Reply to NYT story: Trump administration could strike abortion almost immediately using Comstock law

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "NYT story: Trump administration could strike abortion almost immediately using Comstock law"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]As the usable responses began to come in, I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization, with 240 (4%) rejecting that view. The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%). In the case of Americans who expressed party preference, the majority identified as Democrats (92%).

https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/

[/quote]

The question is not when human (or any other life resulting from sexual reproduction) begins. It is when the state has an interest in that particular life that supersedes all else, which is related to the moral status attributed to the fertilized egg, its implantation, or subsequent stage of development.  
If the moral status of the fertilized egg is the same as that of a living person once birth has taken place, then society and the state have the same interest in that egg it does in a living person. Keep in mind that the time at which the existence of a pregnancy can be known has extended earlier and earlier as science has advanced--hence the older common law (enacted as statute in the US as early as 1821) that permitted abortion (i.e. methods to induce uterine bleeding) before quickening. Many years ago I was at a craft/farmer's fair in North Dakota with my mother, who bought a copy of the memoir of a woman who had been born on a 19th century homestead and was still living at the time (I think about 1980). She made repeated references to the pot of tansy tea that was often on the back of the woodstove as she grew up. Guess what that was used for (although she did not state in so many words, she alluded to the purpose). I knew a woman in college in the 1970s who used pennyroyal as a method of birth control.

Currently, the state (ie government, in any state or territory of the United States) intervenes in pregnancy in, most often, two situations: by means of whatever laws are in force in a state when a woman presents to medical professionals and is found to be pregnant. Regardless off the stage or medical status of the pregnancy, medical decisions are bound at least in part by the laws governing medical practice with regard to pregnancy. In many states, if she is miscarrying and miscarriage cannot be further prevented but a heartbeat can be detected, no steps can be taken. She will typically not require medical treatment and will be sent home. Or, if she is found to be pregnant AND also has illegal drugs in her system, particularly opiates, it is possible she can be involuntarily committed for drug treatment under the law. She won't be sent to prison, but she will be in legally the custody of the state in a secure facility of its choosing.

Back in the 1990s, also in North Dakota, there was a woman-pregnant-who was repeatedly arrested for sniffing aerosol paint. She was committed to the state hospital. She wanted an abortion. INitially the state refused to allow for arrangements to be made for her to have an abortion (this was before medication abortions) at the only abortion clinic in the state. Pro-life groups organized demanding to be allowed to intervene in the ensuing legal action brought on her behalf, offering her $10,000 to let them have her baby. Eventually she was permitted to undergo the abortion she wanted by way of a court order. Otherwise she would indeed have been forced to continue the pregnancy until birth (or fetal demise, if that were to happen). Now, she would indeed be forced to continue the pregnancy and give birth.

So, let's suppose a woman is brought to the ER and is legally committed for mental health or substance abuse treatment because of her presenting conditions. Suppose further that medical technology has reached the point where the presence of a fertilized egg-even before implantation--can be detected, and moreover suppose that the current law requires any woman (or, these days, person with a uterus) be screened for the presence of a fertilized egg, and that now, instead of a "detectable heartbeat" being the legal criteria for outlawing abortion, now it is the presence of said fertilized egg.

Let's suppose that in any medical encounter, screening for the existence of a possible fertilized egg, or any other state of conception and pregnancy, is now required. If the screening is non-invasive it can certainly be done without a court order in place (warrants are required for BAC blood draws is consent is withheld, not for breathalyzers).

Let's suppose that, after the model of Texas, the particular state now has a statute allowing ANYBODY to bring an action in court to determine the pregnancy status of a particular person with a uterus.

Let's suppose that laws now define a fertilized egg not just as a human life, but a life entitled to the full force of the state for its protection with an exception to be made ONLY if the person carrying that egg or pregnancy is at the risk of imminent death or medical event resulting in permanent disability.

If you want to define a fertilized egg as a human life with the equal moral status of a living person who has been born, then you must accept the establishment of a state in which that egg, or any other status of pregnancy, is given the full protection of any other person. So, let's look at the status of a child. If the state determines that a child is at sufficient risk remaining in the care of a parent, the state takes custody of that child. The child doesn't even have to actually suffer injury, only to be at sufficient risk. So we must give the state the same degree of power over that fertilized egg or developing pregnancy. Which means that if the state determines that egg, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus to be at sufficient risk while remaining inside the uterus, the state gets to take legal custody of that entity to prevent the foreseeable harm.

This is the end result of a rigid definition of individual human, legally protected life beginning with fertilization.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics