“All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” Thomas Jefferson

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

I am not claiming that we should outlaw abortion because it is a sin, any more than I am arguing that it is proper to outlaw murder because it is a sin. My argument was a purely secular argument based upon the priority of rights (life over privacy).

Moreover, I make my claim not as a “member of the religious majority.” I make my claim based upon legal and scientific principles. The scientific principle is that from the moment of conception, we are dealing with a distinct human being. The legal principles are that we bestow all human beings with a right to life, and that right is not trumped by any right unless it is with the explicit consent of the governed through a democratic legislative process.

The argument against Roe v. Wade is that it was not the result of a legitimate constitutional process. The US Constitution is silent on abortion, and is also silent on privacy. Rather than let individual states debate and legislate the issue, the SCOTUS intervened and usurped the democratic process by proclaiming a new constitutional right, the right to privacy, and then giving that right priority over the right to life of a fetus. This was wrong as a matter of law, and should be reversed.

I should also note that such error is not unprecedented. Just because the SCOTUS decided in the Dred Scott case that blacks were not entitled to be treated as citizens didn’t make it rightly decided.

Your post, while interesting, is basically non-responsive to my questions. Not to put too fine a point on it, your argument appears to be that abortion is legal because it is legal. But this is not an argument; it is a tautology.

In order to reconcile conflicting rights, we must establish an order of priority – a hierarchy of rights. This is not a religious statement; it is a logical statement. Without such a hierarchy, there would be no way to resolve conflicting claims involving rights. And it seems logical to me that the right to life must be at the top of that pyramid, if for no other reason than life, once lost, is not recoverable. A woman can recover her privacy; a dead fetus cannot recover his or her life.

And with respect to the decision to “intrude into the privacy of a stranger’s most intimate and private decision,” I guess I’d respond that the law does that all the time. It’s not something we should do willy-nilly, but neither should we shy away from it when necessary. The decision of an adult to have sex with a child in the privacy of his home could very well be that “stranger’s most intimate and private decision,” but we sure the heck need to intrude into that decision. Why? Because the right of a child to not be sexually involved with an adult is not trumped by the adult’s right to privacy.

I guess I’d sign off on this issue by pointing out that, if nothing else, I hope our exchange has highlighted that your initial statement – “Women have a right to privacy up to the point of fetal viability; at that point the child’s right to life trumps the woman’s right to privacy. Why is this so hard?” – was too harsh. It is hard because using fetal viability as the determinant of when we grant priority to a fetus’ right to life is illogical, the priority of the right to privacy over the right to life is inconsistent with our traditional hierarchy of rights, and Roe v. Wade – which originally established a viability test – was incorrectly decided as a matter of constitutional law.

Enjoyed the exchange. I wish you all the best.

L3

The only argument for a mother’s privacy trumping an unborn child’s right to life is that we life in a society where the secular minority does not adhere to all of our higher Judeo-Christian moral law. Would it be right to force that group of women – with judicial and police force – to keep their unborn babies when they are determined to have an abortion? We don’t outlaw smoking – except in restraints and other public places – people are still allowed to smoke even though it is destructive to human life, and thereby violates our higher moral law. We do not prosecute people for adultery, yet it violates our higher moral law. Is it right for you and me – members of the religious majority – to intrude into the privacy of a stranger’s most intimate and private decision – is it any of our business?

The separation of church and state is the reason for not making every sin a crime. Our founding fathers only chose those most essential higher Judeo-Christian laws for the foundation of our legal system – those moral laws which are absolutely essential for just government – and they put those higher laws into our Declaration of Independence:

1. All men are created equal – Higher Judeo-Christian law

2. We are endowed by our Creator with irreversible human rights: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness – Higher Judeo-Christian Law

Under our secular law we’ve made an exception for the unborn child – but it needs to at least be changed so that the unborn is protected after the point of independent viability, i.e.: ~28 weeks gestation, in my opinion. The founders did not have abortion on their minds when they wrote our Declaration of Independence – they were concerned about their own lives – they were hunted men. They were concerned about the lives of their families and their neighbors – people already born into this world. We’re stuck with figuring out this remaining problem of abortion.

The third higher law of the United States appears to me to be moral on rational grounds – and not purely religious – except of course our reasoning powers are from our Creator and reflect His creativity:

3. Just government power can only derive through the consent of the governed.

We have a fine mix of essential Judeo-Christian moral law and essential rational law – and that is to be found in the Declaration of Independence.

