By Chris Trotter*
The revocation of Row v Wade, like the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, is an act of national self-harm.
Louis XIV’s decision to revoke the royal promise of religious toleration, drove tens-of-thousands of Huguenots (Protestants) out of his realm. Thousands fled to the Netherlands and Great Britain, thousands more to the rising state of Prussia. Economically, culturally and militarily, the triumph of religious bigotry over rational political compromise weakened the French state profoundly, The revocation of Roe v Wade is certain to have a similar effect on the future of the United States.
Intelligent American capitalists will be swift in their condemnation of the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision to overturn what most Americans believed to be a settled legal/constitutional right. Removing the option of easily available abortion services from a large percentage of the US female population cannot help but result in a serious dislocation of the American workforce.
While US women continued to be able to exercise personal control over their own fertility, their long-term participation in the paid work-force remained assured. The removal of that control in approximately half of the fifty US states raises serious supply and demand issues for American employers. The impact of millions of young women being required to carry their pregnancies to full-term is readily imagined. Such an arbitrary restriction in the supply of available workers can only exacerbate already serious labour shortages and worsen wage inflation.
The revocation of Roe v Wade is also likely to incentivise the migration of large capitalist enterprises out of radically anti-abortion states like Texas, Missouri, Mississippi and Alabama. Relocating to a more liberal state may prove to be one of the few ways successful corporations can keep their most valuable senior female employees on the payroll. The Supreme Court’s decision has given these employees every incentive to move out of “Pro-Life” states – quite possibly to a new job with one of their former employer’s competitors.
Nor can it be long before the Pro-Choice forces invite “progressive” Americans to boycott the products of corporations which refuse to leave Pro-Life states. Already many corporate leaders are reassuring their female employees that they will pick up the cost of out-of-state terminations. This can only be a short-term fix, however, given the likelihood that Pro-Life legislatures will attempt to deny pregnant women access to FDA-approved abortifacient medication, or, even more controversially, prohibit them from crossing state-lines while pregnant.
Unintended consequences such as these will impose increasingly intractable problems upon those Republican Party-dominated states proclaiming themselves to be simultaneously pro-business and anti-abortion. Should it become obvious that the state’s outlawing of abortion is negatively impacting its ability to attract investment, or, worse still, promoting dis-investment, then the Republican Party is likely to fracture.
The enormous difficulties associated with ideologically-inspired attempts to reverse the tides of social and economic change – Prohibition being the most notorious – are about to be encountered all over again by a new generation of Americans. This time, however, it may require something more radical than the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment to the US Constitution which brought Prohibition to an end in 1933.
At some point, and the decision of the six conservative Justices of the Supreme Court to revoke Roe v Wade has undoubtedly brought this point closer, Americans are going to have to come to terms with the fact that their beloved constitution is no longer fit-for-purpose.
A revolutionary document, in its time, the passage of two centuries has exposed the deeply anti-democratic elements deliberately woven into the constitution of the American Republic by its founding fathers. So strong are these elements that it required a bloody civil war to expunge the pernicious influence of slavery upon the evolution of American liberty. It is no accident that it is precisely in the constitutional amendments giving effect to the abolition of slavery that the justices responsible for handing down Roe v Wade in 1973 went looking for the legal principles confirming women in the ownership of their own bodies.
Unsurprisingly, given its dramatic post-war role in expanding the ambit of personal liberty, American liberals have come to regard the Supreme Court as the most effective instrument for securing the social changes they desire. Beginning with Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which racially-desegregated public schools in 1954, the Court handed down a series of progressive judgements (Roe v Wade being one of the most significant) which were believed by most Americans to have changed their society forever.
Most – but not all. American conservatives were both astounded and outraged by the emergence of a liberal Supreme Court. Their consternation was understandable, because for most of US history the Court had been a bastion of political reaction. It was the infamous Dred Scott Decision of 1857, which declared that no Black person could ever be a US citizen, that made the Civil War inevitable. An equally reactionary Supreme Court struck down much of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in the 1930s.
In the eyes of conservative Americans, the liberal Supreme Court of the past 70 years has been a dangerously aberrant entity. Consequently, the American Right has spent the past 50 years availing itself of every opportunity to replace liberal justices with legal conservatives. Thanks to Donald Trump, the weight of judicial opinion on the Court has finally shifted sharply to the right. The revocation of Roe v Wade may only be the beginning.
The ”originalist” doctrine of Justice Samuel Alito and his five Roe v Wade concurrers holds that the US Constitution must be interpreted according to the prevailing legal concepts and moral precepts of the historical period in which it was written. Present-day legal and ethical ideas cannot be grafted retrospectively onto the reasoning and intent of the original authors. While this doctrine holds sway on the Court, the Constitution can only become a reactionary cage in which Americans will remain confined for the next 30 years.
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the political reaction to the revocation of Roe v Wade is the absence of any significant argument condemning the whole anti-democratic schema of the US Constitution. While there has been bitter condemnation of the Court’s judgement, the wider objection to unelected judges, appointed for life, thwarting the will of a clear majority of the American people, has not yet become a feature of the debate. Nor is there any evidence of a growing political movement in favour of summoning a second Constitutional Convention to draft a new, genuinely democratic, set of rules for Twenty-First Century America.
A United States forced to live by the beliefs and values of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: brutal eras in which slavery was legally sanctioned, women treated as chattels, and LGBTQI persons persecuted and imprisoned; cannot hope to lead the “Free World”, or compete economically with nations focused fearlessly on the future. In order to form “a more perfect union” a second American revolution has become as necessary as the first.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
199 Comments
No one is "required" or "forced" to carry a pregnancy to term, logically, since people are not forced into pregnancy (excepting the rare and sorry cases of rape). Life either begins at conception, or it does not. If you accept that premise, then you should accept that human rights begin at conception. It is a sensible argument and I will no longer feel shame admitting it. It is a self-evident truth and I will not be browbeaten into admitting that human beings have an inalienable right to life, for their whole life. It is the single mosrt fundamental right upon which all other rights depend.
