Redstate

strikes me as a little bit leading.  You call for an end to "abortion-on-demand" without really specifying what you mean by that?  Would you be happy in a United States where abortion is only allowed in, say, the first twelve weeks?  Do we need to add parental consent and spousal notification?  I realize you'll obviously take anything at this point to reduce the number of abortions, but in the name of compromise, where would you be happy to settle things?

(Bias disclosure: I've posed the questions in a way that favors my preferred position on abortion.)

Is very simple. We agree to disregard arbitrary distinctions of personhood, and respect that every human life has the absolute right not to be killed.

As a moral contradiction, but that's not the point.

I'm willing to have the discussion with you, although as the above poster said, you'll have to tell me what you mean by abortion on demand.

Although the death penalty isn't something I necessarily oppose, either, I'll get us started: you give me an end to the death penalty, and I'll give you an end to abortion past the point of fetal viability.

Your compromise is this - "You surrender a basic principle of retributivist justice, and in exchange I get to keep on drawing arbitrary lines w/r/t personhood, which would result in the continued consignment to death of 1.1 million fetuses a year"?

I'll pass.

The compromise I'm offering is really very clear. It's a recognition of an unalienable right, in all circumstances, not to be killed. I'll throw in, as a natural consequence, rejection of all wars that do not satisfy the proportionality prong of jus ad bellum.

I fall on the side of Mr Trevino and Ponnuru when it comes to these life issues, in that I oppose Abortion and the Death Penalty on principle, yet I am more inclined to support the rule of law.  The conflict comes when an elected official, in most cases an executive, has an opportunity to stray from his Constitutionally defined role to impose his or her own values over the law.  When an executive commutes a sentence on principle and not evidence, it is wrong, and I argue worse for the fabric of our society than the penalty they seek to avoid carrying out.

I see in this case a similar notion.  The doctors take an oath to do everything in their power to preserve the life of their patients.  Sedating an inmate so he may be put to death has to be at least a gray matter regarding this oath.  Conservatives argued in Oregon v Gonzalez that a doctor's legal oath must prevent him from administering drugs to facilitate a "death with dignity," so must we not now argue that the nurses and anesthesioloigts should not be compelled to violate the same promise?  

I wholeheartly agree with your assesment of the leftist view of life in regards to abortion and appreciate your post.  You are a great writer for this site.  That said, I wonder, with due respect, how you reconcile my question.  I appreciate your thoughts.

I'd like death penalty category offenses tried for a guilty or not-guilty decision by the jury.

Afterward, the immediate family members (if willing) get to vote on whether they die or not. Not 12 random strangers or the judge. This would accomplish many things most importantly a feeling that Justice was served one way or another.

Sure there are issues involved where this could turn out to be a disaster. In that case, it could be remanded back to the judge or jury for the decision.

Conservatives argued in Oregon v Gonzalez that a doctor's legal oath must prevent him from administering drugs to facilitate a "death with dignity," so must we not now argue that the nurses and anesthesioloigts should not be compelled to violate the same promise?

Perhaps my point was misconstrued. My argument was not with the physicians who refused to participate, but rather with the silly notion of requiring them to be there in the first place. Frankly, it strikes me that the most humane way to kill a person would be a small-caliber round to the back of the head, but that seems to get ruled out everywhere but Utah, and so we get stuff like this coming in to play.

I DO wish that they'd show a little more principle when it comes to abortion generally, however.

To a debate over when personhood begins.

If personhood (i.e., "life") begins at conception, then abortion is never justified.  If it begins at birth, then what restriction on abortion can be justified?

What seperates a fertilized egg from any other piece of flesh that we remove, electively and otherwise, every day?

I'm comfortable with the argument from viability because I don't see it as an arbitrary line.  Autonomy is an important part of our law, why not make (at least theoretical) autonomy the legal beginning of life?

You know it's been an, er, energetic night for me on Red State when I dive into an abortion/death penalty thread for a BREATHER from controversy.

I, too, am at a loss for where the far left is on this issue.  As someone who supports state-sponsored executions of heinous criminals, but is inclined against private slaughter of millions of innocents, my views on these subjects are the polar opposites of theirs.

But for all that disagreement, I really can't say they're inconsistent for holding their views.  Proponents of a 'culture of life,' such as those who adhere strictly to the Roman Catholic Church, place a certain intrinsic value in all human life.  This view pretty much mandates the position the Church takes.

Neither I nor the far left, however, use the 'sacredness' of human life to oppose the things we do oppose, though.  I oppose abortions but support executions because of the innocence or evil of the person being killed.  The far left opposes executions because of other beliefs (the arguments I usually see are that the police are racist, prosecutors are corrupt, public defenders are incompetent, the condemned is possibly innocent, murderers can be rehabilitiated, or in some cases simply because the death penalty costs too much to administrate fairly), and supports abortion because they simply believe that unborn people aren't people.

These kind of radical differences of opinion, based on radically different moral compasses, are what have led humanity to have so many religious wars over the years.  It's to America's credit that we've come to a point where our fight over abortion is no nastier than the Borking of Bork and Thomas, but no amount of civilization will make the disagreement go away.

