Republicans. Just as the “personhood” issue tipped the swing state of Colorado in favor of the Democrats in 2010, it could also tip a few critical swing states in favor of Obama in 2012. In a 2010 New York Times story on swing-state voters, small businessman Ron Vaughn spoke for many independents when he said: “I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom.” If the eventual GOP nominee supports “personhood,” they risk alienating these independent voters for whom outlawing birth control pills and IUDs would be anathema. In other words, “personhood” could give the 2012 election to Obama.
This is not the change I am looking for.
(Note: I am pro-choice on abortion and strongly opposed to the “personhood” movement. Docs4PatientCare does not take a position on this issue.)
Arg – Gingritch is being stupid – why can’t he leave this one alone?
I think Dr. Hsieh is over-reacting. President George W. Bush was a solid pro-lifer but he didn’t get abortion outlawed or even limited.
Even if Speaker Gingrich wins the presidency and the Republicans manage to win a majority in both houses of Congress, I’m still not sure they could pull together enough votes to actually overcome Roe v. Wade. I don’t think they could get it past the Supreme Court and I don’t think the move would be popular with most people.
While I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I am more moderate in social matters. I am pro-choice.
Albeit there is little chance any of this (outlawing birth control & the ability to choose) coming to fruition, the Indies & moderate conservatives will likely reconsider supporting pols who go for this. In 2 words this is political suicide.
Not only is this political suicide for Republicans, in Newt Gingrich’s case he will invite the most salacious stand-up comedy imaginable. Go read Vanity Fair or CQ articles on Newt which include comments from his 2d wife. I’ll give you a hint–Newt and Bill Clinton share odd views aout sex in pursuit of their promiscuity.
I came to be firmly in the pro-choice column because of Gene Burns, best-ever talk show host I used to hear years ago listenting to Boston-based radio. A Libertarian (also I believe a Catholic), Burns argued that anti-abortion legislation was unacceptable because it is unenforceable without untenable infingements on people’s privacy. Roe-Wade is one of few laws we have that IMO is just about RIGHT in this diverse country. Leave it alone!
How much more unenforceable would be the personhood standard for existence of human life? We’d have to be like China, with a female Gauleiter in every neighborhood to make sure women’s sex lives were free of birth control measures deemed to be equal to abortion [In China of course they're there to enforce single-child law.]
There’s another angle to this Catholics and other religious groups promoting personhood law should consider. 25 years from now you may be horrified at what you’ve wrought. As Moslem population grows, if you-all can put YOUR religious beliefs into law, why would not a fair Supreme Court rule that Moslem sharia laws can be enacted if enough people vote for them??
I know, I know — you’ll say, but WE’RE BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACT. No–a few cells is NOT a human life anymore than a corporation is a person as some say. Potential? yes, but take that to its ridiculous limits and you could say that women and men who choose NOT to have sex are denying life to those cells just waiting to be conjoined and born.
You aren’t making sense; pre-Roe, abortion was a STATE issue. Some states allowed, some states prohibited, some states regulated abortion. Roe vs Wade was a HUGE power grab by the federal government. So “getting the federal government out of the abortion issue” would involve repealing Roe (which is generally accepted as a poor ruling, like Kelo. Penumbras? Puleeze)
So, which is it? Do you want the federal government out of the abortion issue, in it, or only involved when it makes people do what you want, and me to foot the bill? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
The point is that Republican’s who legislate from the Bible to the extent that they are willing alienate the crucial independent vote required for a popular win. Forcing religious law onto Americans is wrong and violates individual rights and it is also bad for winning over voters.
Personhood supporters are anti-life, they don’t give a damn about women; the actually existing women who are free to choose under what terms they’re willing to bring a child to term. At the level of morality a person can be moral or immoral in their decisions and actions. However at the level of *law* it must stand by the rights of actual persons.
But the definition of “actual person” is what’s at stake here, which you have ignored.
You’re not suggesting that a woman has the right to commit infanticide–to murder her newborn infant? That’s because the newborn infant is a person.
The issue here is whether a newly fertilized egg cell is a person before it has implanted.
So then it is actually an issue.
It is a question that has not been absolutely resolved.
It is absolutely possible for someone to assert, and be absolutely correct, that life does not begin at conception, or implantation, or even at quickening, but only after the actual process of birth.
Which rather changes the entire grounds of the debate, completely undermining any a priori declaration that abortion is “murder”, and the discussion can only continue with that as a given.
Unfortunately, you’re wrong. Science indisputably proves that at the moment of conception, there is a new, unique, human being produced.
Science proves nothing of the sort. It shows nothing of when genetically distinct sets of cells are a person, and there is excellent empirical evidence single cells cannot be a person-but are only potentially a person.
A woman has the right to do anything with her body– including abort the spawn of your satan; it is you males who do not get it, just as you do not get the US Patriot act, and anything regarding curtailing your lust for power in our lives.
Richard…
How about all the female babies never getting the chance to live their lives? Oh I forgot, they’re only women once they’re BORN. You make me sick. And “Doctor” Hsieh, SO DO YOU.
We were created to REPRODUCE. Since you Magogist God-haters have turned sex into a national sport instead of what it was intended for, we’ve had all these problems. Well, One is coming who will soon rid us of you and your ilk for good. So enjoy your moment in the sun, you and your unseen master hold the edge for now, but when Jesus gets back, you will get yours.
Constitutionalist,
Your post highlights why the religious zealots or so horrifying. Your post has you defending the “life” of a few cells, yet you immediately say your imaginary protector is going to come and murder everyone that doesn’t have the same beliefs as you.
A cow who is slaughtered to make your hamburger has more experience, more emotion and personality than a single fertilized human cell, but we still kill it it without missing a beat. Why is it that the anti-choicers think a single cell is so valuable? More valuable than the lives of the mother, father and their families, and indeed more valuable than all of the other unwanted children waiting for a family in orphanages. We have the technology to make child birth a planned and safe activity, why not use it? I would wager the people who created religion only wanted more sheep to proselytize for the flock.
I would also like to point out that sex has not become a national sport as you have mentioned, but is in fact a hard-wired biological action. Thanks to advances in technology we have the ability to engage in this activity in a responsible manner, without threat of infection and parasites. (see what I did there
)
-Chris
Chris, I’m sorry but if you’re truly a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, the only logical conlusion of your belief system is nihilism, suicide, or hedonism. After all, life has no real value or meaning under an atheistic worldview…humans are just a bag of flesh and chemicals, essentially. Your moral beliefs are entirely arbitrary and self-serving, in the long run, to your (cosmically speaking) short existence.
I’ll never understand people who openly embrace the atheistic worldview and then turn around and say something like, “We should legalize gay marriage” or “the war in Iraq was wrong”. What difference does it make if gays can get married or the war in Iraq brought the country to the brink of instability and violent sectarian conflict? Humans don’t have any purpose other than to reproduce anyway, and there’s still plenty of our species left, correct? Under an atheistic worldview, the notion of “rights” are meaningless abstractions and can be easily jettisoned in favor of whatever fashionable new ideology pops up. See: Nazism and Communism, both of which were atheistic, collectivist worldviews. In the United States, rights are considered to be God-given concepts, not legalistic proclamations. (Doesn’t have to be the Judeo-Christian God per se, although that’s the one most of the Founding Fathers were referring to.)
Unless, of course, by “atheist”, you really mean you’re “agnostic” or “deist”…in which case, you can ignore my argument altogether.
Hi Dax,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your opinions very much.
I’ll start by clarifying that I am very much an atheist and not agnostic. I was raised in a household with a mother who believed in god and father who did not. I was given the option to make my own decisions about what I believe. After much contemplation and indecision over the years, my stance has become quite clear.
As a man of science, I’m always willing to analyze new data, so once some credible, actually testable proof comes out I’ll be happy to reassess.
I don’t think there is any reason to extrapolate atheists to being suicidal self serving nihilists. I understand that my time on Earth is limited and that there is nothing after. Just because it is insignificant compared with the age of universe, or my cell count and overall impact is minimal does not mean that it is futile.
My feeling is that we should try to live our lives to the fullest and if possible leave a long-lasting positive impact on this world, so in that way we might live on. This correlates quite closely with helping my fellow man, and treating everyone with compassion.
