Posts Tagged ‘Roe v. Wade’

Introduction and Index to Articles

Introduction and Index to articles on Reproductive choice:

I have updated the web pages previously hosted on a different site, and substantially restructured them in a way that organizes the material to be more readable and which emphasizes material that readers have found to be most helpful in understanding the points and issues I am trying to communicate. Some of the material here is not on the original website, and not all of the material on the previous website has been brought forward to this site.

One of the primary reasons for moving to this WordPress.com site instead of just reworking and re-posting at the old site, is to allow easier, direct access for interaction with readers. Readers who wish to leave comments are welcome to do so, and comments will be posted for review after moderation. All viewpoints, whether in agreement with mine or not, will be accepted, and hopefully can promote a lively interactive (but mutually respectful) discussion. What will not be accepted are comments that are rude, offensive or which are disrespectful to deeply-held values and views. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

While an e-mail address is required (but not made public), it is not necessary to register with WordPress.com to leave comments, although doing so does allow additional options and access to additional features.

Here is a guide to the articles that follow on this site, with quick links directly to each individual article:

Moral Issues: Life vs. Personhood

https://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/moral-issues-life-vs-personhood/

This article discusses the moral aspects of the abortion issue. When human life begins (it is before “conception”); when human life becomes a human person; the moral considerations of a woman making her own decisions about the most private part of her own body.

Legal Aspects of Reproductive Rights

https://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/legal-aspects-of-reproductive-rights/

This artcile discusses the legal aspects of the abortion issue, and why abortion should remain a valid, lawful choice for women regardless of one’s opinions as to the moral aspects. Extensive historical perspective is included, including the often surprising point that at the time this country was founded, abortion was fully legal in all thirteen colonies and states, and the intent of the founders for it to remain legal was one of the primary legal foundations for Roe v. Wade.

Abortion and Judeo-Christian Religion

https://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/abortion-and-judeo-christian-religion/

This article debunks the popular myth that the Bible prohibits, opposes or in the slightest way expresses disapproval of abortion, which was well-known and widely practiced in Bible times. Extensive historical and scriptural support is provided, including extensive citations and discussions of chapter and verse on specific passages commonly cited.

Late Term Abortion, Parental Consent, Abortion in cases of Rape and Other Issues in Reproductive Freedom

https://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/additional-issues-in-reproductive-freedom/

This article address other popular issues and additional aspects that are often brought up regarding abortion, such as discussions of late-term abortion (extremely rare and only done under conditions of extreme medical trauma), Parental Consent, Abortion in cases of Rape, comparing abortion to the Holocaust or slavery, the dishonesty of graphic posters and signs, issues regarding late term abortion, the myth of abortion-induced guit, and other issues in women’s reproductive self-determination.

Pro choice vs. Pro Abortion

Being PRO CHOICE means supporting a woman’s right to make medical and personal decisions about her own body with regard to reproduction and sexuality. In the case of pregnancy, it means the right to be able to choose whether or not to use contraception (and what kind), and when a pregnancy occurs, to decide is she wishest to continue the pregnancy or not and on what terms. If the pregnancy is unwanted, it means the woman, in consultation with whatever medical, family, counseling or other advisors SHE ALONE CHOOSES (or not), decides whether to continue the pregnancy to term and keep the resulting child, continue the pregnancy to term and adopt the child out, or not to continue the pregnancy (i.e., have an abortion).

There are some who consfuse being PRO CHOICE with being PRO ABORTION. However, since the right to choose includes the full array of choices, and not just abortion, that is an inaccurate description that reflects either a lack of understanding or an intent to misrepresent others’ views.

Now, I don’t doubt that there are some who promote abortion, such as the anti-choice forced abortions of China that are as reprehensible ad the forced pregnancies that religious tyrants wish to mandate. Such persons could accurately be said to be PRO ABORTION.

But it is my experience that when people are referred to as being “pro-abortion,” more commonly it is a reference to the RIGHT to choose an abortion (or to choose to adopt out or to choose to carry and keep – whatever CHOICE the WOMAN wants), not in support of abortion itself.

For example, some have called me “pro abortion” which is not true.

I promote the RIGHT to make that OR ANY OTHER CHOICE.

My own personal OPINION is that abortion is a remedial response to an unfortunate and unwanted situation, and is better prevented but, if needed, should be available.

Similarly, I believe that a root canal is a remedial response to an unfortunate condition of oral disease, but that even if the person has poor eating and hygeine habits or preventive care fails, patients should have the right to choose that treatment option rather than, say, full removal of the diseased tooth.

I would not call myself “pro-ROOT CANAL,” but I do support the right to that treatment option, even though it does kill millions of biologically autonomous living creatures (bacteria) occupying and infecting the neural canals of diseased dental tissue, because I happen to believe that a single sentient human PERSON, who happens to be the owner of that particular mouth, is the only one who has the right to make that decision.

Legality and Morality differentiated

In discussing the issue of abortion, there are two distinct areas: the MORAL issue and the LEGAL issue. It is possible to hold the view that abortion is not MORAL, but not subscribing to the view that it should be subject to regulation as a matter of law. For example, many believe it to be a moral transgression — a sin — for two unmarried consenting adults to engage in sexual intimacy, but almost none would think it should be criminalized as a matter of law.

In this series of articles, we will examine the MORAL issues and LEGAL issues as the separate dimensions that they are.

Abortion protests

NOTE ON COMMENTS: Comments are welcome, both those in agreement with my views and those representing differing views. Comments are subject to moderation and approval (and note that I review each comment myself, and I am not on the computer 24-hours a day, so there is usually a time lag between submission and possible approval). Brief, concise, specific comments are easiest to approve. Lengthy, rambling comments, or those that rehash points already made, clutter the thread and reduce both readability and the likelihood of approval. Inflammatory hate speech (“Abortion is murder!”) or personal insults will not be approved (unless someday I decide to post a “best of” collection of the hate speech stuff.)

Advertisements

Legal Aspects of Reproductive Rights

Abortion and in the United States Law — now and through history

Since January 1973, the supreme judicial standard governing abortion in the United States has been the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113

Many times, opposition to Roe v. Wade has been expressed as opposition to a “liberal” court “legislating from the bench” to overturn traditional values. Those taking this view demonstrate a lack of familiarity with this case or with the “tradition” of reproductive law and history in the United States.

The decision in Roe v. Wade was not a close decision. It was decided 7-2, with the decision written by Harry Blackmun, a Republican appointee elevated to the Supreme Court by President Richard M. Nixon. The decision was based on respect for tradition, respect for personal liberty and free choice, and interpreting the Bill of Rights according to the intent of the Founders.

Here are the historical facts about abortion in United States history: at the time this nation was founded, abortion up until the perception of fetal movement (“quickening”), which usually occurs near the beginning of the second trimester, was fully legal in all thirteen colonies.

Under governing English Common Law, there were NO LAWS AGAINST ABORTION ANYWHERE IN THE 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES/STATES, and this continues after the 13 Colonies became the 13 States. Further, Common Law also mandated that, even in the case of illegal abortions (late term), the woman herself was immune from prosecution.

This point is explicitly discussed in Roe v. Wade at great length, in Section VI.3-5 of the decision, to demonstrate that when the Founders referred to being secure in one’s home or person, their mindset would include the right of a woman to be safe from intrusive government oppression in dictating control of the most private part of her body. The Court took the standard of having imputed a “penumbra” right of privacy in the earlier case (regarding contraceptive rights) of Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965)), and came right out and said there is a direct, absolute right of privacy expressly stated in the Constitution, whether or not the actual word “privacy” is there.

The first state to actually pass a law outlawing abortion was Connecticut, in 1821 (32 years after passage of the Bill of Rights), followed by New York (1828), with a law that was subsequently modeled by many other states. By the end of the 19th century, abortion had been outlawed in all states.

By the mid 1960’s, opinions had begun to change in the United States, and some states began to restore the legal status that had existed in the time of the Founders. Even before Roe, 16 states had already legalized abortion, including the large population centers of New York and California (signed into law by then-governor Ronald Reagan).

Roe-v-Wade

Of course, if the blastocyst / zygote / embryo / fetus is not a human person, or there is no validity to assertions of any moral concern, then there is no basis at all on which to claim that it should be unlawful for a woman to terminate a pregnancy that she does not wish to continue.

Bodily Sovereignty

Personal choices about behavior should never be legislated, unless and until they infringe the equal rights of other persons. The old saying goes, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” Persons have the right to make any choices they want about their behavior, including moral choices, up to the point that someone else’s rights come into play. A person has the right to wear whatever they want, choose the color of their house, or even choose sexual behavior (alone or with others who have the capacity to consent to free and voluntary participation) and, however else someone else may disapprove of their taste or moral beliefs, they have the right to make those choices as long as they do not infringe the other person’s right to the moral or aesthetic choices THEY believe to be appropriate.

Rights of the Woman vs. Rights of Embryo

The problem in the case of abortion is that the disagreement about abortion is partially about differing moral beliefs, but also a disagreement about whose rights are being infringed. Those opposed to abortion claim that they are protecting the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus from the infringement of having its life terminated.

But even if the zygote/embryo/fetus were a fully-endowed human person, with all the rights of personhood, all the way back to the moment of fertilization, the crux of the LEGAL question becomes, “Who has the right to control the body: the zygote/embryo/fetus or the woman?”

Is Abortion Murder?

Killing for lawful execution is not murder.

Killing as part of war is not murder.

Killing in self defense is not murder.

Killing that is not against the law is not murder.

Killing of something that is NOT A PERSON is not murder.

Killing an insect is not murder.

Killing a bacteria is not murder.

Killing a HUMAN LIFE that is an unfertilized egg or sperm is not murder.

The definition of “murder” (as distinguished form mere “killing”) has comprised the following three elements throughout time, including the time of the Hebrew lawgivers and other contemporary civilizations:

a) Intent — killing of a person is deliberate rather than accidental

b) Malice or wantonness (i.e., not mere for defensive reasons or reasons of domestic or international law and order). Many would argue that the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is self-defense of the most private part of a woman’s body.

c) Killing of a PERSON (not virus, bacteria, insect, animal or human tissue that is not a PERSON)

A woman’s intentional choice to terminate a pregnancy in the interest of her bodily sovereignty at most incorporates only the first of those elements; and, if the tissue removed is not even a human person or no moral issue is involved (see below), then even that doesn’t apply.

Meat is Murder?

Vegetarians could absolutely make a stronger case that “meat is murder” than that “abortion is murder.” Meat requires the killing of a sentient, autonomous animal that is NOT occupying the most private part of a human’s body, and which is wholly unnecessary since humans can get all needed nutrients from plant sources such as fruits, nuts and vegetables that produce food without killing a sentient creature and, in most cases, not even killing the plant! In contrast, artery-clogging animal fat is wholly unnecessary to a balanced, healthy diet.

Parental consent

Regarding parental notification: A girl who is old enough to be pregnant is old enough to make certain decisions that affect the rest of HER life and which SHE more than anyone else will bear consequences for the rest of her life.

I have never seen a “parental notification” proposal that includes a requirement that the parents who make a decision opposite what the girl wants are forced to assume lifetime liability for responsibility and support of the child; and how do the anti-choice conservatives feel about a situation where the parents think an abortion would be the best way to handle a problem situation, but a girl wants to carry to term?

We are not talking about headaches and aspirin here, but life-changing consequences.  She may not be old enough to make all adult decisions, or to consent to legal adult choices or even adult relationships, but if she is pregnant, whether she aborts, carries or gives the child up for adoption, SHE will be the one who endures the consequences for the rest of her life.

