Donald Trump probably hasn’t read The Handmaid’s Tale. But his failed effort this week to use his power to restrain a young woman from having an abortion shows he’d fit right in to that novel’s dystopian patriarchy that would force a women to bear children against their will.
The Trump Administration is detaining a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant in Texas. That young woman obtained a judge’s permission to abort her pregnancy. The Trump Administration refused to let her leave the detention facility to obtain the medical treatment she sought. A federal appeals court overturned the Trump Administration’s restraints, and the young woman obtained her abortion this morning.
The American Civil Liberties Union posts this statement via the American Civil Liberties Union from the young woman in question:
My name is not Jane Doe, but I am a Jane Doe.
I’m a 17 year old girl that came to this country to make a better life for myself. My journey wasn’t easy, but I came here with hope in my heart to build a life I can be proud of. I dream about studying, becoming a nurse, and one day working with the elderly.
When I was detained, I was placed in a shelter for children. It was there that I was told I was pregnant. I knew immediately what was best for me then, as I do now – that I’m not ready to be a parent. Thanks to my lawyers, Rochelle Garza and Christine Cortez, and with the help of Jane’s Due Process, I went before a judge and was given permission to end my pregnancy without my parents’ consent. I was nervous about appearing in court, but I was treated very kindly. I am grateful that the judge agreed with my decision and granted the bypass.
While the government provides for most of my needs at the shelter, they have not allowed me to leave to get an abortion. Instead, they made me see a doctor that tried to convince me not to abort and to look at sonograms. People I don’t even know are trying to make me change my mind. I made my decision and that is between me and God. Through all of this, I have never changed my mind.
No one should be shamed for making the right decision for themselves. I would not tell any other girl in my situation what they should do. That decision is hers and hers alone.
I’ve been waiting for more than a month since I made my decision. It has been very difficult to wait in the shelter for news that the judges in Washington, D.C. have given me permission to proceed with my decision. I am grateful for this, and I ask that the government accept it. Please stop delaying my decision any longer.
My lawyers have told me that people around the country have been calling and writing to show support for me. I am touched by this show of love from people I may never know and from a country I am just beginning to know – to all of you, thank you.
This is my life, my decision. I want a better future. I want justice [anonymous, statement via guardian and the American Civil Liberties Union, 2017.10.25].
Trump, a man with no connection to this young woman other than his responsibility for the system incarcerating her, thought this was his decision to make. Trump thought that his desire to “promote childbirth and fetal life” outweighed this young woman’s control over her body. Trump was willing to use force (in this case, the force of law and executive authority) to control this woman, negate her autonomy, and force her to bear a child. The courts, fortunately, denied this use of force and upheld the young woman’s autonomy.
Trump’s overbearing action makes fresh the question I have posed to anti-abortion activists who would ban the procedure completely, or would allow it only in the most extreme situations. Consider:
Suppose you meet a woman on the street. You and she have no prior connection. You know nothing about her except that she is in the first trimester of pregnancy and is on her way to a clinic to abort her pregnancy. Imagine you are bigger than she is. Are you willing to use your size and strength to physically restrain that woman and prevent her from going to the clinic? Do you dare even touch this stranger, or say a word to this stranger about her delicate condition and her determination to end it?
If so, on what moral authority do you restrain this woman? How long are you willing to restrain her?
If not, then how do you justify passing laws that authorize Donald Trump, or Dennis Daugaard, or a local judge, or any other man or woman to use the force of law to restrain every woman in the same situation?
Related Reading:
- Jane Martin’s 1992 play Keely and Du addresses this question dramatically with the story of an anti-abortion activist who abducts and confines a pregnant rape victim to prevent an abortion.
- Bob Mercer mentions new Morning Consult polling that finds 50% of Americans say Donald Trump is “sexist.”
All my life I have watched SoDak law firms represent people against others with whom they have had recent friendly courtroom relationships. “Conflict of interest” in SoDak means very little.
Tomorrow Tweeter willbe alive with threats of tossing judges off the bench because they dare spit in Drumpf’s face.
Glad to see the law still works for some in America. It won’t for long if nutjobs like disgraced Aladamnbama soopreme court justice Roy Moore gets elected to the senate. He actually believes the bibble trumpd fedeal law and the constitution.
More silliness over an embryo, Russia is taking over America and we are still trying to take over women. Give it a break already.