My argument was not with the physicians who refused to participate, but rather with the silly notion of requiring them to be there in the first place.

All part of ensuring that the criminal isn't somehow feeling pain that we might not be aware of, due to lack of consciousness.

The way we execute people in this country is ridiculous. There are plenty of quick and foolproof ways to kill somebody. Firing squad, hydraulic car crusher, drowning, burned alive, it all works for me. It shouldn't take 45 minutes to kill somebody.

I can understand the impulse to make state-sponsored execution quick and painless on the criminal.

Given that many of the condemned were probably convicted of making people suffer and die, the squeamish on the death penalty probably need reassured that We Are Better Than They Are, and that we are capable of showing mercy that they did not.

To let this desire to show mercy derail the whole process though, is a perversion of the whole thing that could only happen in a leftist-run state like California.

It isn't quick and and it's probably not painless. It's also not foolproof. In any case, I would put a much higher value on quick and foolproof than on painless. Firing squad meets all 3 of these criteria better than anything else. Lethal injection and the electric chair shouldn't make the list.

You may be right, and I think you made that argument to the public, you would sway many people with it.

Lethal injection's whole value was in its supposed speed and painlessness.  If it achieves neither, then we need something else.

Firing squad may or may not fit the bill, but even if it did, I think the public would never go for it.  Too barbaric-looking.  Same goes for the guillotine, though if it were combined with a heavy dose of barbiturates to put the criminal out first, it would seem to be ideal to me.

was something terrorists did.  Seriously, it took me a couple seconds to realize you were talking about abortion.  Then suddenly it hit me, it's really not that different.

Anyway, as far as my legal opinion on the issue: The 14th Amendment reads, in part, "No state shall .... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  For those of us who believe that children (even those who are yet to be born) are "persons," this clause clearly indicates that to allow the intentional killing of some people but not others is blatantly unconstitutional.  This is not to say that medically-neccessary abortions to prevent death or great bodily harm to the mother would be made illegal: they would fall under self-defense statues in the state (assuming the state has such laws).  But these laws must be applied equally to all.  To do otherwise is unconstitutional.  And a state always could legalize all abortions (by legalizing all murders), but I hardly think that would pass many legislatures.

Those, on the other hand, who fail to recognize the unborn as persons, have no problem killing them.  It is not all that different from 1940's Germany declaring Jews to be subhuman and putting them to death by the millions.  While some would complain loudly over this comparision, I fail to see the difference: An entire group is declared to be non-human and then allowed to be killed, fully sanctioned by the government.

do not appreciate being compared to an embryo, down to a fertilized egg (if you insist that life at fertilization is the same as life as a sentient being).  I realize that wasn't your point, but I'm tremendously irked when I'm compared to two cells.  

That bringing Jews into the discussion, given that Jewish law (halacha) has permitted abortion under a variety of circumstances for millenia and makes a clear distinction between a "fetus" and a "person," is poor form.

that the only abortions that take place at the two-cell phase are the spontaneous ones that are indistinguishable from normal menstruation. Abortion on demand takes place much later than that.

you get ot decide what personhood is, and babies still get to die.

Either its always a baby, or it isn't.

I didn't call any of my children "the fetus" while pregnant, not even when they were barely formed and I just knew of the pregnancy.

do you think we will have the exact same line?

If we polled 20 people, would they?

If we polled 50 doctors would they?

Unless you can define it clearly (and it isn't a compromise definition, because a compromise by definition means the line is arbitrary), it is arbitrary.

And we might note that, historically, a lot of the folks who killed Jews were irate at being told they were anything like Jews.

But that was different.

We'll keep that in mind so we can be spared that thoughtless regurgitation for the 1,000th time the next time we have this discussion. Thanks so much for your help.

Everyone, when we have this discussion in the future, instead of having some lurking genius who misses the point altogether lecture us inanely on an unrelated point, would someone just leave a comment that reads "GOB (nt)" afterward, as just a place marker?

Appreciated.

but I tend to agree with you that if "quick" is the goal, firing squad is probably among the quickest, and doesn't require anyone who has taken an oath to be involved.

Although, even with lethal injection, I think you can easily write law so that it is legal to train a non medical proffessional to insert the IV and administer the medications-without requiring a doctor or other person to be there who isn't willing to be.

I can understand why the AMA backs off from being involved in this stuff.

the pro abortion/anti death penalty position than the anti abortion/pro death penalty one.  At least in the latter you aren't advocating the death of innocents.

I admit I am on the fence over the death penalty.  Mostly in that I think it is a just punishment in certain cases-for instance I see no reason to preserve the life of a Ted Bundy who didn't preserve the life of any of his victims. What makes me uncomfortable regarding the death penalty is more in how we choose who gets it than in the reasons behind it.

I don't see anything just, right or fair about killing a baby in the womb.

no abortion at any time for any reason?  Or only in exceptional cases to save the mother's life?

This is what I meant.  Calling this situation the end of "abortion-on-demand" seems technically correct, but I'm not sure it's what most people think when they hear that phrase.