Apparently they can: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/this-is-what-family-looks-like-for-us-a-t…
Waiting for the exodus of attractive and financially independently women leaving America for more democratic pastures to begin. Those left over will be in a position to be even more particular in their partner choice, and Incels even more unhappy with their lot. Wait for the incidents of rape and white male shooter killings to rise.
"logically, since people are not forced into pregnancy" - are you joking? You are aware that contraception is not 100% effective? So are we going to create an extremely supportive society with free childcare, healthcare and monetary support for all these new babies who will be born? Or will it be the case, as history as shown that these people will be born into a life of poverty and crime.
Sex is voluntary. Using contraception, and it failing, has literally nothing to do with whether abortion should be permissable. Sex is the only thing that can get you pregnant; ergo if you don't want to be pregnant, either don't have sex at all, or be prepared to accept the potential consequences. I believe in everyone's right to choose — to choose whether and with whom to have sex.
"People will be born and be poor and become criminals" — First, what an extremely prejudicial thing to say. I know many poor people who aren't criminals. I know many people who were poor and are now not. Secondly, what an absurd conclusion. Should we just kill poor people and criminals to solve our problems?
Interesting. Safe to say, you are in an extreme minority.
Edit following your edit:
I assume you're in a stable relationship now, I am more thinking of your younger days. Very few people have sex for the first time intending to have a baby or having seriously considered the potential need to support a child.
"Very few... " Maybe they should? I genuinely don't understand what makes that so difficult. What about being careful in selecting the people you have sex with? What about doing the "honorable thing" - get pregnant first (accidentally), then use that as a basis for developing a long-term stable relationship? All relationships take work.
I still think it's beside the point, because I simply refuse to accept that the ends justify the means. Abortion (the means) needs its own moral justification, not a consequentialist and utilitarian one.
Nope. I don't have to do that, just like you don't get to set the framing for an entire issue through your own world-view or whatever philosophical hoops you have to jump through to assert control over women's bodies.
This must be awfully hard for you to accept, but you aren't actually in charge of literally everything.
Hi alphabeatrium,
I appreciate you putting forward another world view that I can understand is not going to be all that popular these days. I see your general argument as one based on the side of 'principle' and many of these arguments stem from religious dogma (which I guess does not automatically discount it as some may think). I see the argument for abortion as an almost purely practical or pragmatic one - sometimes scientific pragmatism seems cold and utilitarian, but frankly this is the best way for a society to operate. I don't think any woman goes into an abortion without any regard for what they are about to do. I also think there is a slight hole in your argument, if the moral goal here is to prevent humans from non-existance, than any form of contraception is also immoral is it not? Contraception stops a pregnancy in the same manner as an abortion, the abortion just happens further along?
Thanks for engaging in good faith. But I don't follow your reasoning. Contraception prevents conception. Abortion happens after conception. I take it that conception is when life begins. My goal isn't to "prevent non-existence", it's to respect the rights of extant living beings to life. All living beings. I don't want to maximise the total number of lives; that would be to imply that there is a moral imperative to be literally constantly pregnant, which I don't believe, and I don't think anyone believes.
That's a bit species-ist isn't it?
I mean, what moral case is there that a clump of human cells at the point of fertilisation is more sacred than a living breathing dog or cat?
I'm certainly more fond of my pets that I am of someone else's zygote.
This brings us to the crux of the agency issue: I'm responsible for my pets their care and their disposal (as my non-human property), and though I love them dearly - albeit not as much as my kids - I have the agency to do what I will with them, within reason.
On what basis do you hold that a woman's rights vis-a-vis a their own zygote (which is not a human under law) are not the same?
You don't get a say whether I'm nice to my cat or whether I decide to eat it. Why do you consider you get a say over a clump of someone else's cells?
I suspect we hold the same species-ist attitude, so maybe hold fire on using that as ammunition. I openly acknowledge that such an attitude is discriminatory against animals. It is what it is, and unless you're vegan, we concur.
Humans aren't property, like pets. They cannot be bought and sold. Legally, you can't procure surrogacy commercially. I was not aware that a zygote "is not human under law". What species is it then? I wasn't aware that law determined species membership. Perhaps you mean that it does not have human rights. You'd be correct; that's exactly what I'm trying to challenge — all homo sapiens should have the same right to life. In the past, laws determined that members of different races had different rights. That was wrong, then and always.
I suspect we hold the same species-ist attitude, so maybe hold fire on using that as ammunition.
We do, but as I say, I feel closer to my pets that someone elses zygote so wouldn't presume to judge their choices. And you certainly haven't presented a convincing moral or ethical case to suggest otherwise.
I was not aware that a zygote "is not human under law."
It is genetically of the species, but there are no rights associated to a zygote as a human being other than as disposable property of another human being (cf in-vitro fertilisation, and the legislation associated with that).
Are you now also positing that all zygotes held in cold storage must be brought to term? You've made the moral claim that life begins at fertilisation. That makes everyone who undertakes IVF a murderer, or accessory to murder, at some point.
If you're asking if I agree with IVF, the answer is no, I don't. As to what happens with the zygotes held in storage, the answer is I don't know. I think it's very sad that we even got to the point of considering that question and would have preferred we avoided it.
I think I'll check out of this thread now, I've said probably too much. Thanks for engaging with me.
American College of Pediatricians: "At fertilisation, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature."
Yes.
Trying to stop teenagers from humping each other is like trying to push water uphill with a rake.
Better to accept that eons of human development and natural physical drive is a medical event (driven by hormones) and treat the aftermath accordingly.