Her being here illegally makes me doubt her claim that she knows what’s best for herself. Her getting pregnant and ending up in a detention center is kind of a clue she has failed at decision-making. She says she broke the law because she was doing what was best for herself. What was she thinking when she got knocked up? It was a good decision?
That being said, why didn’t they just deport her? What’s with this detention thing? If she got here by herself she can go home by herself.
Why are our tax dollars being wasted on people like that?
Oh Anne, I will bet you have some history that happened with yourself that you were damn lucky at not being in this young woman’s same predicament. At least the young woman does not want to keep the anchor baby that you all complain about and will save taxpayer money to lower the deficit.
Wow, what a thing to be proud of: An illegal alien comes to the US to kill her child that could have been born a US citizen. Is it a crime for a foreign national to kill an unborn American?
This must present a real dilemma for some folks. An illegal alien wants to abort her anchor baby. It seems Ann is having a real problem, and I suspect others will, too.
Yeah, Ms. Doe has some issues with decision-making, but I’d say that of Trump and Ann, too. I’d rather have an individual who made some bad decisions figure out how what she wants to do, then have Trump in charge of this girl’s life.
How do you know the young lady didn’t run afoul of a wingnut pol in Pierre? You don’t, do you? If wingnuts had their way there wouldn’t be any anchor babies. Even those already born are looked on with scorn by so called kristians on the right. Good thing atheists take up the moral slack wingnuts don’t bother with.
Old whatever- why is it okay for wealthy Russkies to come to America, rent properties from Drumpf and have anchor babies?
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/wealthy-russian-birth-tourists-are-flocking-to-trump-hotels-so-newborns-can-have-dual-citizenship/
Typical wingnuts- hate them some brown skinned anchor babies, but if they have white skin and Drumpf can profit from it-isn’t that what capitalism is all about?
You people make me sick!
No it is not a crime, it is legal. Thanks to her for getting it done. Lowers the deficit, saves my taxes.
If there was a building on fire and there were 1,000 embryos that you could save or your could save your own 3 year old child from the fire in the same building, which would you choose?
Abortion has been around longer than guns. If gun control laws will not help reduce the number of gun deaths, why should we expect laws against abortion to lower the number of abortion.
@1727 “why are ur tax dollars being wasted on people like that”
Those people like that are milking cows for your cereal, those people are picking your vegetables for your salads, those people are cleaning your toilets and doing yards, those people also have fake social security cards (some of them) with fake ids to work to better themselves doing jobs know white person will do, these people that have fake ids and social security cards have to have taxes taken out they can never collect on, For those that know how this works, the taxes are taken out and paid in but never can be collected as fear of getting caught— and it is millions, Study it ….for the women who endure the work many many have their employer take advantage of them sexually, disgusting favors, even rape…. your comment is premature as to her situation and blatantly is biased and prejudicial And disappointing
Abortion is the willful and deliberate termination of a human life. I simply cannot understand how
anyone who has reverence for human life can support abortion. Pregnancy is a common result
of sexual activity. I strongly suspect this girl was not ignorant of that fact.
Quite frankly, if a woman thinks that being pregnant and having a child is the worst
of all possible worlds, she should not have sex. Call me old fashioned.
Direct whatever slings and arrows at me that you wish.
This is what I truly believe.
Mr. Arndt, Here is a question with no slings or arrows from above. ” If there was a building on fire and there were 1,000 embryos that you could save or your could save your own 3 year old child from the fire in the same building, which would you choose?”
If life begins at conception, then that fetus is American, if it was conceived in America. Deporting Ms. Doe, who is carrying an American citizen, would result in an American citizen being illegally deported. To deport Ms. Doe, the government would have to wait until she has an abortion or gives birth. Then Ms. Doe could be deported. If she gives birth, the deportation would have to separate mother and infant, because the infant is an American citizen and couldn’t be deported.
So, what is it that right-to-life immigrant haters want? If Ms. Doe has an abortion, you can deport her easily. If Ms. Doe is forced to carry the baby to term, Ms. Doe can be deported after the birth, but her child cannot be deported. There would be court decision regarding that deposition and a court would likely not allow a deportation when her child of tender years is an American citizen and can’t be deported. So, that baby would be an anchor baby.
