Comments on Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming DebatesTypePad2012-09-29T17:03:26ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/09/abortion-at-the-democratic-convention-and-at-the-upcoming-debates/comments/atom.xml/David Nickol commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c3251e2cf970b2012-10-04T15:59:05Z2012-10-04T15:59:05ZDavid Nickolhttp://www.religiousleftlaw.comThis is the only thing that Romney said that even came CLOSE to the issue of abortion: "First, life and...<p>This is the only thing that Romney said that even came CLOSE to the issue of abortion:</p>
<p>"First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America's military."</p>
<p>When I heard him say, "life and liberty," I thought to myself that I may have been wrong that he wanted to avoid any discussion of abortion. But just a few words here would have slipped in an anti-abortion message, and clearly he chose not to say them.<br />
</p>Joe commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c324ce720970b2012-10-03T17:13:57Z2012-10-03T17:13:57ZJoehttp://joejp.blogspot.com"the Democratic abortion faithful" So very helpful. The ultimate importance of letting the individual, even when it is against the...<p>"the Democratic abortion faithful"</p>
<p>So very helpful. The ultimate importance of letting the individual, even when it is against the popular path, to have the private right of conscience is something that I think Catholics should honor. This includes regarding choices about motherhood. No wonder so many are Democrats. </p>
<p>Some of the private choices made are wrong. Ridicule or labeling like this is not the best approach to address it. If criminal, abortion still occurs, just in a more selective and more dangerous fashion. See Latin America. </p>
<p>Democrats support free choice and various things that make it more likely that a girl or woman will -- if she wants -- to have a child successfully. They also support contraceptive choice to stop many who are unready and unwilling. They also support health care programs to care for people as a whole, including those not ready or willing to give birth to a child. The overall right to choose in that area is something generally accepted, those against it always finding some "exception" that turns out to be "depends on the circumstance."</p>
<p>For those against abortion, realistically and morally, the best choice is support and care. Instead, that is, of gotcha questions of when Obama thinks a "life" is truly a "human person" or whatever. Divorce likewise is something the Church frowns upon but focusing on what really is a 'marriage' so we can determine if we can find a loophole is not the best path or talking of "the divorce faithful."</p>
<p>Ugly stuff really.</p>Thales commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3c7751de970c2012-10-03T00:59:48Z2012-10-03T00:59:48ZThalesInteresting comments. When it comes to abortion, these definitional disputes are half the problem -- people aren't using the same...<p>Interesting comments. When it comes to abortion, these definitional disputes are half the problem -- people aren't using the same definitions and premises and so they inevitably talk past each other. </p>
<p>-For what it's worth, I consider "human life" a scientific term. It's the term for an entity that is (1) human (and not dog, carrot, ant, etc.) and is (2) has life or is living (that is, has an internal principle of maturation, development, etc.) But I guess some don't consider "human life" to be a scientific term. How about "living human entity"?</p>
<p>-I think the twin scenario is easily explained: one living human entity existed before twinning, and at the moment of twinning, a second living human entity comes into existence. I see it analogous to cloning: before cloning, there is one living human entity, and at cloning, a second living human entity comes into existence. Before the twinning or cloning occurred, there is no reason to think that the entity that exists beforehand is not a living human entity itself.</p>
<p>-the species question is interesting, but ultimately, I think, not very useful in the discussion about the morality of abortion. Species just means "type" or "kind." Now the distinction between what makes X a different type or kind of animal from Y (i.e., a different species) is admittedly fuzzy at lower levels of animals. But it's not fuzzy at the human level. There is no doubt that a human being is different type of thing from a dog, carrot, ant, or even chimp, even if we can't always define species in other instances.</p>N.D. commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3c718251970c2012-10-01T21:49:05Z2012-10-01T21:49:05ZN.D.Since you do not believe that it is a self evident truth that a human individual can only conceive a...<p>Since you do not believe that it is a self evident truth that a human individual can only conceive a human individual, perhaps you can provide us with some links of a being that is not human becoming a human being, but then, the truth is, those missing links don't exist, to begin with,</p>N.D. commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c32432c96970b2012-10-01T21:19:11Z2012-10-01T21:19:11ZN.D.David, at the moment of their conception, a human individual exists, even if one human individual is begotten from the...<p>David, at the moment of their conception, a human individual exists, even if one human individual is begotten from the other, Are you suggesting that not every twin is a human individual?</p>David Nickol commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c3242fa53970b2012-10-01T20:23:30Z2012-10-01T20:23:30ZDavid Nickolhttp://www.religiousleftlaw.comN.D., You say: "It is important to note that there is no Scientific evidence that a human individual has existed...<p>N.D.,</p>