Also, just because it's worth talking about at some point, what about situations where, say, the child is going to have some kind of really horrible disease (like Tay-Sachs)?  Does the fetus's right not to be killed extend so far as to prevent the mother and her doctor from having a serious discussion about abortion in this case?

I understand if your response is "yes" and there's certainly no moral conundrum if it is, but I can't imagine a world in which any compromise is possible if that's what you're looking to get out of it.

is a seperate issue. When your life is directly threatened by another person, taking that life is a matter of self defense, of self-preservation.

I doubt many of us would condemn a woman acting in self defense by terminating her pregnancy.

That scenario doesn't compromise the "seamless philosophy" we are striving to achieve.

Allow me to offer a few comments.

First, neither capital punishment and the slaughter of innocents represented by abortion are not simple questions.    

Second, there are no simple or absolute answers and bright lines lose their clarity in close cases.   Reasonable people can adopt different positions, both with respect to their own philosophies and as to their preferred governmental policy.

Third, reasonable people can also feel tortured over the issues involved, and be unhappy with whatever the results are.  Others, to spare themselves the psychic pain, may rationalize.

Finally, people can adopt different positions and still recognize the desirability of adopting policies that tend to minimize the differences, by reducing violent crime or the rate of undesired pregancies.

Accordingly, I do not think your framing of these issues in terms of the political spectrum is particularly helpful.  Surely you noted that Ken Starr was Morales's defense attorney?

My own view is that the death penalty belong largely in different moral spheres.  The first involves how the state will act to take life of murderers; the second involves the regulation of how mothers chose to take the lives of their unborn infants.

Concerning the death penalty I have long been personally opposed (Catholic upbringing) but felt that as a matter of public policy that the community, acting through the state, has the right to choose to establish and enforce a death penalty as a matter of deterrence and utility - in that society might fairly choose to use its tax money for purposes other than maintaining a murderer for life behind bars.  I do not accept a retributive position, but see that as an evolved basis for our sense of justice, as well as a possible burning desire in relatives of realtives of murder victims.  

More recently (on other threads) I have questioned whether the death penalty should be enforced, for largely the same reasons you have enumerated; I have also noticed that it tends to be used most in cases where an outsider kills a member of the dominant social group - it is easier for juries to discount the value of that life.  I think that it should remain as a penalty option for deterrence, but that more controls are needed to ensure fair use of it (the real Constitutional issues are equal protection, rather than cruel and unusual punishment).

I see the evolution in the method as being driven by a desire to avoid imposing on the invididuals involved in executions a feeling of personal responsibility - hence the justification for firing squads and introduction of intermediating technology, such as remote injections by several different doctors of a cocktails of drugs.  Morales involved a Federal judge requiring that one single doctor act in the presence of the murderer, with predictible results.

On abortion, I also approach from a right to life heritage, coupled with an understanding that our Constitution should protect the vulnerable.  However, I do not think that a religious background mandates a view that all abortions should be illegal.  We know that pregancy is a natural and frequent result of sex, but that is not the sole function of sex and I don't see that unfettered reproduction - to the point of environmental damage and the squeezing out of other life on earth - is either sensible or an inevitable part of any divine or preordained plan.  Hence, I first justify contraception as acceptable or perhaps even morally preferable.

I also notice that a decision to prohibit all abortion would be one that would result in a gerat number of additional births.  Part of the moral calculus should be to consider whose job it will be to raise the resulting children.  Since I would rather not have the government in the business of raising children, or of subsidizing those who choose to, I fall on the side of allowing some abortion.

I also note that only women bear children - only a limited number - and do at considerable risks to themselves and facing enormous personal decisions as to future investment of blood, sweat and tears, and financial resouces.  In the not too distant past, most children did not make it to adulthood, and the parental investment was relatively lower.  Now, both in the Wst and in developing countries, better healthcare means survivability rates are much higher, as well as are the costs of raising children (in the West).  While I do not see abortion as natural, I also understand the desire of mothers to determine when they will have children and whom the fathers will be.  

This forces me to accept view that as a matter of public policy, at least up to a certain point, we should not be insisting that pregnant women carry to term and raise all of their unborn children.  In fact, given the technology now available for abortions, there may be a very good equal protection claim that women should be allowed to have abortions, as men do not face the same decision to give birth.  This is not easily resolved against our recognition that (1) unborn children are still just that - capable of being full members of human society, and not dogs, cats or an appendage of their mothers - and so I also feel we should protect these lives.  I also think that dedicated fathers also have a legitimate interest in their unborn children.  

So what are we left with?  Competing interests where, unlike in the case of the death penalty, society is not making a decision about how to allocate tax revenues, but how to regulate private reproductive and childrearing decisions in a manner that does least harm to the public interest in protecting potential and highly vulnerable members.

I do not see any easy bright line on which to base our policies.  There is no clean moment of conception - it takes up to 48 hours for the sperm and egg nuclei to merge and be ready for mitosis. Between 2/3 and 3/4 of the fertilized ova fail to attach to the uterine wall and are naturally aborted (apparently largely due to genetic defects).  (Relevant to the issue of ensoulment, some embryos naturally split and form identical twins, while occasionally fraternal twins - zyotes of different genomes - merge to form chimeras.)  