Channel the flow of the river, rather than trying to stop it entirely...
If you are eating too many biscuits and encourage your lady friend to join you in your biscuit excess, then you will both gain weight and will both suffer the consequences. If you encourage your lady friend into unprotected sexual relations, she will have to take the life long consequences and you can go off and do whatever you like.
Men do not have to suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, therefore we shouldn't be taking away a womans' right to choose.
I could be wrong, but men who get women pregnant are obliged to pay child support in this country. I think men who do that to a woman and her child aren't very good people. Still seems odd that such a situation could justify the abortion of the child before it is born — a consequentialist argument that because the future is likely to be sub-optimal, that it shouldn't be allowed to occur. Generalising that argument leads to antinatalism: that the existence of future suffering justifies actions taken to prevent people being born; that it is better to not be born. It's a sound argument, just not a very optimistic one regarding humanity.
Men who opt to not support the child = "not very good people"
Women who can't support the child and opt for abortion = punishable with jail time
Why should the same punishment not be applied to the men who opt out of supporting the child?
Your misogyny couldn't be more clear.
I have never, ever heard any pro-life person put forth an argument for a woman who has an abortion to face jail time. I don't even think it should be criminal (it should be decriminalised, but not legal). If that's really what you think the pro-life position is, then you have been reading some very biased accounts.
The only way for women to fall pregnant through sex is for men to inject their semen into them. Therefore in order to avoid any potential mistakes it makes sense that all men should receive a vasectomy as soon as they are old enough to procreate. This can then easily be reversed when the man finds a woman who is willing to accept their semen for recreation purposes. Look forward to your support with this policy.
If you seriously think all sexual connections and consequent pregnancies are voluntary - even excluding sexual assault - then I have a bridge to sell you.
This is such a regressive worldview that I can't even believe I'm engaging in good faith.
A woman's agency and bodily autonomy trump your reckons any day of the week, I'm afraid.
It's not any of my business why anyone has sex. If there were no abortion involved, I would happily leave it as such. Yet when it involes another human being who is incapable of consenting (in my view: the foetus, to the abortion), then I elect to go in to bat for the foetus since it has no voice of its own. I was once a foetus; so were you. So I can't see any reason why my opinion on the matter is irrelevant by your own criteria.
...and I elect to go into bat for women, who I don't feel should have their rights limited because someone else has definitively decided they should suddenly lose bodily autonomy and access to healthcare, because I can appreciate that statistically, things like contraception failure and so on are inevitable over a wider population and that they may become pregnant despite doing all the things that people who want to wag a finger in their face over (in the event they just not totally abstain from sex at all, in which case, it is definitely no longer about anyone's rights, is it?), and that denying them a medical alternative for something that has happened through no literal fault of their own is an inhuman and immoral position to hold, and that at that point a woman who is opposed to abortion can simply choose not to get one and the problem functionally solves itself.
To put it mildly: You don't solve human rights issues by taking them away from some people to give to others.
"It's not any of my business why anyone has sex"
and it's not your business if a women ejects the parasitic zygote in her uterus (nor that a safe procedure is offered to her as a health service). Your views are not relevant to anyone but yourself. I suggest you keep it that way because you are just coming across as a misogynistic troglodyte.
Inanimate: not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms.
What qualities does it lack, exactly? A foetus, technically and as opposed to an embryo, has all of the major body organs. Rather than "inanimate cells", it actually does have legs, arms, fingers, an active brain, beating heart, etc. It is capable of movement and responds to stimuli.
"What is an example, outside of sexual assault as you have established, of a "sexual connection" that is involuntary?"
Maybe ask that question of any woman who is in a relationship with a potentially physically or psychologically violent and controlling man.
You know, like many, many thousands of women in NZ.
The fact that this hasn't occurred to you speaks volumes about you, given this country's DV horror show.
Ok, so if I may infer by your comments, that :
- Rape-babies have less human rights than 'normal' babies? Does this distinction carry on after they are born, or just applies to pregnancy?
- We should not terminate pregnancy due to mental or physical deformity, because the disabled have equal rights? So we force a mentally retarded & incorrectly developed fetus into a lifetime of misery & hardship because this genetic accident has more rights over a mothers body than the mother herself? This I assume will include accidents due to substance abuse, or not knowing one is pregnant etc (which I assume you feel like is the perfect time to force someone to have a baby?)
Last time I checked, no-one is forcing anyone to have an abortion (or follow a religion). If you feel so strongly about it. then don't have an abortion when you get raped...
And (as a male) if you are male, you should not have an opinion on this one..
Don't force your views on other people.
I don't support abortion in cases of rape, but obviously I treat it with a high degree of sensitivity. I especially don't support abortion in cases of "deformity", because human rights apply to the disabled as much as anybody else. Your position comes dangerously close to eugenics.
Males can have opinions on anything. As can females. Because I believe all rights apply equally to all people. The right to expression is one such right — and I'll affirm that it actually depends firstly on a right to life. How many foetuses have you asked for an opinion on abortion? Don't force your views on these people...
Simply: two wrongs don't make a right. That said, I'm frankly not at all upset if someone says they support abortion in cases of rape, it is a very difficult circumstance (also incredibly rare). But I don't actually know many people who only seek to limit abortion to cases of rape; rather people tend to use this argument to justify abortion in general, as a way of justifying the act at all, rather than justifying abortion on its own merit.
While we're making insane points, how many have you asked?
Are women who suffer miscarriages criminals now? What about failed IVF treatments? Come on, let's hear it. How about the huge portion of pregnancies that fail before a woman even knows she's pregnant? Is a woman's natural reproductive cycle now enough to consider her part of a conspiracy to commit murder?