<p>You say: "It is important to note that there is no Scientific evidence that a human individual has existed who was not, from the beginning, a human individual . . . "</p>
<p>This seems to me to be *so* important, I hope you will be able to provide some links to reliable sources that will back it up.</p>
<p>It does seem to me that if a human individual comes into existence at conception, then monozygotic twins fall outside the generalization you have made here. The split that results in monozygotic twins can take place as long as nine days after conception. How can one nine-day-old human individual, or person, become two human persons by physically splitting? Which individual, Twin A or Twin B, existed at the moment of conception?</p>N.D. commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e66f96970d2012-10-01T19:46:32Z2012-10-01T19:46:32ZN.D.It is important to note that there is no Scientific evidence that a human individual has existed who was not,...<p>It is important to note that there is no Scientific evidence that a human individual has existed who was not, from the beginning, a human individual, nor is there any Scientific evidence of a human individual becoming something other than a human individual, or a being, that was not a human being to begin with, becoming a human being.</p>Kostya commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e5d63a970d2012-10-01T17:16:39Z2012-10-01T17:16:39ZKostyaBill, I'd like to also ask you to clarify your claim. Are you saying that membership in the human species...<p>Bill, I'd like to also ask you to clarify your claim. Are you saying that membership in the human species is merely the only necessary condition for these things, or are you saying that it is a sufficient condition for conferring these things on a new human life? I suspect you mean the latter.</p>Kostya commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e5d013970d2012-10-01T17:10:00Z2012-10-01T17:10:00ZKostyaBill Collier, I'd like to engage with you regarding your claim that "membership in the human species is the only...<p>Bill Collier, I'd like to engage with you regarding your claim that "membership in the human species is the only criterion necessary for conferring moral worth and legal protection on a new human life." If you are also willing, I'd first ask how you determine species membership. In biology the definition of "species" is contested. Which of the contested definitions do you favor, and why?</p>Bill Collier commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e5c0c1970d2012-10-01T16:55:01Z2012-10-01T16:55:01ZBill CollierPaul Horwitz— My prior post was not in response to your post. Even if that had been the case, however,...<p>Paul Horwitz—</p>
<p>My prior post was not in response to your post. Even if that had been the case, however, I would not have intended any offense to you. I was supporting John Breen’s statement that all of the leading embryology texts identify conception as the beginning of a new human life. A distinct genotypic individual of the species Homo sapiens begins at that point. I believe that personhood, in all its legal and moral ramifications, attaches when that new human life comes into existence because IMO membership in the human species is the only criterion necessary for conferring moral worth and legal protection on a new human life.</p>
<p>My other point was that pro-choice philosophers Peter Singer and Daniel Boonin recognize that a human life begins at conception, but they posit that personhood, and therefore the recognition of a legal and moral right to life, requires more than mere membership in the human species. While I strongly disagree with this argument, Singer and Boonin are to be commended for at least not trying to duck the issue of when human life begins by using ambiguous and manufactured terms (by the IVF industry, for example) such as “potential human” and “pre-embryo” to sidestep the uniqueness of what they nevertheless conclude may be intentionally destroyed. <br />
</p>N.D. commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e5a1ed970d2012-10-01T16:22:42Z2012-10-01T16:22:42ZN.D.Professor Horwitz, what Science has shown is that from the moment of conception, a human being, remains a human being....<p>Professor Horwitz, what Science has shown is that from the moment of conception, a human being, remains a human being. From the moment of conception, you remain you. </p>Paul Horwitz commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3c6fe332970c2012-10-01T14:40:32Z2012-10-01T14:40:32ZPaul HorwitzCLS, I'm not sure that's quite right; even if we set aside the moral worth of human life, I'm not...<p>CLS, I'm not sure that's quite right; even if we set aside the moral worth of human life, I'm not sure that the question what constitutes "human life" is a scientific one at the stage we're talking about. It's more a definitional question, one that probably is inevitably value-laden. Certainly science can tell us a good deal about the development of what virtually everyone would define without argument as human life, and certainly both science and simple common sense can tell us a good deal about the relationship between fetal life and the subsequent birth (or not) of live human beings. I should say that none of this is intended to weigh in on one side or the other of the moral question or the rightness or wrongness of abortion, just to seek clarification (and, as anonymous writes, to suggest a view) about what and how much science can usefully tell us in this area. </p>Kostya commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e528ec970d2012-10-01T14:22:10Z2012-10-01T14:22:10ZKostyaMr. Breen, you would presumably oppose legislation that would make masturbation illegal. Can we therefore say that you celebrate masturbation?...<p>Mr. Breen, you would presumably oppose legislation that would make masturbation illegal. Can we therefore say that you celebrate masturbation? Should we say that you are committed to masturbation? Should we say that you are pro-masturbation?</p>