When it comes to morality, I can’t say what’s best, but I feel that the exception clause in most religions is a bad thing. The whole idea that even murderers get into heaven as long as they repent seems like a bad idea. From my atheistic world view, I know that if I murder someone, not only do I rob that person of their only life, but I also forfeit my short existence. I won’t treat this life as insignificant and disposable because I know magical utopia in the clouds doesn’t exist.
How many people and ideas have been oppressed because it contradicted with the current popular faith? How much blood has been shed in the name of “insert deity” here. Doesn’t seem like a group I want to hop on board with.
Hopefully I’ve explained my stance a little better. Sorry for the wall of text, let me know if my philosophy is a little more clear now.
Regards,
Chris
Forcing religious law onto Americans is wrong and violates individual rights and it is also bad for winning over voters.”
Someday you might come to realize that all our rights come from God-not man. They are inalienable and are indelibly implanted in each human at birth and are commononly known as natural law. Therefore, we, each of us, do know right from wrong, and doing right is an obligation as well as a choice.
Our Creator being perfect and all good, has so decided what is right and what is wrong so it is not man that is imposing arbitrary religious/ or biblical/ law upon other any more than allowing rape, murder, theft, or slavery etc., can be tolerated by any peoples that wish to live in a structure known as “civilization”.
Religious legislation is unconstitutional. Does that matter?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
They better have some arguments beside “the bible says so”. Santorum is very careful to not talk about Christianity, when he discusses life issues. The rest of the candidates doesn’t do anything to hide their Christian faith as the reason for their “political” opinions. Which is how you can see that they are not serious about changing any laws.
If you understood the meaning of that phrase, you’d shut up, roll over and go back to sleep. Obviously you don’t. NO ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION IS THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE. We don’t have a Church of America to which everyone is forced to belong. It has no bearing on legislation with Christian underpinnings. All legislation is morality (or in some cases, immorality) of one kind or another.
Morality is not necessarily tied exclusively to religion. As an atheist I follow the philosophy of treat people as I would like to be treated. I find this to be superior to most religions which tout, do whatever you want, but as long as you repent you’ll get into heaven.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you–That is what Jesus said
JL, you have ignorantly forgotten the other part of that clause. You know, the part that says, “Congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” This means no law that prohibits one’s religious rights to life shall be made by Congress. Seeing as that is EXACTLY what Roe V. Wade has done, Roe V. Wade is 100% unconstitutional and should be overturned.
Minor point: Roe v. Wade isn’t a law, and it wasn’t made by Congress.
And you have the absolute right to practice your religion freely by never having an abortion.
The problem is you are asserting that another person’s behavior affects your practice of your religion.
That has been repeatedly proven to be a lethal path to go down, and must be rejected whenever it is suggested.
It doesn’t really matter what Newt thinks on this, he can’t ban the pill. He’s not a dictator.
Dear God, the Republican party is determined to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory by adopting the political and social engineering agenda’s of the loony bin faction of the party. They don’t call it the STUPID party for nothing.
“I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom.”
AMEN BROTHER… That message should be laser etched on the retina’s of whoever is the candidate of the Republican Party.
No-one gives a shit about abortion and birth control except the loonies on the fringe. It’s been settled for decades, pro choice has won, it’s time to get over it and let it go…
Wanted: A fiscal conservative with more than 1/2 a brain (bye,bye Perry)who cares about the constitution and the rule of law and stays out of our bedrooms…
Amen amen amen.
As for Perry, with a case of moral superiority like his, and a mob of “heartless” citizens like us, it’s a wonder he ever left the Democrats.
We had one. A western two-term Republican governor beloved in his state that vetoed more bills than any politician in modern history.
The media/GOP establishment/pollsters conspired to keep him out of all but one televised debate, guaranteeing his near anonymity.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com
George Will explains why Gingrich’s latest Big Idea proves he is no conservative.
Try again. The link to Will’s column on Gingrich now fixed.
“The “personhood” movement represents the most ideologically consistent endpoint of the anti-abortion movement.”
Not the most consistent, only the most extreme endpoint. To be anti-abortion you only need to be anti-murder. There is not any biblical, empirical, or I think even philosophical evidence a single cell or even the first several millions of cells can then be or have yet been a person.
What profits neither side in the argument is what is also most prudent and I think most likely morally correct. Define human life for federal purposes as beginning by the third trimester, or what the local jurisdiction uses if it is earlier, but prohibit definitions which have human life beginning in the first trimester.
Of course this would prohibit late-term abortions of convenience an preempt bans on some contraceptives. Win-win.
You would have to define personhood as beginning earlier than the 3rd trimester.
Because modern medical science is able to save prematurely born babies earlier than that. There was a case last year in which a hospital in L.A. managed to save the life of an infant that was born only 5 months into the pregnancy. Last I heard, it’s growing normally.
I feel strongly that the current state of mrdical technology is no yardstick to use, both as a matter of a priori ethics and for purely practicalreasons. Before terribly long, medical technology will permit the raising of unjoined gametes into an infant stage without benefit of a womb.
The point is that there almost overwhelming support for a definition that constitutionally protected human life has begun by the third trimester, and that it has not begun in the first. Leave the muddle in the middle to local political contests.
Why not set it at the second trimester then, rather than the first? Or maybe at the age of viability, and move that back as medicine advances? As far as I know, the most premature infant to survive was born at 21 weeks, 6 days. Someone in my family was born at 22 weeks, 5 days. Those kids are more than “muddle in the middle”. They’re people.
I say that if a fetus can be born alive, and being born makes one a legal person, then that “person” status should be extended to the unborn children of the same age. Otherwise, you could say that a 36 weeker just hours before birth is not a person, even if a 22 weeker born extremely premature is. That just doesn’t make logical sense.
I have other thoughts concerning earlier stages as well, but the area around 20-ish weeks on is a touchy subject for me.
I’m sorry to ramble. It was mostly just the “muddle in the middle” that caught my attention.
“… Newt Gingrich’s views on birth control, abortion, and the “controversial” personhood movement will be likely targets for Democrats if he wins the 2012 GOP nomination for president.” And, pray tell, what else is new? Anything any Republican candidate supports, has ever said or supported, will make him target for Democrats! Besides which no president has the power to make anything illegal. The candidate who has signed onto the movement is merely making his personal principle on the matter obvious, as the one who did not sign on is clearly making obvious his principles are a matter of political expedience, but then his history says the same thing as well.
I do not believe any conservative candidate is going to, or could if he wished, “ban birth control,” or even abortion. That is not the issue. The issue is the federal government’s subsidizing it through taxation, which forces millions to pay for that which they are firmly persuaded is morally wrong, thereby making them partners in what they view as sins of others. The sins of others are between themselves and God, but it’s morally wrong to force any to pay for that which the believe is morally wrong. Those who want birth control of any description can pay for it, or keep their legs closed and pants zipped. Sexual promiscuity is not a Constitutional right. And please, the red herring of rape or a woman’s “health” didn’t wash originally, and still don’t.
There are no birth control methods on the market that are not health risks for women, other than the rhythm method, the diaphram, and abstinance. How many men elect vasectomies, which would make life much healthier for their wives? As for rape, what does that have to do with the morality of killing the unborn? Besides that, if the left cared about women being raped, they would be all for prosecuting rapists to the hilt!
There are ample federal laws in place that ban use of taxpayer dollars for abortions. So, you can rest easy.
“Sexual promiscuity is not a constitutional right.” Our Constitution is a great document and is many things. But I’m not aware that the Constitution takes precedent over human biology.
Yes, there are a few laws on the books that purport to ban government funding of abortion. They’re jokes, so full of holes as to be no more than window dressing. Further, they apply only to a small proportion of government funds, leaving ample money available for anyone who wants my tax money to kill their baby for convenience. This is outrageous and grossly insulting – and I will do all in my power to bring it to an end.
Where exactly in the Constitution does it delegate the power to determine how many sexual partners a person can have, where they can have them, what positions they can have them in, what reproductive functions they must or must not engage in, what sex those partners must be, and any other related aspects and functions of sexual relationships?
I’m rather thinking “nowhere”.
Therefore any such choices must either be non-enumerated, non-disparagable rights of the people, or powers reserved to the States or the people.
Contemplating various State Constitutions, I see a notable absence of any delegation of power to the States to determine any of those aspects, beyond the generally implied power to establish an age of majority, which only restricts a the selection of partners in a specific way, along with an equally implied power to regulate the treatment of animals, against only restricting the selection of partners in a specific way. That leaves the remainder returning to the people as either rights or powers or both.
Fine, no one is going to prosecute you for fornicating. We do, however, demand that you pay your own bills rather than mooching off of us.
The note confessing the writer is “pro-choice” (but only for select ‘persons’) was entirely unnecessary. The point amounts to nothing more than, “Newt might lose for being right.” The right to life is not only protected for White people or any other subset of people. The right to life is for all people of all races, genders, and ages. The right to life begins when life begins and ends when life ends.
Well said.
How like a democrat. When in doubt, make sure a baby dies.
Guns and ammo in the hands of the public ensures that *many* people of *all* ages will die unjustly and with extreme prejudice.
How would a Constitutionally bound president do this? It’s the act of a dictator.
Grow up and stop fretting over impossibilities.
This is a classic example of the propaganda technique known as a strawman. Attribute something to one’s opponent and attack it.
Did Gingrich say this? No. Would a president Gingrich have the power to do this? No.
Why not worry about something that might happen. Maybe an Iranian EMP attack, or terrrorists using a modified flu virus causing a pandemic, or an asteroid hitting the earth. You know, something unlikely but possible.
This is Hillary Martian Baby nonsense and you should be ashamed.
What is never discussed in all of this is the role of ecumenism in the extreme Pat Buchanan view of abortion. What I am getting at is that all together too many Protestants have unwittingly adapted the papist view of abortion. There is a Christian view, but it will never come to light under the ecumenical deception.
Let me use my own personal experience for an example. My wife was pregnant back in the day when we only knew she was pregnant and having problems. We knew that she had a tubular pregnancy. Her Roman Catholic doctor would examine her and send her home saying we needed to wait to see if the baby would “drop.” After a number of weeks my mother was discussing my wife’s condition with a co-worker who had nursing experience. The co-worker asked how long my wife had been pregnant? My mother told her the number of weeks. To which the co-worker responded that there had never been a case in human history when a child stuck in the fallopian tube that long had come to term. She said my wife would probably die if a doctor did not operate soon. My mother called me and we rushed my wife to USC Medical Center. The Jewish doctor there, after numerous tests, rushed my wife into the operating room and removed the fallopian tube and the baby. He told us to come back in a week. When we returned the Jewish doctor ran some tests and in dismay ran the tests again. My wife was still pregnant. She would have had twins if the one baby had not been lodged in the fallopian tube. What would have happened if we had done nothing like the Roman Catholic doctor was insisting? My wife would probably have died and my oldest daughter would certainly have died. Both are alive and well 40 years later.
The moral of the story is that there are cases when the mother’s life and possibly a child’s life is in danger when the Pat Buchanan/Newt Gingrich abortion plan is followed.
I am more anti abortion than any of the candidates. But, I would never allow a Buchanan/Gingrich form of anti abortion law to see the light of day.
And, please do not try to say that I support the anti-semite Ron Paul.
No need to associate you with Ron Paul. Your use of “papist” discredits you.
A person’s world view colors all of their actions. If you see no relation between the religion of Gingrich and Santorum and their illegal immigration stances you are naive. NumbersUSA gives Gingrich and Santorum a grade of D- on illegal immigration. The primary allegiance of these men is to the Pope. That makes them papists by definition. Papist: originally, a Roman Catholic who was a strong advocate of the papacy. They are just like Mel Gibson, who’s movie The Passion was based on the visions of a 19th century nun, not the Bible. No suprise then that Gibson was an anti semite.
Perhaps the comment I read was edited after you commented, but the only person in Rance’s original comment that was identified as a Roman Catholic was the doctor. Apparently grammar and the understanding of adjectives has gone extinct. Knock off the insults of the commenter, it only confirms that you are the fool others think you to be.
You misstate the Roman Catholic position here. It is NOT an abortion to remove an ectopic pregnancy that is threatening a woman’s life. “Abortion” is a term that refers to killing the unborn baby specifically for the sake of depriving it of life. In an ectopic pregnancy, it is reasonable to remove it when there is NO chance that it will survive and NO other chance of the mother’s survival. In that case, the baby is not being deliberately killed, but is an unwanted and unavoidable result of saving the mother. There are currently efforts being made to find a way to safely ‘reimplant’ an ectopic pregnancy in the healthy tissue of the uterus, and when that happens, deliberately killing an ectopic pregnancy will be logically reclassified as an abortion, but with the state of medicine at this time, it isn’t.
Thank you, scragsma. Your description comports exactly with what I learned in moral theology class at The Catholic University of America. The principle of double effect.
How does this bastardized bumper sticker analogy hold up to the argument that it’s nobody’s business? That’s one argument I’m hearing from commenters on this thread.
Slavery: If you don’t like it don’t own one.
Thinking in terms of both slaves and unborn babies as “persons” is problematic. It becomes important to define both as less than persons, namely 4/5ths of a person or a person after the second trimester or after birth or somesuch. Just a zygote, nothing to see here, move along. From one complicated bag of water to another.
Thomas Sewell likes Newt, I like Newt, Good enough for me.
Thomas Sowell: I’ll Take Gingrich over Romney
This case of shamelessly trampling upon women’s reproductive rights will never be tolerated. Forging this as one’s political platform is a case of utter political suicide. If men were the ones who got pregnant, this discussion would NEVER GO DOWN!
If men got pregnant, they’d be women.
Guess you need to have it spelled out. Fine, I’ll bite. If men were in charge of reproductive rights, this discussion would not be taking place.
Let me start off by saying I’m in favor of legal abortion. Actually, I really think in some cases abortion should be allowed up to the age of 18. (I know some really bad kids.
) What I’m not in favor of is paying for someone else’s mistake. If you don’t want a kid, take precautions. Condoms and birth control pills don’t cost that much and I wouldn’t mind my taxes going to pay for them for someone that really can’t afford it.
What I really object to is someone having an abortion just because the baby happened to be the wrong sex or had the wrong hair color or something. The so called designer babies. That, to me is really wrong. Also, abortions of convenience is not good either. Such as gee, my hubby and I really want kids but it was just a bad time right now, if we keep this baby we won’t be able to afford that great vacation we were planning.
On the other hand if someone becomes pregnant through no fault of her own, then abortion should be legal. If a woman is raped she should not be forced to carry the baby. That, to me would be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime she didn’t commit. I can also see an abortion if the chosen birth control method failed. No pill is 100% effective and condoms can have defects.
So, I guess I’m saying each case is different, it should be left to the woman, her doctor, and her God, if she has one. If the pregnancy is likely to kill the woman then by all means abort. If someone or some thing were going to kill me I would do my best to kill them or it first.
I share your sentiments, perry, but to be realistic, they cannot give legal status to this procedure with exceptions. It must be all-or-nothing. Fact is, this is a matter that should be handled by the woman & her doctor as you say above, even in cases of inappropriate reasoning (not a good time, cannot afford it right now, etc.). According to some studies, that latter case is the most dominant one that accounts for those who seek this procedure.
As an ex-Muslim I can see no difference between personhood Gingrich and Muslims who want sharia. Is there no longer a seperation of church and state? A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are Roman Catholics and soon a majority of the electorate will be Mexicans. If Gingrich wins say goodbye to personal freedom.
Oh, please. As I said above, he’s running for president, not dictator. A president still has to deal with Congress and the Courts.
“Oh please……he’s running for president, not dictator………” And you’ve never heard of executive orders?
Newt is famous for his flip-flopping. I really don’t think you need to worry about him.
At the same time, Paul, I challenge you to prove that a fertilized egg, a “zygote” is not a person.
If you were to cause a blue whale to have an abortion, would you be endangering the blue whale species? Of course. A whale zygote is a whale, just as a human zygote is a human. Only humans rationalize the killing of their own species, however.
Minor point: only humans rationalize anything. Plenty of species kill their own, including primates.
Actually, Daniel, since the personhood movement contends that the zygote is a person; wants to change all manner of laws to reflect their personal religious beliefs; and have never proven conclusively that a fertilized egg IS a person; I think they have the burden of proof.