These are now legitimately relevant questions because you've decided a clump of cells that can't survive outside of someone's body (like a tapeworm) has more sovereignty than the woman they happen to be inside. Let me know when you're shooting cancer doctors for removing tumours on the same grounds.
My wife had a miss-carriage on our first pregnancy (was about 6 weeks) as she was taking some medication at the time that was (as it turns out) harmful.
I suppose we should now treat that as a criminal case, given than fetus has equal rights to everything?
The problem with this debate is that when people say they are are 'pro-life'.. they actually mean 'old school chrstian'. So you are not having a rational conversation based on facts and science.
It also means that nothing you will say will alter their belief that abortions are basically MURDER!
Facts and science. Lol. If you think this debate is based on facts and science I challenge you to observe a mid term procedure and then sleep that night.
Your position doesn't come from a position of fact or science, you're post rationalising. Reality is that it's a dilemma.
The core belief is "does life start at conception?" or "a woman has the right to control her reproductive health".
Personally I'm in a weird spot where I believe both of these to be true.
Miscarriages aren't deliberate actions intended to kill the baby. You can see how the difference between miscarriage and abortion is relevant? Same for a necessary abortion for an ectopic pregnancy — I have no issue with that because there is no intention to kill anyone, rather only to save a life (the mother's).
Sorry, is it a baby now? I thought were talking about a fetus, or fetii? You wouldn't happen to be manipulating the language there, would you?
And sorry, that ain't cutting it. You can have negligent homicide or manslaughter through no deliberate intentional action either. So how does this stuff fit into a civil or criminal framework?
Funny, there appears to be shades of grey all of a sudden. Gee, guess that moral absolutism isn't so absolute until it's the chance to wag a finger in a woman's face for dressing like a slut. Then all bets are off.
Sorry, I use the language that comes naturally to me. I flip between referring to babies and foetuses... I don't think I ever referred to my own in-utero children as anything other than "baby", so "foetus" sounds weirdly clininical and dispassionate.
How does miscarriage fit into this, legally? It doesn't really. Not all babies survive till term. That's not anyone's fault, unless someone did something deliberate to bring that about. No one has asked whether I think abortion is a criminal matter — actually I'm OK with abortion being decriminalised, but not legalised. I suspect many women seeking abortions are genuinelly scared and in need of support. Abortion isn't a solution for that, but I don't think it rises to a criminal matter.
The "shades of grey" you're seeing are reality. If anything I think the "abortion on demand, without apology" crowd see this issue in much more black and white terms than I ever have.
Similar to a common position on marijuana: it should be illegal to sell it, but personal possession and use doesn't rise to the level of a crime. That is, there is no legal provider, but if you still somehow get one, no one is going to charge you with a crime. The abortion provider, however, could face prosecution. Other parties, such as men encouraging (or intimidating) women into getting abortions, could also face criminal prosecution. I think most women who would get abortions under such circumstances would be doing so under some form of duress, and that a criminal prosecution for her isn't going to do anything for anyone.
If you say that a fetus has equal rights to a healthy human, then it doesn't matter. Any ending of pregnancy should be then referred to the coroner for potential criminal investigation.
If a women takes too much ibuprofen whist pregnant, i'm causing a death (even by accident), so do we lock her up for 5 years on a charge of accidental fetus-slaughter? (released after 1 year on good behaviour).
Is that a ridiculous statement? Or are you now saying that I can accidentally kill anyone now and its ok, so long as its not intentional?
If doctors said it was unsafe to terminate a pregnacy after day 1, then sure.
But they don't & they wont.
More to the point, there are already rules and medical best practice in place to guide this.
No need to reverse time back to the 1950's. This topic has already been peer-reviewed and published.
Any revisions now are based on moral (religious) viewpoints.
Yes but doctors making medical decisions must surely be guided by moral and ethical reasoning? The question I put to you was one about the beginning of life, I don't understand how whether the "safety" of the procedure is relevant. Is it really that something is medically safe makes it ethically sound? Safe for whom?
Suggest you read up on logical fallacies. Those in glass houses should not throw stones - here are some logical fallacies you have used in this thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority
"Do you outsource your morals to parliament?"
What a silly response.
An individual's moral response has precisely zero to do with what is legal. This is why we separate church and state.
The purpose of our Parliament is that as the legislative body of a representative democracy, it accurately gauges and attends to the desires of the body politic.
There's tons of law I don't agree with, but I understand that my moral / ethical position ends at the tip of my nose, and that I have precisely zero personal rights or stake in someone else's autonomy over their own body.
Parliament - as an extension of the people - has determined broadly the same thing, but recognises at a point that a foetus also possesses a right to life which needs to be counterbalanced with the health of the mother (20 weeks).
"Can't you articulate why an unborn baby isn't a person yourself?"
I don't need to. The law has done that.
I'm also not a physician or a philosopher, and neither I suspect are you.
If this question remains outstanding to bigger brains than mine, then I'll stick with a woman holding sovereign rights over her own body - a position which is well grounded in law, civic norms and moral philosophy.
Hi ShoreThing.. I assume you are interested because you because you are pregnant and want some more information to help you make a good decision without outside pressure and undue influence. Can I suggest that you GO SPEAK TO YOUR GP. They will help inform you on your options.
If its not relevant... then how about... let pregnant women decide?
All rights apply equally unless your female. Until I choose to rape you & and then your forced to have a retard baby.
Oh... and on the whole eugenics thing...
From an earths history perspective... The eons of time do not care about your self righteous (religious driven) importance.
I'm not saying that we need to put less desirable types in ovens.. but you do realise that natural selection is a real thing right? There is a reason why humans over time are getting bigger and stronger... stronger physical types are more likely to reproduce...
more to the point.
We are living in a time of dwindling resources, humans have massively overpopulated the planet. We are heading towards a mass-extinction event... and your solution to this existential threat to our species is "SAVE THE RETARDS!!!! ThEY ARE the KEY TO LIFE!!!!"