Edwin Arndt,
You obviously have the freedom to be as old fashioned as you want, that being said the decisions this girl makes about her body is none of your and anybody’s else’s business.
It is amazing that after all these years since Roe v Wade people think they can still make decisions about women’s health and what she can or cannot do with here body.
Bob, I think we’ve discussed this before but the only firm I know about, the Estes Campbell Law Firm, does not do what you ascribe law firms in general to do, and Mr. mike, who of course is from Iowa, is once again painting a large group of people with a fat haired brush.
Cory challenges advocates of the right to life:
Yes, I’d try to persuade her not to abort her child.
I don’t regard persuasion as restraint.
Two things here. There are two bodies in question, not one.
Secondly, I am not an immigrant hater and have no problem with
anchor babies.
Mr. Evans, the question for you is this “If there was a building on fire and there were 1,000 embryos that you could save or your could save your own 3 year old child from the fire in the same building, which would you choose?”
Mr. Arndt refuses to answer, why? What say you Mr. Evans? What say you?
Abortion is the termination of a potential human life. A sperm is a potential human life. An egg is a potential human life. An embryo is a potential human life. A fetus is a potential human life. None of these are a human life in and of themselves. A human being can sustain his or her own life outside of the womb. A fetus that cannot sustain its own life outside of the womb is not a human being–it is a potential human being.
The US Supreme Court has balanced the rights of a human being (the pregnant woman) against the rights of a potential human being (the fetus). The Court has rightfully decided that the government cannot favor the rights of a potential human being over the rights of an actual human being. A decision favoring the rights of a potential human being over that of an actual human being would turn pregnant women into indentured servants to the state and to the fetus.
There is a difference between advocating against choosing abortion as someone’s personal decision and advocating that state or national governments force women into maintaining their womb and the fetus within it for the purposes of the state.
Jerry,
The hypothetical situation you describe is truly tragic.
If there were 1001 three year old children in that building,
which would you try to save?
Why can’t you answer which one you would save Mr. Arndt? You declared your position, now defend it. Or do you admit that your position is fraudulent? Which is it sir?
So Edwin, if abortion is “the willful and deliberate termination of a human life,” how do you respond to my question? Would you physically restrain a woman from getting an abortion?
Anne Beal, tell me how the state of mind of the woman in question would affect your response to my main question: would you physically restrain a woman to stop her from having an abortion?
OldSarg, regardless of immigration status, would you personally restrain a woman from getting an abortion?
I simply will not agree to the idea of potential life. A human fetus is a human being.
If someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses her child
as a result, the person that punched her can be charged with a crime much more
serious than assault. In some states the person who punched her can be charged
with murder. How can you legally or morally square that reality with abortion?
Donald, you raise an interesting point: if life begins at conception, if we can really endow a fetus with rights that trump a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and relegate her to a subordinate status, then a fertilized egg must indeed be a citizen, or at least have some claim to remaining in this country. Dang—before they deport the mother, they’re going to have to extract the embryo and find some way to sustain it in a Matrix-style incubator… or maybe put it in a cryo-tube and find some way to implant it in a willing anti-abortion activist.
Kurt, thank you for being the first person here to address the question.
I would agree that persuasion is not restraint. To be clear, you’ll strike up this conversation with a complete stranger and speak to her about this very personal issue, about reproductive activity in which you had no part?
How far will your persuasion go? Will you follow her to the clinic? Will you shout through the window?
If your words fall on deaf ears, does your effort stop?
Edwin, it sounds like you are equating abortion with murder. I thus re-ask: what action would you personally take to prevent a woman from getting an abortion? What moral boundary, if any, do you draw between yourself and a woman seeking an abortion? How far are you willing to go to save an embryo or fetus that inside a woman who is on her way to terminate her pregnancy? (This is not a legislative or judicial question; this is a personal moral question.)
Jerry writes:
I’m not sure, Jerry.
It depends on what you mean when you say I could “save” the embryos. If you mean I could ensure that each of them would eventually have a surrogate mother, then sacrificing my own child’s life to save the lives of 1,000 others would seem to be the right thing to do.
Darin Larson writes:
Would you say a newborn can sustain his or her own life outside the womb, Darin?
Cory asks me:
I might walk with her as far as I could without trespassing on private property, but I probably wouldn’t shout through the window.