<p>To oppose attempts to make abortion illegal is just that. Your descriptions of this opposition show you to be ignorant or willfully deceptive. </p>Catholic Law Student commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3c6fc22a970c2012-10-01T14:06:08Z2012-10-01T14:06:08ZCatholic Law StudentIf I follow the comments Correctly, Prof. Horwitz agrees that science can tell us that the fetus is "human life."...<p>If I follow the comments Correctly, Prof. Horwitz agrees that science can tell us that the fetus is "human life." </p>
<p>Prof. Horwitz, however, is saying that science cannot tell us what the moral worth of that life is.</p>
<p>Is this correct?</p>Paul Horwitz commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c32414e6e970b2012-10-01T13:19:38Z2012-10-01T13:19:38ZPaul HorwitzJust to be clear, I was actually directing my response at Mr. Collier, not anonymous (and again, perhaps he wasn't...<p>Just to be clear, I was actually directing my response at Mr. Collier, not anonymous (and again, perhaps he wasn't referring to me). As for anonymous's comment, I agree with the sentiment in general and perhaps could have been clearer, but I wasn't trying to be disingenuous--diplomatic, yes, but not disingenuous. I do disagree that there appears to be an overstatement about what science says about, as David puts it, "humanity," but I was *also* confused about how John's post got from one to the other. Still, point taken. </p>N.D. commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e4b03f970d2012-10-01T12:22:51Z2012-10-01T12:22:51ZN.D.David, it is a self-evident truth that there is no such thing as a thing that is human, and no...<p>David, it is a self-evident truth that there is no such thing as a thing that is human, and no such place as a place that is human, because, from The Beginning, we can know through Faith and reasoning, that every son and daughter of a human person is a human person.</p>David Nickol commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e45b09970d2012-10-01T10:42:36Z2012-10-01T10:42:36ZDavid Nickolhttp://www.religiousleftlaw.comAnonymous, Consider that Paul Horwitz, in the phrasing of his initial comment, was taking pains to be polite. Then consider...<p>Anonymous,</p>
<p>Consider that Paul Horwitz, in the phrasing of his initial comment, was taking pains to be polite. Then consider how your sarcasm (Sep 30, 2012 1:22:45 PM) and hauteur (Sep 30, 2012 10:07:25 PM) appear in comparison. </p>Anonymous commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3c6d43d7970c2012-10-01T02:07:25Z2012-10-01T02:07:25ZAnonymousThe comment was meant to show that you're not confused: you think Prof. Breen misstates the issue because biological humanity...<p>The comment was meant to show that you're not confused: you think Prof. Breen misstates the issue because biological humanity qua humanity isn't the actual locus of the debate, it's what we mean by "human" in a moral/dignitaran/whatever sense. That's fine. You should just say so rather than throwing around, "wait, I'm confused" and pretending not to know what Breen is talking about. </p>N.D. commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e222a3970d2012-09-30T23:58:48Z2012-09-30T23:58:48ZN.D.A human individual can only conceive a human individual. Since it is true a human individual is not a place...<p>A human individual can only conceive a human individual. Since it is true a human individual is not a place or a thing, every human individual, including every developing human individual, must be a human person.</p>David Nickol commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e1d427970d2012-09-30T22:28:10Z2012-09-30T22:28:10ZDavid Nickolhttp://www.religiousleftlaw.comIt is not necessary to consult an embryology textbook to conclude that a human zygote, embryo, or fetus is human....<p>It is not necessary to consult an embryology textbook to conclude that a human zygote, embryo, or fetus is human. No one would deny that. One of the current major embryology textbooks is named The Developing Human. The first paragraph of the first chapter begins: "Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatazoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, highly specialized, totipotent cell, a zygote, into a multicellular human being."</p>
<p>To say that a zygote is human or to say that an embryo or fetus is a human being is to make quite a different statement than to speak of "the humanity of the developing child." Thanks to Amazon's "search inside the book" feature, one can discover that the word "humanity" does not appear even once in The Developing Human. Ascribing "humanity" to the developing embryo or fetus is basically begging the question, since it is simply another way of asserting personhood, and whether or not (or when) a developing human may be considered a person is probably the most fundamental question in the abortion debate. </p>