Not at all... now try to stay focused on topic here. Don't make this a 'your bashing disabled people' thing...
You said women cannot choose what happens with their bodies because life begins at the start of pregnancy...
I think this is a ridiculous statement & I am simply testing your views. Hopefully showing you why I think this view is not practical. My examples are events that will actually happen & will need answers for...
Your response = "YOUR BEING MEAN TO DISABLED PEOPLE"
What's horrible is forcing a women to have a baby they didn't plan for or want.
Well you perhaps you could stop using slurs for disabled people. My own brother is very severely disabled. We love him and could not imagine life without him. All lives are worth living, all humans have equal and innate human dignity and rights. Your argument amounts to "disabled people will never be happy, so we can justify eugenics".
Ok...
Even if that is true -> It doesn't change anything.
Am I making a few people here uncomfortable? Sure!
But these examples (as you point out) are real world events that still need to be matched against the (mainly) religious view that all life begins one day 1 of pregnancy & we need to stop teenagers from having sex.
Or.... Women should be free to choose to deliver a baby no mater the situation & Termination should be treated as a medical event and guided by science...
If you must know I am from Otago, went to uni in Palmy and worked in Auckland and the Waikato. I now reside in Melbourne. Jonny Utah is Reeves character in the early 90s classic "Point Break". A fav film of mine.
I post under this pseudonym on a number of forums. It's quite funny how those of middling intelligence lean into xenophobia as a final resort.
Your post above is disgusting and you need a breather away from the keyboard .
"Life either begins at conception, or it does not. If you accept that premise, then you should accept that human rights begin at conception"
This doesn't follow. I don't believe life begins at conception, so I don't believe human rights begin at conception. Therefore I think abortion can be justified for example before the foetus develops a nervous system, or a heart beat.
I do acknowledge that people disagree with this. If I genuinely thought that a 1 week old foetus counted as human, then I would have to consider abortion to be murder and presumably I would fight against that. I don't think that being anti-abortion is necessarily an immortal position, although I'm sure some people are anti-abortion for reasons other than genuine concern for young life.
There are many pro-abortion arguments that make sense to me - reducing unwanted children when we have such overpopulation, the link to violent crime, giving women more ability to choose when and how to have children etc, but of course these are never going to override the beliefs of someone who considers abortion to be murder of a child.
Thanks for your view. I think that there are actually many people who have some form of cognitive dissonance on this issue: they intuively know that a foetus that is a) alive and b) human is a human being (with associated rights) — but have difficultly accepting this because simply it's inconvenient as abortion makes life easier. Sometimes the right thing to do is a hard thing to do.
You may be right, but cognitive dissonance is not required to disagree with you on this. We recently had a miscarriage and I had the opportunity to hold the foetus, which was recognizably humanoid but not developed enough to feel pain or have thoughts. We didn't grieve for the loss of life but for the loss of potential; for what the foetus could have become. There was no suffering as the potential for suffering had not yet developed.
I don't know enough about people's inner experience during comas to comment on that, but the comparison to a brain dead human unable to exist outside of life support may be reasonable. In that case, I'm not sure whether I would still consider them a person but I certainly wouldn't be critical of a decision to turn off life support even though this will result in their death.
A foetus is in some sense on "life support" via the mother. It is incapable of living without her. Ditto for someone on life support (via the machine). Turning off the machine is a bit different though —the womb is the natural home of the foetus. Living on a machine is not, to turn it off isn't a deliberate action of killing, it is allowing the natural course of death to occur. (There is a minority third view in this debate, evictionism, that may be relevant here.)
It's a little different, but the pro-life position taken to its logical conclusion would presumably say we should preserve the life as long as possible and keep the machine turned on. Pressing the 'off' button would be murder, a deliberate act ending a life. Unless we can agree that lack of brain function means life has ended. If that's the case then perhaps life doesn't begin until brain function begins?
I don't expect to change your mind here, but hopefully we can both realise that the other side is not generally evil or malicious, we just hold different opinions on a difficult topic.
I don't think that pro-choice people are evil or malicious, in general. I just think we merely have a different definition of when life begins. I imagine that if I can convince people that life begins at conception, that they'd agree with me that abortion is rarely ethical. I feel strongly about this, since that if I'm right about when life begins, then we're making a very serious error in legalising (and even celebrating!) abortion. Yet I'm happy to acknowledge that it is still a difficult topic that does have to consider competing rights.
I'd say a number of people approaching zero "celebrate" abortion.
It is still a difficult topic but the competing rights discussion has been had, and I think a sensible compromise has been formed:
(i) make abortion a health issue
(ii) protect a woman's bodily autonomy up to 20 weeks gestation (which is basically the edge of foetal viability should it be removed from the mother's body - a position backed by decades of medical research and practice, noting that considerable intervention to sustain life is still required up to about 30 weeks)
(iii) counterbalance rights from 20 weeks onwards.
A foetus in early pregnancy is a cluster of cells. It has no consciousness and no nervous system. I don't mourn for the death of cells when a piece of skin falls off, I take a dump in the toilet or if I ejaculate. If a foetus was capable of self-aware or perceiving pain then I think your argument would have more merit, in early pregnancy this irrelevant.
I don't think 'potential for life' is a suitable argument either, as equally my sperm technically has 'potential for life' - given the right environmental conditions. Frankly I don't think I should be charged with genocide of millions potential lives each time I 'bust a nut'.
At the end of the day the people that want or need to get an abortion should be able to without risking their own health or being charged as a criminal. For people like yourself, you can choose to not have an abortion - problem solved.
I note you ignored the 'perceive pain' part. I would also think there are very few individuals that are not self aware.
Personally if I am ever in that position I would prefer to be dead and I don't think it would be immoral to let me die (in this case someone is obviously prolonging my life).
To perceive and be self aware is part of being sentient. I would argue that a distinction between non sentient human life (e.g. a bundle of cells) and sentient human life is appropriate. We have no problem killing a plant, which is as self aware as a bundle of cells. At some point the feotus will become sentient and the conversation likely needs to become more nuanced, but before this point I would think all (reasonable) people would agree that there is nothing immoral about abortion.
A fertilized egg is just a clump of multiplying cells (a bit like a cancer is also multiplying cells). It has no consciousness and it perceives no pain. A sperm has the potential to bear life, I'm very surprised to hear that you don't view the death of sperm as a moral tragedy that should also be punishable by law.
Does 'life' begin at conception? Yes I'd say so.
Should there be a distinction between 'human life' when that life is nothing but a few cells and 'humans' that are able to feel and percieve (i.e. they are sentient)? I would argue yes. The former is, in my view, not sacred, while a strong argument could be made that the latter might be.
Given the above there is some length of time that in my view abortion is certainly not immoral. Then there is some length of time during the pregnancy where the sacredness of human life may or may not prevail, this would be more of a grey area.
America is a thought experiment about whether a state can relitigate the same issues across a diverse populace for hundreds of years without backing itself into a corner to a terminal degree.
My money is on 'it can't' but unfortunately it's going to ruin the lives of a lot of people along the way and the ones at the top will always be able to get the things that they're so busy telling everyone else are wrong and bad for them.
Access to abortion was not a law in America , as it is here in NZ ... just a constitutional right ... as such , the Supreme Court have thrown the decision back to individual states , by overturning Roe vs Wade ...
... women who seek an abortion will still be able to get one , but they might have to cross into another state ...
" Only in America " , as they say ... Sigh !
In two weeks this Supreme Court has significantly loosened gun controls and now as CT likens, reverted to the ideology of the pilgrims in terms of women’s rights. The nation is too big and too wild to control, covid illustrated that perfectly well. Society is turning on itself destructively. Cannot even begin to imagine what happens next but burgeoning domestic unrest is pointing to towards urban virtual civil wars.
... that's always the case ... well intended laws have an adverse effect upon the financially challenged ... be it abortion , reducing emissions , raising taxes on ciggies & booze ... everytime the ideologues ramp out their new vision for the electorate , the poorer ones receive a disproportionately harder kick up the jacksie ...
GBH,
How very condescending of you. They don't have 50 states to choose from for a start and for many moving is far from a simple choice. What about their families? Their friends? What if their husband/partner doesn't want to move possibly hundreds or even thousands of miles away?
Perhaps it would be better if the US could ban guns and allow women to control their own bodies?
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the political reaction to the revocation of Roe v Wade is the absence of any significant argument condemning the whole anti-democratic schema of the US Constitution.
Mostly because Congress (their legislative body) can change the law democratically.
This is a long winded way to say "Just murder your children so you can make 60k per year making power points bound to a boss rather than minding children and being bound to a family."
What a ridiculous argument. The "smart" capitalists will want to destroy the family and encourage more workers into the workforce for lower wages rather than having children because of short term costs (tighter labour markets). What about the long term cost, which is that nearly half of women in their 30s have no children and so there will be a far smaller future generation to take care of the elderly, to pay the public purse and to consume all those goods. You are effectively siding with anti-worker, anti-social, alienating policies pushed by capitalist elites to the detriment of ordinary people and to our society.
The most interesting thing here Chris, is you pretending to be pro-worker. Your argument is entirely that liberal capitalists should punish socially conservative states and people who decide to value non-economic things.
Not just that, but calling the overturning over Roe vs Wade "anti-democratic". Abortion was not and is not a popular issue, the anti-abortion side is simply never given the time of day in liberal dominated media. Roe vs Wade was imposed by lawyers using the completey undemocratic means of the Judicial System (Kritarchy), as have been all unpopular social changes imposed by the state against their population. How is it less democratic now that the power to decide policy on abortion now falls to the legislative bodies of government, which are elected? Democracy simply means when you get your way as a liberal.
The fact that Conservatives/Right Wingers got a single win, by using the same means that liberals used for decades to force through deeply unpopular policy, for an issue where the right wing has the moral and argumentative high ground (rights of the child to life exceed the rights of the mother to be promiscuous)
The only conclusion to draw from what you have written here is you despise ordinary people, want short term economic gain over the long term health of the society, believe that democracy is when you win and that you don't believe in any of the institutions which order the governance of our society unless your faction controls them. Morally reprehensible.
Women should be seen and not heard, eh?
Love how the idea that women might get the right to decide what goes on in their own body works up the old 'MY FREEDOMS' crowd so much.
It'd be sad if there weren't going to be deaths as a result of this. But that's not reallllllllly the problem, is it?
Socially conservative societies outbreed and replace liberal, childless ones. The future belongs to those who are born. I'm not a libertarian, I'm third position.
Now how are there going to be deaths from this? Please explain. If anything, the cultural nihilism which enables murdering children is infinitely worse than the pro-social family formation which occurred when abortion was not an option.
When does a person become a person, when does the clump of cells become life? Are you merely a clump of cells too?
Reductionist thinking is low IQ/brainlet position and removes the ability to contemplate larger connectivity through deductive or inductive reasoning. It is dishonest to claim life isn't real because its not at some point of development, then to throw an ad hominem.
As for ethnic groups insult, you know anything about what happens in "enriched" and "diverse" societies in strife, like the Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia or the Austro-Hungarian empire at their respective ends? It is what a zero growth, low social cohesion society (what we are) looks like in trouble.
It is dishonest to claim life isn't real because its not at some point of development, then to throw an ad hominem.
It's dishonest to claim to care about life but then take a position that spreads untold misery and potential danger to women too, but that hasn't stopped you, has it?
I'd say we're more in danger of imported regressive and theocratic influence corrupting what is a peaceful country where we've learned that the world is a better place if we treat women like people who have agency over their own bodies and not objects that do not.
"...we've learned that the world is a better place if we treat women like people who have agency over their own bodies and not objects that do not."
Precisely this!
Anyone who holds that a theoretical person has more rights and agency that an actual autonomous, living breathing one seriously needs to take a look at themselves.
The alternative is to take the utterly retrograde view that women are nothing more that perambulating wombs.
long term cost, which is that nearly half of women in their 30s have no children
I know, how dare those women got so long in life without having children already! Don't worry Justice Clarence is already working on making contraception illegal. We'll soon make sure those nasty women follow gods master plan to become blessed mothers in their teenage years. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-0…
Then at what point does the "legacy of slavery and colonisation" expire and allow people to advocate for themselves? Are they supposed to be subject to the political whims of other and have no right to advocate for themselves until some arbitrary date or forever?
All you've shown is you are totally antiwhite in pushing that point. In which case, why should they listen to you or allow you to deny them political rights?
I'm not anti-white at all, but it's completely inappropriate for an elected representative to stand there and say this saves white babies. I mean, she may as well wear a pointy white hat with the eyes cut out. She doesn't want to save black lives or hispanic lives???
How come the original inhabitants of the North America are called "Native" Americans and black Americans are called "Afro" Americans, but Anglo Saxon Americans are just called Americans? Shouldn't they be called "Euro" Americans? Or perhaps call everyone American, wouldn't that be more inclusive?
This is why NZ must retain an independent foreign policy and not align itself so enthusiastically with the US world view. The US is a basket case. It is highly questionable whether they are a democracy anymore. Religious fundamentalism, lack of women's rights and lots of guns, they have more in common with Afghanistan than liberal western democracies.
Not a practicing one. "She was raised a catholic as a child but doesn't attend Mass or belong to a parish or church "
Four of the five catholics that voted to overturn RvW regularly attend Mass.
As I said, it certainly looks like a decision based on religious views of abortion.
The "originalist" US Supreme Court has put the abortion decision back on US politicians, where it is in NZ and should be in the US. This is more a case of the US Supreme Court restoring its intended function, and not being used by progressives or conservative as a tool for social change beyond political consensus and without political accountability. Roe v Wade was legislative overreach, compounded by 50 years of political disfunction since.
The court decision might provide a catalyst to US politicians reconnecting to public opinion, as opposed to that of lobbyists. The interesting thing, is that public opinion is largely behind the progressives. That shows how little progressives and conservatives trust US democracy.
Yes, there is a lot of emotion and hyperbole about the decision and no doubt it is an intended result of Trump stacking Scotus. However, it's no different in Australia where abortion is under State legislature and in fact it is still illegal in South Australia I believe. No rock stars speaking out about SA, no riots. I wonder why?
There is no such notion as "enshrined in law" in NZ, where Parliament has primacy and complete autonomy. It takes a simple majority to change law which is why constant vigilance is required.
Don't forget also that the 3 most recent SCOTUS appointees all claimed they would not back overturning Roe in senate confirmation hearings.
Thanks goodness our systems - for all it's faults - only allows the judiciary to interpret law and not overturn it.
If you advocate for more democracy, then you should welcome this decision from the unelected Supreme Court, as it puts the question back to the people to decide. In fact congress did attempt to pass federal law in May, but it was denied by the senate. If the people do indeed want abortions, they should vote out those senators, not leave it up to the unelected judiciary.
Wow, at last someone is talking about what actually happened! The Supreme Court hasn't banned abortion, simply decided that the Constitution did not support the original decision. This slides the discussion back to the individual states and therefore in the end to the votes of their citizens. I think it is often called "democracy"...messy but probably better than centralized edicts? NZ on the other hand is moving in the opposite direction with health and water to be controlled by centralized authorities more distant to the will of the people.
I think we are in a hiding to nowhere with the current bunch of socialists who believe that some people are more equal than others, ie,..."us".
Does anyone else find it weird that the Americans are so hard core in their siding for or against abortion, often along political lines?
For me as an independent thinker and after a lot of thought in my 50 odd years still have not completely come to a decision on where I stand.
In saying that when the unborn child is at a point of development that they can survive outside of the womb unassisted then terminating that life feels no different than to ending the life of a new born baby.
The "hardcore" are mostly religious nutters. Lived right in the thick of the bible belt for some years. I was continually blown away by how shallow the thinking was of so many people who led there lives strictly by what there Pastor told them. I had many conversations with church going people. They could not understand how I had no interest in the church. In all honesty, I think a huge percentage of the US population are brainwashed by religion and this supreme court decision is the result!
This decision is not good however I feel it’s just the beginning with more to come.
The liberal nutters have pushed America so far left it was just a matter of time before the conservative nutters began pushing America to the far right.
Neither liberal left or conservative right is good for anyone but they can’t seem to find a middle ground.
ACT are pro-choice, but right wing economically. The National Party would be to the left of the US Democrats on many issues, particularly on health and social welfare. Does the left/right thing really work anymore. The main difference between US and NZ is the degree to which religion enters politics. Religion should be kept in the home and place of worship, it has no place in legislation.
"Does the left/right thing really work anymore."
Left / right is now lazy shorthand for the more accurate progressive / conservative political tension (i.e. those who want things to change vs. those who want things to maintain the status quo)
The reality is that there are plenty of traditional leftists who are deeply conservative in the little 'c' sense, and plenty right-wingers who are radicals.
Congress can enact laws, and the likes of Elizabeth Warren will act. If only they have the numbers in Congress and the Senate.
It must be noted that there was no case to hear, rather the SCOTUS members took the initiative to revoke.