Because of the difficulty in drawing bright lines, I see have to regulate abortions as being essentially a legislative decision, but with equal protection underpinnings.  For that reason, I see Roe and much of its progeny as a mistake that has trumped the legislative process and prevented more fruitful discourse in the public arena.

I note as an aside that inevitably, the interests of the mother and father are not identical and may diverge.  Human mating strategies are manifold, but I do not think I generalize unfairly to note that the male and female strategies frequently and naturally differ, men making a much smaller investment physically (innumberable sperm vs. limited ova, etc.).  I suspect that a large percentage of abortions are by unwed mothers who are not confident that the father can be depended on to assist with child-rearing.  It is also not surprising that many men oppose abortion, as (consciously or not) abortions are an evident cost to the men in terms of lost reproductive opportunities.  

While I do not like abortions, I recogize them as more desirable than the historic practice of infanticide, which has fortunately been much reduced (and has its homologues in the rest of the mammalian kingdom).  I would favor policies that would result in fewer unintended pregancies, and that would greatly reduce late-term abortions.  

I note that despite our much improved healthcare and greatly increased costs of childrearing that, biologically, the built-in reproductive drive remains and that pregnancy is a natural default option.  While I am worried that ready contraception and abortion may increase irresponsible sexual activity, as a society I do not think we will head back to the days of totally prohibiting either, and expecting abstinence until youth complete their college/secondary educations and have established a financial foundation sufficient to pay for raising kids.  In recognition of current realities, I wonder if perhaps we should consider adopting policies that would move pregancy from a default option to a deliberate one, so that pregnancy occurs only after majority or marriage.

But self-defense is a pretty cruddy reasoning for a life of the mother exception. (I favor that exception alone, so don't think I'm taking a shot here.) The self-defense logic is predicated on an active, deliberate threat from another. Most one year olds can't enact an active, deliberate threat; a pre-term infant is certainly not going to.

The better analysis is that a procedure undertaken to save the mother's life is licit, especially if undertaken with an intent to save the fetus's life, if possible. If the foreseeable, but unavoidable, by-product of saving the mother's life is the death of the child, then it is sad, but licit. Killing the child cannot be the end; saving the mother must be; and there must be a thorough analysis to make sure that the child cannot be saved while saving the mother's life. If it can be, it should be.

I didn't realize I'd been carried away until I posted.

You raise some very difficult issues that obviously deserve serious discussion.  Sorry for not being more pithy.

This should not be one. Minimalism isn't required, and sometimes isn't even a good thing.

two rock climbers tied together getting pulled off a cliff. If one guy cuts rope to avoid getting pulled over by the other guy, he is ending an innocent life to save his own. But we wouldn't call him a murderer.

but I'm more interested in what you think of the other situations, like the Tay-Sachs one.  Are there other places where you would make exceptions, or allow for others to make exceptions, or do you want the line to be firm?  If so, I think that compromise is almost certainly impossible.

The rock climbers chose to be tied together, knowing this was a possible outcome.

a hypothetical scenario where one person's existence directly threatens the life of another person, through no deliberate fault of either party. Would you call that person a murderer for ending the other person's life as an act of self-preservation?

Take that insipid example about the violinist from back in the day. Suppose he's threatening my life, just by being attached, and I simply kill him. That's murder, under the facts in the underlying scenario. If I try to detach him knowing it will kill him and not giving two shakes, that's murder. If I look for every possible way not to kill him, find that there is no way, and then detach him, it's not murdering him. If I try to save him as I try to save myself, but put the greater onus on me, that's not murdering him.

Self defense isn't the right way to conceive of this.

Where do I sign?

You're not the target audience.

"To my thinking, any position which either biologically or philosophically does not recognize a fetus as a human life beggars the imagination, but I understand through experience that there are those who are capable of mentally contortions that salve their consciences in this regard"

Here you pretty much accuse anyone who doesn't accept your framing of being demented or evil. This is an unpromising starting point for the reasoning-together you claim to crave.

And then to equate an ethically-based rejection of the Death Penalty with a defense of demented psycho killers, well, that just salts the ground further.

The compromise I'm offering is really very clear. It's a recognition of an unalienable right, in all circumstances, not to be killed.

I know I'm taking an odd slant on this one, which I'm disclaiming first. :)

Within seamless philosophy you've pointed out. I'm glad that you've addressed the question of war. What of the environment? Liberals think a global catastrophy is on the way, many conservatives think this is incorrect. What is clear is that the rise in cars has led to an huge rise in respiratory disease/death in young people and the old.

In addressing this question I understand that you are both trying to address the political viability and the more transcendant ethical questions (that are of value outside politics). Most importantly I'm interested: barring the political viability of reducing air polution from cars (and other sources) aren't we morally obliged to also include a drastic and immediate reduction in air polution within this philosophy? As to importance I recognize that 40 million abortions is far more then the 100,000 air polution related deaths, yet my question still stands. I'm asking a more theoretical question rather then practical question. Clearly the actual debate is an attempt to wed the theoretical and the practical. I'm simply curious to your response.

That's one way to put it.

Another way would be to say that I don't care how a person "frames" it, if they demonstrate a higher level of care for Morales than the 1.1 million other human lives that are summarily executed a year, we "inhabit a different moral universe."

You can draw your own conclusions about which universe is better.

It's not always possible, or even plausible, to eliminate all the possible causes of death in one's environment - whether you're talking about air pollution, or unsafe drivers. I have no problem with government taking steps in that regard, in recognition of the value of human life. However, it's a different question entirely from the one about whether every human has a right to not be affirmatively and deliberately killed.

I'm tryin' here.  (Though lately, it's true, I've not been the "target audience" for much.)

FWIW, you know that your principle on this has already earned your respect from me, personally, and almost everyone else on this site.

Seriously, how many framing comments have we had lately? What wonderful thing did we do to deserve this, and how can we keep it up?

I'll remember that the next time Catholic doctrine comes up that it's "irrelevant," especially when responding to a comment about Catholics.  

I'll also remember that it's OK for editors and contributors to make personal attacks.

I am a religious Jew, and don't consider bringing my strongly held beliefs into this discussion "thoughtless regurgitation."  

I'll remember that the next time Catholic doctrine comes up that it's "irrelevant," especially when responding to a comment about Catholics.

Please do, especially the next time it's brought up in a way utterly irrelevant to the point being made.

I'll also remember that it's OK for editors and contributors to make personal attacks.

It's not so much that it's ok, it's more of an "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" kind of thing.

I am a religious Jew, and don't consider bringing my strongly held beliefs into this discussion "thoughtless regurgitation."

I don't care how "strongly held" your beliefs are, in this context, it would be like my jumping in with a dissertation on transubstantiation, which is a deeply held belief of mine. Interesting, but not the point.

I may feel that the 59,000,000 fools who voted for John Kerry threatened my existence based upon my perception of the policies he represented. Am I justified in killing them or just Kerry?

Re: The self-defense logic is predicated on an active, deliberate threat from another.

Actually no. It is predicated on the existence of such a threat regardless of the intent or knowledge of the threatener. If a sleep-walker were about to shoot your three year old child you would be every bit as much justified in shooting that person first and claiming self-defense as if you shot a deliberate murderer in the same circumstances. Self-defense requires only a prudential judgment that a threat exists and can only be met with deadly force, not any sort of moral judgement about the source of that threat.

Have medical doctors arrested for refusing to participate in death penalty procedures. How can you humanely put someone to death. If the procedure is a problem, California should introduce other procedures, like the firing squad.

It's your site, and you're a generally thoughtful commenter whose past invocation of nostra aetate shows a lack of anti-Semitism, so I'm more than willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but your original comment comes across as, umm, highly insensitive.

My comment was in regard to the commenter comparing Jews as a class of people to fetuses as a class of people.  I was pointing out the irony that Judaism has made that distinction, in a non-arbitrary, torah-and-talmud based way, at least since the time of Leviticus.  I don't consider this irrelevant at all, additionally so because the premise of the post is that there should not be any negotiability on what constitutes a person.

You're more than entitled to your opinion of my opinion, but suggesting that I lurk and pounce (I comment nearly every day here), or that my reasonable response to being compared to a fetus reminds you of upchucking, I consider a personal attack.  

Surely we can both agree that the lack of a religious consensus on this issue may be taken into account when proposing a solution.

and suck their brains out. Evidently the Left considers that painless.

It's mutual.

The tried and true French method... not everything they do is wrong and/or stupid.  It's very quick.

The other option would be one where we focus on "justice".  The condemned would be killed in the same fashion as his/her victim.  In the case of the man in question, he would raped, beaten with a hammer and stabbed.  The beating and stabbing would need to be done carefully so he could be left alive to die over a 45 minute time frame.

in any self defense case.

The only point I was trying to make is that abortion in the case where the mother's life is threatened (i.e. there is a high probability that she will die if she carries through the pregnancy) is not murder; its self-defense (or self-preservation if you like).

but I have a problem with considering an embryo/fetus life at the beginning of conception.  If we outlaw abortion on that it is murder and that once conceived a fetus is considered a human than we also must consider that a miscarriage would at least be involuntary manslaughter and would also have to look at women who do not act responibly during pregancy (smoking, drinking, drugs, reckless activities, continue high stress jobs, etc.).  I am totally against late term abortions (except in case of mother's health), and do not believe in abortion as birth control, but I do believe that in certain cases abortion is an acceptable (but not optimal) option.  As for the death penalty, the current system is too ripe with errors for me to be comfortable with the permanent taking of someone's life.

My comment was in regard to the commenter comparing Jews as a class of people to fetuses as a class of people.  I was pointing out the irony that Judaism has made that distinction, in a non-arbitrary, torah-and-talmud based way, at least since the time of Leviticus.  I don't consider this irrelevant at all, additionally so because the premise of the post is that there should not be any negotiability on what constitutes a person.

...

Surely we can both agree that the lack of a religious consensus on this issue may be taken into account when proposing a solution.