<p>I think abortion is probably among the last things Romney wants to come up in the debate. </p>Paul Horwitz commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee3e1cd66970d2012-09-30T22:20:29Z2012-09-30T22:20:29ZPaul HorwitzIf that comment is meant to suggest that I am being intellectually dishonest in my comment, which perhaps it isn't,...<p>If that comment is meant to suggest that I am being intellectually dishonest in my comment, which perhaps it isn't, then I think you're overreading it. Of course abortion results in the destruction of a human life, whether directly or by implication. That doesn't make the human status of a fetus at every stage a matter of scientific fact, as I understand it. </p>Bill Collier commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3c6bc89f970c2012-09-30T19:19:32Z2012-09-30T19:19:32ZBill CollierAs John Breen notes, the leading texts on embryology being used in U.S. medical schools state with no equivocation that...<p>As John Breen notes, the leading texts on embryology being used in U.S. medical schools state with no equivocation that a human being exists from the time of fertilization. I have a son in med school (a school with no religious affiliation) and his embryology text says exactly the same thing. Moreover, even the leading pro-choice philosophers--Singer and Boonin, for example--concede that abortions destroy human beings. At least they have the intellectual honesty to recognize the humanity of what they argue can be intentionally destroyed.</p>Anonymous commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c323d2565970b2012-09-30T17:22:45Z2012-09-30T17:22:45ZAnonymousMy religion tells me that "early-stage fetuses" are actually cabbages. I don't see what science has to do with it.<p>My religion tells me that "early-stage fetuses" are actually cabbages. I don't see what science has to do with it. </p>Paul Horwitz commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c323bed17970b2012-09-30T12:02:13Z2012-09-30T12:02:13ZPaul HorwitzI'm a little confused about what you mean, John, when you say, or would have someone else say, "The humanity...<p>I'm a little confused about what you mean, John, when you say, or would have someone else say, "The humanity of the developing child is not a moral or theological position, but the conclusion of science." Isn't the definition of "humanity," particularly as it applies to early-stage fetuses, more (or entirely) a moral or theological question rather than a scientific one? </p>David Nickol commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3c684a5b970c2012-09-30T02:52:29Z2012-09-30T03:52:28ZDavid Nickolhttp://www.religiousleftlaw.comRomney has made it clear he supports abortion in cases of rape and threat to life of the mother. He...<p>Romney has made it clear he supports abortion in cases of rape and threat to life of the mother. He also supports use of "excess" embryos from fertility clinics for stem-cell research. Of course, since he is opposed to most abortions, he can make the case that he is clearly the better choice for pro-life voters than Obama. But with those two positions, he is in no position to make sermons about life beginning at conception. </p>
<p>If Romney "knows" that what is developing inside a mother's womb is "a human being, a human life," then he supports, in some cases, the killing of innocent human beings. If he dared to make the argument John Breen suggests, he would either have to change his position and oppose *all* abortions and *all* embryo-destructive stem cell research, or there would be a glaring inconsistency in his position that would clearly be indefensible. </p>Eapen Chacko commented on 'Abortion at the Democratic Convention and at the Upcoming Debates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c3238c3f9970b2012-09-29T20:20:29Z2012-09-30T03:52:28ZEapen ChackoMitt Romney is a financial guy, a numbers guy, in addition to his political credentials as a former Governor. I...<p>Mitt Romney is a financial guy, a numbers guy, in addition to his political credentials as a former Governor. I wonder if the discussion of abortion on the ground of ethics, morality, or social justice can ever make an American voter change her mind. What are the numbers for the abortion industry? How many doctors bill public and private insurance payers, how many billions per year for testing, primary procedure and follow-up? What is the complication rate for the procedure? Mortality? How many abortions are performed on whites compared to minorities? In the all important cases of rape or incest, how many of these cases are there? What is the distribution of the infants' term when the abortions are performed? Abortion is a medical procedure about which there are no reliable, transparent public numbers. We wouldn't accept this for cardiac procedures, so why is it acceptable here? </p>
<p>Surely, some government agency must track this information. I supsect that the answers would be revelatory and shocking, but it's only a guess. These numbers would put into sharp relief the crtical issues which now seem abstract to the broad electorate. </p>
<p>In the end, public policy is about money, usually OPM ("other people's money") The New York Times has a columnist who calls himself "The Numbers Guy." What are the numbers on the abortion industry? It must be an industry that supports a lot of people for it to generate the kind of rhetoric you cite in your post. </p>