The attempt on the life of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh by a man apparently motivated by the leaked draft of the Dobbs decision re-kicked the hornet's nest that is the abortion debate.
This sentence is what I wish so many people would grasp: “A reminder - overturning Roe does nothing, in and of itself, to set or change limits on abortion. Many states have laws either on the books or "ready to go," but the Court's ruling is neutral on those laws.”
I heard a few minutes of Eric Erickson yesterday, coming home from Atlanta. He said that your governor has more impact on your life than the POTUS does, and that your mayor (or, in my case, County Administrator and Sheriff) have more weight than the governor. Regardless of how you think about Abortion, it is more properly dealt with at the State level.
I’m in the “potential” camp, that if left alone, a baby will result in due time. A baby certainly exists at the time of viability, which, with medical advancements, gets earlier & earlier.
Given the political nature of the contravening interests, I can accept some compromise in permitting abortions for a limited time period and/or under certain other limited circumstances.
"The problem is, there really isn’t a scientific answer to the personhood question. It’s a definitional matter, which makes it a metaphysical debate."
Possibly! If the definition of "person," as used in the 14th Amendment (as that word was understood by the public, at the time that the Congress proposed it) did NOT include fetuses, then you are correct: extending human-rights protections to fetuses is an unsettled question that can only be settled by legislatures -- and, ultimately, by voters.
However, if the definition of "person," as used in the 14th Amendment (as that word was understood by the public, at the time that the Congress proposed it), DID include fetuses, then they have already been guaranteed certain rights which the judicial branch is bound to enforce (until the amendment is repealed or further amended).
It's *still* a metaphysical question in that case, but it's a metaphysical question that our country settled in 1868, at the same time that our country settled the similarly metaphysical question of whether Black humans are "persons."
We are agreed the question needing an answer is the definition of personhood. I disagree though when you say science has no response. Here's why:
Two persons participate in a biological activity. As a direct result biologically defined products of each are joined and immediately commence a biological process which ends in another person. At the moment of that joining and at all times during the process the contents are human and alive. Nothing is added, nothing is taken away, there is only a growing, a progression, a perfecting.
When male sperm and female egg come together a human person is formed needing only time to prepare for the travail of life with us on earth.
The crux of the argument is personhood, not “human” in a biological sense. Sober, reasonable people differ on this matter, and the argument you present does not address the personhood question.
This sentence is what I wish so many people would grasp: “A reminder - overturning Roe does nothing, in and of itself, to set or change limits on abortion. Many states have laws either on the books or "ready to go," but the Court's ruling is neutral on those laws.”
I heard a few minutes of Eric Erickson yesterday, coming home from Atlanta. He said that your governor has more impact on your life than the POTUS does, and that your mayor (or, in my case, County Administrator and Sheriff) have more weight than the governor. Regardless of how you think about Abortion, it is more properly dealt with at the State level.
I’m in the “potential” camp, that if left alone, a baby will result in due time. A baby certainly exists at the time of viability, which, with medical advancements, gets earlier & earlier.
Given the political nature of the contravening interests, I can accept some compromise in permitting abortions for a limited time period and/or under certain other limited circumstances.
When a pregnant woman is killed, cannot a D.A. charge the culprit with 2 murders?
Sounds like establishment of personhood to me.
"The problem is, there really isn’t a scientific answer to the personhood question. It’s a definitional matter, which makes it a metaphysical debate."
Possibly! If the definition of "person," as used in the 14th Amendment (as that word was understood by the public, at the time that the Congress proposed it) did NOT include fetuses, then you are correct: extending human-rights protections to fetuses is an unsettled question that can only be settled by legislatures -- and, ultimately, by voters.
However, if the definition of "person," as used in the 14th Amendment (as that word was understood by the public, at the time that the Congress proposed it), DID include fetuses, then they have already been guaranteed certain rights which the judicial branch is bound to enforce (until the amendment is repealed or further amended).
It's *still* a metaphysical question in that case, but it's a metaphysical question that our country settled in 1868, at the same time that our country settled the similarly metaphysical question of whether Black humans are "persons."
Robert George and John Finnis made a case to that effect in a fascinating amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185196/20210729093557582_210169a%20Amicus%20Brief%20for%20efiling%207%2029%2021.pdf
We are agreed the question needing an answer is the definition of personhood. I disagree though when you say science has no response. Here's why:
Two persons participate in a biological activity. As a direct result biologically defined products of each are joined and immediately commence a biological process which ends in another person. At the moment of that joining and at all times during the process the contents are human and alive. Nothing is added, nothing is taken away, there is only a growing, a progression, a perfecting.
When male sperm and female egg come together a human person is formed needing only time to prepare for the travail of life with us on earth.
The crux of the argument is personhood, not “human” in a biological sense. Sober, reasonable people differ on this matter, and the argument you present does not address the personhood question.