That is true whether she was forcibly raped, the victim of incest or “thought” she was in love and was trying to act like the adult that she isn’t.

In any case, the examples of incest and child abuse are, alone, valid reasons why notification laws are not workable. Almost all girls with a problem situation will turn first to their parents for help.  If a girl can’t go to her parents with this kind of problem, then she should not have to.

And the alternative is … what? A scared teenaged girl being forced to go to a judge? Give me a break! The whole point is to set up one more roadblock to make abortion harder. Newsflash! One of the key reasons for making abortion LEGAL is so she doesn’t have to have a “do it yourself” or back-alley job. She IS going to be talking to adult professionals, even in the extremely rare instances when she can’t go to her parents.

Look at the reality.

This issue is not about parental control; if she can’t go to her parents with this kind of problem at this age, they have already lost control. This is about strangers forcibly stopping girls from having abortions at all.

NEW! NOW AVAILABLE:

My new book Who Gets to Choose? (ISBN 9780944363201), from which these WordPress pages have been excerpted, and which includes the material from all the pages on this site plus additional material not in these web articles, has now been expanded, edited and published, and is now available, and can be ordered in in a paperback print edition from Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.com, as well as other outlets (e-book formats coming soon):

Amazon.com (in paperback print edition — Kindle e-book coming soon):
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Gets-Choose-T-Barans/dp/0944363202/

Barnes and Noble.com (in paperback print edition — Nook e-book coming soon):
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/who-gets-to-choose-t-f-barans/1122746414

More detailed information about the book can be found on the website of my publisher, Word Wizards, at:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/choice.html

And “like” us on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/Who-Gets-to-Choose-1646180752291809/

NOTE ON COMMENTS: Comments are welcome, both those in agreement with my views and those representing differing views. Comments are subject to moderation and approval (and note that I review each comment myself, and I am not on the computer 24-hours a day, so there is usually a time lag between submission and possible approval). Brief, concise, specific comments are easiest to approve. Lengthy, rambling comments, or those that rehash points already made, clutter the thread and reduce both readability and the likelihood of approval. Inflammatory hate speech (“Abortion is murder!”) or personal insults will not be approved (unless someday I decide to post a “best of” collection of the hate speech stuff.

Comments may be edited for length, space and relevance, but comments accepted for display will accurately present the content submitted. Personal information such as e-mail or other identifying details are not displayed publicly. Comments are knowingly and voluntarily submitted for possible one-time public use and with permission for public display at the sole discretion of the moderator.

Articles on this Site:

Moral Aspects of Reproductive Choice

When does HUMAN LIFE become a HUMAN PERSON?
Hint: HUMAN LIFE does NOT begin at “conception” (fertilization).
Life begins BEFORE fertilization; both the egg and sperm were alive and human (i.e., human life) long before that point.
The real issue is: what qualities of human personhood are necessary to have developed in order for that “life” to develop into a human “person.”
https://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/moral-issues-life-vs-personhood/

Legal and Legislative History and Issues in Reproductive Rights [this page]

Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2 — not even close — and written by Harry Blackmun, a REPUBLICAN appointee of Richard Nixon, citing personal liberty issues and the “intent of the Founders” since abortion had been legal in all 13 original states for almost 50 years, until Connecticut became the first to outlaw it in 1821.
https://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/legal-aspects-of-reproductive-rights/

Judeo-Christian Religious and Scriptural Aspects of Reproductive Rights

Even though we are a secular nation with separation of state and church/temple/mosque, for those who claim (without basis) that the Christian Bible opposes abortion, the irony is that THE BIBLE IS 100% PRO CHOICE (well, at least for the husbands, if not the wives):
https://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/abortion-and-judeo-christian-religion/

Additional Issues in Reproductive Choice

Turning the tables on the typical conservative myths about late-Term Abortion, Parental Consent, Abortion in cases of Rape, and more.
https://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/additional-issues-in-reproductive-freedom/