I think we're kinda speaking at cross-purposes here.

Would the religious beliefs of Turks and Armenians matter when discussing a comparison to that genocide and legalized abortion? If not, why is that different from what you offered? If yes, what does that have to do with the original post?

Your comment came across as a broadside that had nothing to do with the original comment. No one said, "We should make this comparison because Jews believe..." Instead, he made a well-trod comment that the history of treating Group of Humans A as disposable on some arbitrary basis is not in fact one replete with warmth and good results. Your remark in response would be like saying, That sounds suspiciously like Catholic thinking on the matter, which we can't consider, because Catholics believe the Person of Christ to be literally present in a bunch of unleavened bread.

Whether the mass extermination of Jews by a group of cross-dressing psychopaths may be licitly compared to the mass extermination of unborn humans is not even remotely touched on by the thoughts of the people being killed. I do not care what the group of millions dead believe about personhood; I care that they are being killed, and their killers, stopped.

The original commenter was making a deliberately similar point.

Your comment, then, came across as a bizarre, unrelated pile-on. It was especially unrelated, given that the original poster hadn't once discussed religious beliefs in arriving at that conclusion.

On your question: I concede exactly that point. And my argument is, to eliminate all doubt, we simply outlaw the elective, non-State effected, non self-defensive, targeted killing of all humans, from conception on, period.

I need no religious belief to get there, merely elementary biology and a worry about what happens if we guess wrong and put the killing line later in development.

You know that the vast, vast majority of miscarriages are spontaneous and have nothing to do with any action of the mother, don't you? In light of that, it would seem that you are trying to say that the nurse in a hospice is guilty of manslaughter when a patient dies.

News flash. Women have been successfully prosecuted for illegal drug use during pregnancy.

And you are concerned about errors in the death penalty but somewhat blithely indifferent to the idea that abortions may occur under duress, under extreme stress, etc.?

That's a real danger, but the issue won't go away by ignoring it.  I'm assuming, as I have no data whatsoever, that if you asked the entire U.S. population (or even just the part that votes) what they think about the Tay-Sachs situation, you'd get answers all over the place.

If we're going to talk about compromise, we have to actually pretend that we're trying to compromise with people.  The average American just doesn't think a complete end to all abortions is a good thing, and we aren't going to change his (really her, since the average American is a woman) mind.

In European countries, where they've put it to the vote, they have much stricter laws, but I'm fairly sure none of them have opted for complete bans.  And we aren't getting one here either.  It may be arbitrary to draw a line, but politics is almost uniformly about making arbitrary decisions.

There is a slight difference between hospice and a pregnant mother, in that hospice patients are usually condemned as it is, but most fetuses are not.  The second and more important point (as even I don't believe the first one) is don't we then have to take into account ANY willful action that causes a miscarriage when studies have determined (and been published) a certain action increases the chance of said miscarriage.  A recent study has shown that high stress can cause a miscarriage, so if we assume that is common knowledge shouldn't a pregnant mother be criminally liable if she has an abortion (interchanging names) due to her continuation of a high stress job.  What about alcohol and tobacco use, both are legal, but both also can cause miscarriages, birth defects, and other problems, should a mother be responsible then.  

Thomas, are you really distancing your faith from your position on abortion, or was that just a post of convenience in response to GOB?  If you want to make this merely about the intersection of biology and law I suggest viability and move on.  If it becomes a matter of faith as to the inception of personhood and soul, then we have a different argument.

Try again. The vast, and by vast I am talking well into the 90th percentile, of miscarriages are because the fetus dies, naturally, in utero. So the fetus is "condemned" in just the manner of a hospice patient.

"Studies" hardly prove anything as I can match you study for study in refereed journals opposing any point you happen to take. But let's stipulate, for the sake of argument only, that the study you mention a) exists and b) has some statistical validity. Are you advocating imprisoning mothers who have divorces, deaths in the family, unemployment, illness, etc., all of which cause high levels of stress?

It seems to me your concern for birth defects is a bit contrived as you are apparently happy with the status quo which allows offing the kid instead of punishing the mother.

womb to coffin health care on top of the death penalty, and I'm your huckleberry as well :-).

Some room to determine the policy; I'm presenting fetal viability as a compromise we can reach on principle.

One of the things I sometimes hear conservatives bring up in abortion arguments is those rare children that are born extremely premature (24-26 weeks), as an argument for restricting abortion to a smaller, earlier window.  The idea is that we suppose that once the baby can be removed from the mother's body (even hypothetically), it should be illegal to abort it.  Based on my very basic Google-research, this would be at 24 weeks, when premature babies have a smaller but still significant chance of survival.

As medical science advances, this point of fetal viability will become earlier and earlier, resulting in fewer abortions.

Either its always a baby, or it isn't.

The OP asked for compromise, so I tried to present what might be a compromise solution.

So I have to presume you've read his reasoning on this.

Actually no. It is predicated on the existence of such a threat regardless of the intent or knowledge of the threatener.

This is not actually true; it changes the method, means, and objects involved.

If a sleep-walker were about to shoot your three year old child you would be every bit as much justified in shooting that person first and claiming self-defense as if you shot a deliberate murderer in the same circumstances.

What if he were stalking toward the three year old, but hadn't raised the gun?

Self-defense requires only a prudential judgment that a threat exists and can only be met with deadly force, not any sort of moral judgement about the source of that threat.

It might change how you react to the threat, and how you may react to the threat, because perception of intent alters the game.

C'mon, Aleks. You know better.

happy with the staus quo (but for a ban on partial birth and late term abortions), but you seemed to avoid my points.  I specifically used the example of continuing a high stress job, as it is a willing choice (not like deaths in family or your other examples).  You also did not address the alcohol and tobacco issue, which I cannot imagine there being any dispute that these are bad for fetus.  So, my question remains, should an expectant mother be punished for these "offenses" just the same as for an abortion?

My faith has nothing to do with it, other than an imperative to do justice, and to not kill humans. Other people -- usually the ones advocating legalized abortion -- tend to get all religious and go on about souls, personhood for some but not all, and other theological propositions.

I see no reason why only those humans who've managed to survive to viability should get spared the reaper's blade. That's simply an arbitrary point at which some humans get to live, and the rest are still up for the slaughter.

It also seems like it'd be important to agree on a basis for restricting abortion.

For example, rather than ban abortion as murder, you could conceivably claim that a fetus is not a person, and still want to regulate abortion on whatever other public policy grounds.  I don't think many subscribe to that position, but hey.

So you argue from a scientific standpoint that a human being exists from fertilized egg forward?  And that your faith becomes involved only tangentially as it applies to humanity?  Perhaps I have misread you previously, but this seems a different tack from other times we've crossed this bridge.  

abortion.  The question is NOT "When does a fertilized egg become a 'person'?", it is rather, "When is a baby NOT a 'person'?"

The "viability" argument doesn't successfully answer the question because the point of "viability" has changed radically since Roe was decided.  You can't redefine a "person" based on the technology available.

Additionally, though this has yet to rear it's ugly head, what if we redefine viability to mean "able to live without outside help".  That would have the effect of legalizing infanticide.  By the way, I don't think that is a big leap, just ask Peter Singer.

you haven't made any points other than you probably don't understand what causes miscarriages enough to comment on them.

Were there any definite data on dosages/frequency of alcohol and tobacco (smokeless and non-smokeless) that actually caused fetal damage I'd be open to it. We do have laws which punish people who assault pregnant women when the assault results in death to the fetus. I do support punishing women who show up in the delivery room under the influence of drugs. So I guess I'm hard pressed to see what the big ethical dilemma is here. I don't see any difference between a mother harming a fetus by her behavior than I do with a mother harming her infant by her behavior.

And you have my sincere apologies. And I mean that -- I'm not being sarcastic.

My faith impels me to protect humans from arbitrary killing. I see no problem with folks coming to the same conclusion I have as a result of religious inspiration, and having that position codified into law as a result; but my position comes from the elementary idea that all humans are humans. Deciding that some humans are not persons, or not human beings, seems like a horrible idea, really.

The involvement is not precisely tangential; call it, instead, the undergirding inspiration to analyze the question.

I think you know you have my respect for your position in general, if not my agreement.  I continue to seek the compromise, though.

Nope, if we want to play word games we can do so all day.  Viability has changed since Roe, and I have no problem with reflecting that in the law.  Unless you think it likely that viability would be defined as ability to live without help as opposed to ability to live outside the womb, I think you have a pretty nasty straw man you're chasing after there.

Argh, I've allowed myself to be sucked into another abortion debate.

<smacks head>

<returns to work>

this exception, but I favor it only when there is no way to save the infant.

For instance a tubal pregnancy is pretty certain to result in death of both mother and baby, if allowed to continue (my own grandmother died from this condition-although she didn't seek help until serious infection had set in).

But if you are dealing with something later term-like toxemia or HELPP syndrome-abortion shouldn't even be considered, the goal should be to save both mother and baby.  This is one reason the "health" exception for partial birth abortion rings so hollow to me.  Once you are in that point of pregnancy, it should be about protecting both mom and baby, not killing baby.

if a baby's life is savable, then even in cases where that baby threatens the health/life of the mother, the goal shouldn't be to kill the baby, but to save both.

my opinion is if carrying the baby to term, even with the genetic desease doesn't threaten the life of the mother, then the baby should be carried to term-I just don't think seeking to kill a child to put it out of its misery is the slope I want to head down.

Right now it may be the big ones, but right now we don't bat an eye at abortion for Down's Syndrome or other disabilities.  I remember several years ago having a debate about late term abortion, and somebody linked to Dr. Tiller's website.  On the site then (but no longer) he listed cleft palate as a reason to have a late term abortion.

Excuse me, but cleft Palate can be corrected with surgery, it doesn't threaten the life of the mother or infant and it doesn't even affect the ability of the infant's brain and other muscles to function correctly.

about political compromise.

They tried that with slavery-it didn't work out so well.

arbitrary.

You said:

I'm comfortable with the argument from viability because I don't see it as an arbitrary line.