For anyone interested in reading a detailed refutation of the claim that “personhood” (i.e. rights) begin at fertilization, I’d recommend two sources by Ari Armstrong and me:
(1) The essay “The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties,” just published in “The Objective Standard” : http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/abortion-rights.asp
(2) A 2010 policy paper — “The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception” : http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a62.shtml
If you understand the nature of rights for what they are — moral principles required for survival and flourishing in human society, not arbitrary gifts from God — then rights can only apply to born infants, not to embryos or fetuses.
Your last point is critical: “If you understand the nature of rights for what they are — moral principles required for survival and flourishing in human society, not arbitrary gifts from God — then rights can only apply to born infants, not to embryos or fetuses.”
The entire “personhood” debate can be characterized by the caution: Be careful what you wish for.
I know an athiest who is anti-abortion. The person views all abortion as murder. So that opinion is not always held only by people who are following what they are sure G-d intended and wish to make the rest of us follow.
And I agree that the Pres no matter who it is is not the sole arbiter regarding abortion. Unless it goes back to the Supreme Court, in which case it is still not the Prez who will decide-(a court packed with Obama libs for life now) – it is a states’ right to make the laws on it.
Why do Reps hate NEWT? why are conservatives fighting each other? throwing eggs at every chance? Thanks for helping Obama win again. UGH.
Excellent, thought-provoking analysis, Dr. Hsieh.
As you noted, “small businessman Ron Vaughn spoke for many independents when he said: ‘I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom.’” Good advice.
GDI: the late Senator Barry Goldwater is the generally acknowledged founder of the modern conservative movement. His thought on abortion: “abortion is not a conservative issue; it’s a matter between a woman and her doctor. ”
Goldwater had his faults, as do we all. But he was a consistent conservative. Gingrich, Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, on the other hand, are religious socialists. Keep the theocrats out of our bedrooms.
Thanks, SteveB. Valuable information, and yep, I’d agree that Barry G pretty much defines “conservative.”
Isn’t he also the one who originally said, “A government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”
While Paul Hsieh is wrong in my opinion on abortion policy and probably much else, he is correct in pointing out the strategy that was used against Ken Buck in Colorado. I was here to witness the commercials featuring women declaring Buck too extreme, and heard the opinion after the election on their effectiveness. Michael Bennett, who was appointed to the Senate when Ken Salazar left the position, and who voted for Obamacare, was able to defeat a solid conservative.
That given, it is incumbent upon those who would support any pro-life politician to come up with a strategy to blunt the charges and win the day. That includes the likes of Mr. Hsieh who might be starting to feel his economic self-interest could even override his obvious fascination with death. Slightly off-topic, don’t let those who are pro-choice discourage you with doomsday talk. If you are pro-life, stand up for your side. If you don’t, who will?
I hope this post gets you thinking.
Erico: Ken Buck had other problems in his race besides his support of “personhood.” He remarked in the primary that people should vote for him because he wasn’t wearing high heels (his opponent was a woman). He also had issues with not aggressively prosecuting rape cases in his day job as Weld County DA. There were others.
“don’t let those who are pro-choice discourage you with doomsday talk….” Nothing “doomsday” at all about keeping politicians, and their backers on the religious right, from involving themselves in citizens’ bedrooms.
In this season of joy and hope, we should all focus on those things everyone agrees on, like: The are too damn many liberals.
Conservatives want them to change their minds, liberals want to kill themselves off but in the end we all agree on the problem.
#6 Random Blowhard is pretty funny; “duhhhh wait, we all decided to kill off OUR kids decades ago and no one has stopped us; why are there still prolifers?” Yeah, dunno why lol.
I don’t think we should try to pass any completely unenforceable laws but when you folks finish killing yourselves off, there won’t be anyone to stop us from passing whatever laws we like, and there are some pretty good reasons to discourage contraceptive use.
Because of course, every kind of contraceptive has a failure rate, so as contraceptive use has gone up, so has the out-of-wedlock birth rate, and the abortion rate with its many ensuing physical and mental health problems has also risen. Children born not into a stable, male-female marriage have quite a few more problems than those who are. To me, the most fascinating part of “Humanae Vitae” is section 17; in the first paragraph, Paul VI predicted modern western society and in the second, he predicted modern China. He certainly was prescient about the lack of respect for women, the degradation of the culture, the decline of marriage here, and the terrible policies in place in China.