Trump appointed judges for life, and they will be around after Trump retires.
There was a case.
Dobbs v Jacksons Women's Health - about Mississippi restricting abortion to less than 15 weeks.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
"While there has been bitter condemnation of the Court’s judgement, the wider objection to unelected judges, appointed for life, thwarting the will of a clear majority of the American people, has not yet become a feature of the debate."
I'm not sure what CT has been reading recently, but there is plenty of debate on this matter.
I think the stand-out hypocrisy for me regarding to Roe is that these same justices who claim an 'originalist' interpretation of the constitution effortlessly perform the mental gymnastics required to sidestep the issue of African Americans and women being members of the SCOTUS, not to mention that fact that it was the Marburg decision (i.e. precedent) and not the constitution that established legal position that the SCOTUS can strike down law.
The very definition of having ones cake and eating it.
It makes sense.
If house prices come down, Labour can claim they delivered on their promise.
If the rest of the world goes into recession, Labour can claim the economic woes are global and outside of their control.
Where does that leave National? Promising to pump immigration and reverse all the measure that Labour has put in place to try to pump the housing market again.
Given those choices people are likely to be more scared of a religious zealot who opposes women's right to choose than they are of another labour term. We're f**** either way but you know for sure that Labour at least will not roll back any civil liberties.
Interesting that these legal fundamentalists ("the constitution written hundreds of yrs ago is sacrosanct") seem to be strongly correlated with 'religious fundamentalists' (who have a very similar approach to ancient texts, whichever one it is).
Some commentators have talked about the ability of people to vote for what they want, versus unelected judges making choices - to which I have a one word response: "gerrymandering".
I wonder what your position would be if the Supreme Court had ruled that abortion is illegal. I think you would be arguing that the decision should be left for the people to decide (and rightly so). The solution to gerrymandering is not to throw up your hands and say oh well democracy is dead, and then try to go through the judiciary to block the argument altogether.
Wade vs Roe line up https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/02/leak-time-magazine-ro… Pale, stale and male.
Present line up: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx Diversity at work.
Long time reader, first time poster.
It is so difficult to tell, from the pseudonyms, who are men and who are women in this comment section, so my first question is who are the women here who have commented. To all the men who have commented who haven't thought about women - you are not in charge of us. We have brains and can make up our own mind thanks.
As someone in frontline healthcare there are so many comments to make. Firstly, a healthcare professional can step out of providing termination of pregnancy services, so their moral/ethical stance counts HOWEVER this is a healthcare issue between a woman and their Dr. No more, no less. No health care professional has to provide this service. Many do so, not because they like it, but because they recognise it is a healthcare issue.
Secondly the judgements expressed here, with no facts, are extraordinary. We know our young people are having less sex than ever. Most people seeking terminations do so with conflict. The number of women who have said to me 'I don't agree with abortion but I really don't have an option, I've looked at them all' are the majority. Terminations have dropped in number significantly over the years. Sometimes condoms break, or quel horreur, people get caught up in the moment and don't bother with the condom. Or the woman gets gastro, doesn't realise she hasn't absorbed the pill she took that morning, or her ex-partner pops in and rapes her, gives her ghonnorhea AND she gets pregnant, OR a ex-husband pops in for a visit, a bit of alcohol is imbibed and the couple have sex. Or the man lies and doesn't wear the condom he says he put on. Or the woman cannot afford to go to a Dr and get contraception but wants a sex life. Have you checked out the cost of a packet of condoms recently?
So, so much black and white thinking here. This event in the US is scary because Clarence Thomas has clearly suggested they go after LBQT rights and contraception - the very thing that will stop unplanned pregnancies is contraception. Currently, in Texas, there are practitioners who will not perform a D&C when a woman has miscarried for fear of being accused of murder. Currently in Texas it is legal for a random person to accuse a woman of having an abortion when they have, in fact, naturally miscarried - the fear being the woman accused will be assumed as guilty. Currently, in Texas, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy (heartbeat present, but non-viable because of where the embryo is growing) may not get treatment despite the fact that the woman will die of this.
The law of unintended consequences. And you can bet your bottom dollar, as has happened before, the rich men whose mistress gets pregnant, will get an abortion even when said rich man and his wife are 'pro-life'. Utter, utter hypocrisy. Made worse by the fact that within a month of tens of children getting shot the same Supreme Court has cleared concealed carry.
You are entitled to live with your morals and ethics and that is simple when you don't work with people, young and old, in healthcare. It is so much more complicated than the many of the comments here. How lucky are you to have the ability to have such a tiny life you don't have to live in the real world.
I responded first to the first comment posted so probably take some responsibility for my lack of nuance however think its really good to see such a robust exchange of views.
Seeing you asked, I am a male.
Your comments regarding the health worker conflict is important to note. My late wife was a RN/Midwife, she had delivered over 1000 babies in several countries. As you say, she could have stepped aside from abortions (in NZ, not in all countries she worked). However she considered that would be unprofessional practice & simply shift the burden to her colleagues.
I'm sorry to hear about your late wife I didn't think the lack of nuance, in your original comment, was a bad thing, and I agree completely about robust debate. My frustration is that the word healthcare wasn't used in any of the comments I saw, and there was such profound naivety and judgement about how so many people live and how stuff happens, even to people being really responsible. I get to view the world through people from all walks of life and that brings a different viewpoint. I must remember that many people don't have that priviledge. I probably could have made my points in a slightly calmer manner. :-)
Boomer Chris is making it sound like Americans are behind in time backwater. Yet it is him who has missed the boat.
The tide is now changing. Unborn children deserve protection and human rights, and this is increasingly being recognised.
The Supreme Court has made a historic decision. It reminds me of the fall of the Berlin Wall. A bit unexpected, hard to believe - but time to celebrate!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.