My argument is that if we can't even agree on what and when viability occurs, then it is indeed arbitrary, because it is determined by each person's idea of what that means, and there is a requirement for compromise.

debate.

My religious beliefs strongly inform my opinions on various things, but when I discuss abortion, I don't ever appeal to God, the Bible or a religious teaching.

A non religious person can easily reach the opinion that abortion is wrong-I know several pro life atheists/agnostics.

Never meant to imply otherwise. But Thomas isn't an atheist or an agnostic, and this was a slighty different approach than I had seen before, so I was curious about it.  That's all.  Nothing to see here, move along, move along :-).

quite some time.

Infants need far more direct involvement of adults, but young kids probably don't have enough common sense to survive very long without assistance either.  

The problem with the personhood/viability debate is that aspects of the definition can always be applied to justify killing just about anyone.

stuff come in?

Many infants who are able to survive outside the womb, do so because of extreme medical interventions.

Viability is an arbitrary line, and it isn't even clearly drawn by science or even ethics at the moment.  Some people argue that it isn't ethical to try to save micro preemies, because many of them end up with disabilities.

Personhood is even more subjective.

The problem for the pro choice folks is that the least arbitrary defintions-what is life, when does human life begin etc, makes their side lose, so they shift the debate to being all about control of a woman's body or viability/personhood, because they can play with those definitions.

I realize this isn't your post, so I don't want to place the onus on you.  But why talk about compromise if you aren't willing to actually compromise?

The majority of the population simply doesn't agree that abortion is like slavery in pretty much any way.  Most of them would be amenable to some sensible limits, but you can't win an argument when your position is all or nothing.

Again, not your post.  If you don't want to compromise, that's obviously a legitimate position to take.  It certainly isn't a political winner, though.

But it also has all the same problems this whole debate has.  One side thinks abortion is murder and is always and everywhere wrong, the other side thinks abortion is just tossing out some cells and is always and everywhere okay - while the majority really live somewhere in the middle.  I'm obviously not going to come up with a solution to this, but we spend an awful lot of time on rhetoric and don't get a whole lot of anything done.

how about teenagers?  Having survived teen years twice, I would testify that from about 5 to about 11 both of our sons were viable.  It was very questionable from 12 to 19.  They are viable again.  Except now they are beginning to question my viability...

but I am not keen on the idea of compromise in the sense of saying all abortions before X are okay, and after not, and that be that.

I will certainly be happy with more restrictions, and bans on later term abortions, but I am not going to believe they are okay, nor will I stop arguing for or advocating for babies who are declared non human by virtue of their developmental stage.

So, in reality I am not seeking compromise, I don't think compromise should be the goal of my position, nor do I think it should be the be all end all to the issue.  What I want is babies to be recognized for what they are, and their deaths stopped, because their mother decides that they are inconvienient.  Abortion on demand is an evil thing-and it is an indicator of just how depraved humans are.

Do I get to determine 'appropriate' care or do you?

If it's me, I'm all in.

Especially since you already horse-traded me your support for the health care alone.

Your argument has no merit.

Re: What if he were stalking toward the three

year old, but hadn't raised the gun?

We are assuming ab initio that we are facing a true deadly threat, not just a possible one or a fear of one.

Re: It might change how you react to the threat, and how you may react to the threat, because perception of intent alters the game.

I fail to see how intent matters in this case. Intent matters to a jury who is judging a case after the fact. Assuming again that we are facing a deadly threat and one for which deadly force is the only viable response (i.e., one cannot reason the threatener out of his actions) will the victim be one whit less dead if the source of the threat carries out his action even if his intentions are innocent or completely null?

Consider this scenario, perhaps a bit more realistic: a terrorist hijacks a plane and intends to fly it into a crowded venue, killing thousands. The passengers on the plane are innocent entirely of any ill intent. Do you shoot down the plane, killing them despite their innocence? (Yes, the terrorist has ill intent-- but the passengers do not and you are killing far more of them than you are of terrorists if you say Yes)

Not good. Mother killing her baby to save her own life is self preservation, not self defense. Killing the other guy in the lifeboat and eating him is self preservation not self defense. Killing him while he is trying to kill and eat you is self defense. Go watch "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". GEEESH.

If you are going to have executions, lethal injection is not a good way to do it. It brings the medicine into the execution chamber, which is not where it belongs.

The firing squad is as quick and painless as it gets, and Edison's electric chair is the "all-American" way of getting the job done. Either of these would send a clearer message that this is an administration of justice instead of "putting them to sleep" like a sick dog.

For the record, I oppose the death penalty. I am not as much morally opposed to it as I believe it is bad policy. First, in an era of maximum security prisons, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to protect the public. Second, mistakes happen. A fallible justice system should not have the right to kill its citizens. Third, we would have never heard any of the "Save Tookie" idiots if he were left to rot in prison. Fourth, there is no evidence that it is a deterrent anyway.

It seems like abortion to save a woman's life would be more accurately called "justifiable homicide" than a strict case of "self-defense".

I oppose abortion, but I wouldn't want my wife to die from an ectopic pregnancy because the doctors were too afraid of being prosecuted to save her.