Leo, I agree with you that it is dangerous to allow the Supreme Court to have the final word on American law. We the people have the final word according to our founding fathers. The majority view should prevail if it becomes law through legislation – because that would represent just government power through the consent of the governed. What we have now is a secular minority – Supreme Court – ruling over the religious majority without our consent, and according to our highest law – the Declaration of Independence – that is unjust government power. Ironic isn’t it – we the religious majority bend over backward to protect the rights of the secular minority, and they use unjust governing power to frustrate the will of the majority – and they do so by violating the third Declarational law – the secular Declarational law – the one based on pure reason. As you said, we need the States to take back their Constitutional governing power as per our ninth and tenth amendments. The Federal Government grabbed that power during the Socialist “New Deal” and created an un-Constitutional socialist federal monster.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” Thomas Jefferson

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson

“The accounts of the United States ought to be, and may be made, as simple as those of a common farmer, and capable of being understood by common farmers.” Thomas Jefferson

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln

Again, I think we agree on the core issue: that a human has a right to life from the moment of conception.

But, as I understand it, you are saying that the right to life of a pre-born human should be trumped by the right to privacy of the mother (as a matter of law, not morality). It appear that this is where we disagree.

My point – not made very well in earlier posts, I’m afraid – is that there is no reasonable argument to put the right to privacy above the right to life. (Note that the case of the danger to the mother’s life is not covered by the privacy right, but the mother’s right to life, i.e. self-defense.)

So, two questions:

1. What is the argument for why privacy should ever trump life? Saying “because it is the law” is not an argument, only begging the question. I’m asking why it should be the law.

2. Can you provide a single instance – other than abortion – where the right to life is trumped by anything other the right to life of another human being or group of human beings?

In the absence of a compelling argument for 1., or compelling analogous examples of 2., I would propose that the privacy argument does not hold water.

Finally, IMHO the real problem with the Supreme Court is not that it got the facts wrong (it did), but rather that it preempted State legislatures and usurped our federalist democratic system. This won’t get fixed until Roe v. Wade is overturned and the abortion issue returns to the states to debate and legislate.

L3

No, in my opinion a fetus has a right to life from conception, but that is trumped by the mother’s right to privacy – under secular law – at the point of independent fetal viability – which is somewhere around 28-29 weeks gestation. At that point the fetus can live outside his/her mother and without mechanical life support. According to the higher Judeo-Christian moral law (the law of me and my family) the fetus has a right to life which trumps the mother’s righ to privacy from the beginning – from conception – except for rape or the mother’s right to life.

Leo, you and I are not using the word viability in the same way; and that is a source of confusion. I’m using the word viability as a very simple reference to that point in fetal life where the fetus can live outside his/her mother’s body without mechanical life support. You are using the word viability in a much more complex way – a way that confuses me.

It is not usually possible to tell in advance if a fetus will require mechanical life support prior to birth, this becomes apparent only after birth. The point of independent fetal viability can be computed based on data from premature births – determining where it is likely that a fetus will survive on its own without mechanical life support – probably somewhere at the 28-29 week range. Prior to this point I would consider, under secular law, that the mother’s right to privacy trumps the fetuses right to life; and that an abortion as means of birth control should be considered a sin but not a crime. After that point an abortion as means of birth control should be considered both a sin and the crime of murder.

Once a child is born, at any gestational age, he or she is no longer a fetus, but now a child; and has an unalienable – irreversible – right to life. Once a child is born, our moral law must always trump any secular law – our moral law must be the secular law – “thou shall not murder.” Prior to the point of independent fetal viability, while still in the mothers uterus, an unborn child’s right to life can be trumped by the mother’s right to privacy, but only in secular law; as I’ve stated, under the higher Judeo-Christian moral law, that applies to me and my wife, the fetus’s right to life trumps the mother’s right to privacy except in cases of rape or the mother’s right to life.

First, of all, since we agree on the moral issue, I’m restricting this post to science and what you call the “secular law.” And I’m speaking to what the law should be, from a purely scientific and secular standpoint, not what it is today.

Your logic on viability and mechanical support appears inconsistent. If mechanical support is required to maintain the life of a fetus, you say that fetus is not viable, and not deserving of protection. But then you also say a fetus that is viable but requires mechanical support post-partum is deserving of protection. In both cases, we’re dealing with a fetus requiring mechanical support; in one case, they deserve protection, the other they don’t.

I think this position would make sense if you said that a human life that at any point was viable without mechanical support is deserving of protection. This position could be stated as such: the right to life, once granted, should not be withdrawn. But if you argue that, there is another significant logical problem.

In the case of in vitro fertilization, the blastocyst is viable without the support of the mother. Given this human was viable that point without the support of the mother (it lives outside the womb, and gets its nutrition and protection from others – like a child and some adults), your logic would say that it is deserving of protection. The right to life is thereby granted, and should not be withdrawn.

But if such a right is granted to an artificially fertilized blastocyst, why should a naturally fertilized blastocyst not be granted the same right? And if that is granted, then there is no viability defense of abortion.

—

More generally, you claim that the human fetus should get the right to life only when it is viable. But, as a matter of science, viability is always dependent upon the environment in which an organism exists. For instance, I am not viable on the surface of the moon. This environmental dependence also is true of the blastocyst, the embryo, the fetus, the baby, the toddler, the teenager (especially the teenager , and the adult human; in fact, of all animals. The environment might include mechanical support (ventilator, pacemaker, air conditioner), or it might not. But viability depends on a favorable environment.

During pregnancy, from a scientific standpoint, the mother only provides the environment for the fetus. She provides nutrition, oxygen, waste disposal, and thermal protection (among other things). The fetus is a separate human organism, and the uterus and placenta are the means of providing this environmental support. She carries the fetus; she is not the fetus, and the fetus is not her. They have different DNA. This is a scientific fact.

Now, the priority of human beings under the law means that the rights on the environment should never trump the right to life of the human. The law puts a priority on human life above all else; in fact, the only legal actions that take a human life involve protecting other human life (e.g. self-defense).

Since, from a scientific standpoint, the mother is simply an environment, her right to privacy should not trump the fetus’ right to life. The only situation where a fetus’ rights could be subordinated are when the mother’s life is in grave danger – this is the analogue to the self-defense argument.

So, in sum, the basic scientific, secular argument against abortion is that it is the intentional ending of a human life, and the law doesn’t allow this in any situation, save for grave threat to another human life. Abortion is inconsistent with this legal tenet, and we try to get rid of inconsistencies when we become of aware of them – slavery and denying women the right to vote being two obvious past examples. This effort is what we call progress.

I guess that makes me a progressive .

L3

This is the idea for secular law in regards to the unborn child, not Judeo-Christian religious moral law which teaches the fetus has an absolute right to life all the way back to conception – except for rape or the mother’s health. Once the unborn child reaches the point of viability he/she should have an unalienable right to life even under our secular law, and the same goes for all people already born such as a sick person or a person suffering from disability. No one here has ever put forward the idea of denying a born human being the right to life due to illness or physical disability – except for Peter Singer. No matter his background or his supposed motivation to limit suffering; no one, including Peter Singer, has the right to end someone’s life except to defend life which is under assault. Our right to life is an unalienable God-given right – so says our Declaration of Independence – and it says that our government was established for the express purpose of securing that right, along with our God-given rights to liberty and creative pursuit of happiness.

Ptah: “Does a human being cease to be protected if they are on life support, then re-extended protection once they get off?”

No, any person already born (and I would add any fetus past the point of viability), has an unalienable right to life – so says our Declaration of Independence. Life support is a wonderful means of securing our unalienable right to life during critical illness or injury. The only person who has the right to end his or her life is that person him or herself – certainly not Peter Singer. The terminally ill or severely suffering patient can instruct the Physician, not to take an active measure to end life, but to take a passive measure – to remove invasive life support – to stop antibiotics or IV fluids, etc. I deal with these issues almost every day.

The problem with pregnancy is that it is temporary: getting an abortion means beating a deadline. Pulling the deadline back by talking about viability ignores the fact that progress is being made by the fetus to crossing ANY deadline.

Tt is a custom that we time age by emergence from the womb because it is an easy marker: we could as easily time it from the mother’s first attack of morning sickness. Establishing any time-based deadline for a fetus to pass muster as a protected person is to practice age discrimination. There is also a deep violation of the principle of fairness to kill someone TRYING to qualify for protection, based on the argument that if the person had not been killed, it would have attained legal protection against being killed.

That’s one reason why the equal protection clause has the word ‘person’ instead of ‘Citizen’: it protected those trying to qualify for citizenship from being illegally prevented from achieving citizenship by those already Citizens who had an interest in preventing that person from becoming a citizen.