Before you mindlessly attack anyone who is prolife and leery of contraception on demand, you might want to look at the real downsides of the past 45 years or so. There’s a lot more to it than “God says so and He’ll cast upon you the twin plagues of hemorrhoids and mice if you don’t do what I say He wants” (a little “1 Samuel 6″ humor there; I couldn’t resist). A mature Christian realizes that what God suggests is rather sensible most of the time, and civilizations go a lot more smoothly when most people in it attempt to follow Judeo-Christian moral laws.
Jeannette the bad Catholic – What if I’m a Muslim? Should I then have to follow your Judeo-Christian moral laws.
“Children born not into a stable, male-female marriage have quite a few more problems than those who are.”
So your solution is to have MORE of them? Rewarding failure is leading us all off a cliff face, you’ll have to do better than that.
“No-one gives a shit about abortion and birth control except the loonies on the fringe”.
I rest my case…
“What if I’m a Muslim? Should I then have to follow your Judeo-Christian moral laws.” “Have to”? I said “civilizations go a lot more smoothly”. The thing is, I’m a conservative; “I think things go more smoothly this way” is NOT a synonym for “I need to make other people do this, and make taxpayers foot the bill”. That’s more of a liberal thing (see: seat belts, air bags, smoking, obesity, abortion pre- vs post- Roe) Despite the liberal talking points it’s the left that’s into forcing people to go along with their stupid ideas. Or are you saying that things go more smoothly in the Muslim Middle East? (I’m not much of a debater, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to counter “things go more smoothly when most people follow Judeo-Christian ideals” by pointing at today’s Muslim world.)
“So your solution is to have MORE of them? Rewarding failure is leading us all off a cliff face, you’ll have to do better than that.” Wait, are you actually arguing that “more contraceptives” has led us to a decrease in out-of-wedlock births? I know it’s really popular among the mindless left-wing sheeple (but I repeat myself) to say that MORE contraception would somehow decrease them, but the historical data don’t support your assertion. Yeah I know, “it’s settled science”, just like Mann-made global warming.
“No-one gives a shit about abortion and birth control except the loonies on the fringe”. Ah, one of us is completely in a froth that his ability to kill his side off might be impeded, and doesn’t recognize that there are loony fringes on both sides. OTOH, I made it pretty clear that while I would kind of prefer that y’all changed your minds, I can live with your obsession with doing away with yourselves. (Really, who would want there to have been MORE Occupier losers stinking up our cities?? lol) Starting around 2050 or so, world population will stabilize and then decrease, as Baby Boomers’ kids start euthanizing their parents, and liberals continue to not procreate.
For God’s sake, please -it is not a birth control -it is murder. An embryo (small things like HIV and atoms that go boom are just as important as big things. Whether the 100% living human embryo is implanted yet in the womb or not, doesn’t change its status as a 100% living human even one tiny iota.
Whether we personally approve or dissapprove of murdering innocent helpless humans or not doesn’t make it something else. Whether a judge deceitfully calls it a emanation from a penumbra or a peacan pie doesn’t make it other than what it is – a fully living, fully growing, fully unique, human being – like ourselves (only more defenseless).
Like the Nazis, the Stalins, the Mao’s, the Castro’s, when will we ever stop lying to ourselves in order do the unthinkable?
Do you honestly think that a just-fertilized egg is a person? You can’t even see it. And if you wait a few weeks, that embryo becomes something that you would scrape off your boots without a single thought.
And even if we are making the assumption that embryos are people- would say go ahead and kill them. While in the womb, embryos are nothing but parasites- they suck nutrients from a woman’s body and force her great inconvenience in the last months of that pregnancy. If she wants to scrape that parasite out of herself, I say go ahead.
Also, in response to all of the religious comments: I will accept ethical laws, but not moral ones. There is a difference between saying what is right or wrong, and evaluating what is more important in one situation or another. I don’t appreciate being told what to do by people who think some magic dude in the sky should tell everyone what to do. I am aware that the majority of America is Christian, but since when is this a country where we do not protect the rights and opinions of the minorities?