For a typical zealot Mr. Evans, you seem not so much so when someone questions your zealotry. That has not gone unnoticed by me. How simple the question and how evasive you are to answer only proves that you clearly have no argument and agree that 1000 embryos are not human beings like the 3 year old precious child is.
Oh, and to you Mr. Arndt, I would save all of the 1001 live breathing human children.
Jerry, sir, I simply do not accept your either or stipulation. I like to think that I would
try as hard as I could to save as many lives as I could. It is quite likely that
many people would try to save their own child first.
Cory, what kind of life do you think is terminated by abortion? I cannot understand
your seemingly flippant attitude toward the life of the fetus.
In the case of the girl in question I would certainly try to impress upon her the
seriousness of the action she is contemplating. That she is willing to even
consider killing her baby is indeed tragic. It would be far less tragic for her and her
baby that she carry her baby to term and give it up for adoption. Physical restraint
would be extreme, but I would hope that I could convince her that what she is
considering is morally wrong.
I’d written to Jerry:
Jerry replies:
Your question is vague, Jerry, and there’s nothing evasive about my answer.
Nothing whatsoever vague about the question Mr. Evans, you fail the answer, as I knew you would. You prove without doubt, that you are a zealot that is clueless about your argument as is Mr. Arndt. To refuse to accept the question, that you answered with a question, is middle school. Brush up on your hateful rhetoric directed at women, but remember, they now have your number.
Kurt Evans writes “Would you say a newborn can sustain his or her own life outside the womb, Darin?”
Yes.
Mr. Larson, here, from the children’s version, from the Book “Moses’ mother hid her baby until he was three months old, because she didn’t want him to be killed by the Egyptians. But she knew that Moses might be found, so this is what she did to save him.
She took a basket and fixed it so that no water would leak in. Then she put Moses into it, and placed the basket in the tall grass along the Nile River. Moses’ sister, Mirʹi·am, was told to stand nearby and see what would happen.”
Thanks, jerry. That’s a good illustration.
“OldSarg, regardless of immigration status, would you personally restrain a woman from getting an abortion?” Cory, that is not the question. The question is “Do you you support killing the innocent” not the act of “restraining” someone. Reversing the argument does not change the original premise of the argument. Your reversal of the question was the same as all the other tired arguments used to twist the truth.
The question is “Do you you support killing the innocent”. That’s the whole kit and caboodle. I do not. I am not God nor do I put myself on the same level as God deciding who should live and who should die. I believe the unborn child is an innocent. The unborn child has done nothing to harm the world or anyone else. I think we would all be better off with a whole lot of new members of society that haven’t harmed others than being surrounded with those who wish for the death of the innocent.
Ask your state farm agent to insure your fetus ………….
Edwin, I didn’t ask if you would persuade her or “impress” upon her your values. Suppose she rejects your argument, as the Jane Doe in this case has done. She says it’s her decision, not yours, and proceeds to the clinic door with intent to commit the act you consider wrong. Will you use physical force to stop her?
People always equate the embryo for the the 9 month old pictured baby pro lifers use on their bill boards
Thus terminating an embryo is murdering a baby…..
Always these white men telling a women what to do with her body and going to talk and p”persuade” a woman to have her “baby”
There are approximately 25.000 tp 36,000 pregnancies a year because of rape …you men talk to those women with your persuasion you men counsel those lives that were violated and will never be the same……
The question is “Do you you support killing the innocent”
Ask war mongering wingnuts and the moron in the WH. Ask two faced wingnut pols who ave gotten caught with their pants down and wanted their potential embarrassing offspring terminated without their wives knowing.
A fetus depends on it’s host’s body for everything for up to 6 months. Until then it cannot live on it’s own and is therefore not a viable human being.
And as Roger C so eloquently stated, what a woman does with her body is none of your business.
It’s people in society like Anne Beal that help pregnant unwed women decide to make the decision either way to abort their babies. (And people like her call themselves Christians family values people! What a joke!)
Why don’t you just go ahead and spit on her, Anne?
In a decent society children would have dental insurance, children would have health insurance and enough food to eat and adequate housing and decent public education. That is what being pro life is. It’s not worrying about fetuses in a womb.
It is morally wrong for the richest country in the world to not provide health insurance to all its citizens at an affordable price. It is morally wrong to start wars based on lies.
Don’t try preaching to me about morality.
Before being a parent, I could not possibly care less what women did with their bodies or their growing fetuses. Now, I still don’t care what women do with their bodies, but I am heartbroken thinking of a small semi-conscious being, discovering the first sensations of life in the womb, being aborted.
I don’t know when a fetus becomes a person, but I also don’t think anybody else who uses some arbitrary date or milestone “knows” either, they often seem to use facts that just happen to support the position they have already chosen. People who think abortion is just plain wrong think life begins at conception because that helps their argument. People who support a mother’s choice often use birth as the beginning of life for the same reason. Both ignore what appear to be valid points from the opposite side.
Jerry’s question about saving embryos or saving your own child is dumb, and repeatedly throwing that question at people like it means anything makes it even dumber. It is too far from the point of this conversation to be relevant, and even if it were relevant, it’s meaningless. I don’t believe in murder, but if somebody poses a question like “would you kill 1,000 girl scouts to save your own child?” I would say sure, line ’em up. It’s as useful as the “can god make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” question.
So, although the death of a baby is the most sad thing I can imagine, I would never presume to tell anybody what to do with their body – male or female, pregnant or not. If wishes meant anything, I would wish for all children who are conceived to be born happy and healthy and to live in loving homes. I think the reality is, though, that a lot of fetuses that are aborted would have been born into miserable homes and lived miserable lives had they not been aborted. That is also very sad to me, so I allow the thought that some of these fetuses were saved from suffering serve as a bit of a consolation, as bad as that sounds.
Look at reality. Wingnuts demand every fetus be brought to term (unless a pol is somehow involved and would be embarrassed). Then those gawdly kristians cut foodstamps, health care, school aid, school nutrition programs etc. for all those not so lovable fetuses who happened to be born. One last thing, Congress has borrowed over 4 trillion bucks from trust funds for citizens. Instead of raising taxes to pay them back, they cut benefits for retirees, except themselves, of course.
House just narrowly passed budget, meaning wingnuts are free to give away taxcuts to the swamp critters and Dems won’t be able to vote to stop it. Budget reconcilliation games, don’t you know?
Jerry’s question is flawed by making the 3 year old your own child. I would ask this version:
You are a UPS delivery person delivering a package to a fertility clinic. There is an explosion and a fire. As you escape you see a crying child trapped in a room near 1000 frozen embyros. You have time to either grab the container with the embryos or the child (who is a stranger), but you cannot save both. What would you do?
Cory’s hypothetical is also interesting and deserves a follow up. Instead of a pregnant woman heading into the clinic for an abortion, you see a woman about to kill her newborn infant. Would you physically stop the woman from killing the newborn, or would you simply try to persuade not to do it?
The real point to such hypotheticals is that many anti-choice folks cannot and will not give a straight answer. Some, like Kurt, will qualify their answers. Other will call the hypothetical silly and refuse to answer.
The reason for refusing to answer is the answer undermines the premise that an embryo is a human baby. I would be hard pressed to believe that any person would grab frozen embryos instead of saving a living, breathing, crying, and for Oldsarg – innocent child from the fire.
Likewise, I doubt whether anyone would hesitate to use physical force to save the newborn, even if they would not use physical force to stop an abortion.
Why? Because in their hearts and minds anti-choice folks know that an embryo is not the equivalent of a living, breathing child.
We seem to be missing quite a bit of info here. What is the status of the father? Is he legal, illegal? Could he pay child support or did he commit any crimes when impregnating the young lady? Is the young lady simply a slut, or are other factors in play? Was some sort of birth control attempted and failed? Is her life at risk if she continues the pregnancy? What has her doctor told her? Is any of this really our business from our holier than thou perch a thousand miles away?
Well said, BCB.
Bear is always right. :)
Grudz is never right, but never in doubt. :(
Yes, I see that your position is better put than mine bcb, I concur. So that should mean it will be much easier for Mr. Evans and Mr. Arndt to be able to answer the questions. You do realize, bcb, that the observations you have made will make into the dreaded brackets formulated by Mr. Evans. Should be humorous.
http://juanitajean.com/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-us/
This is typical wingnut family values if those families have colored skins.
The US has one of the highest unwed teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. People like Ann Beal need to remember that.
No one and I mean NO ONE, would want this Mexican girl and her baby come to SD to live. No one except maybe a few democrats. They moan and whine and get their panties in a bunch when they hear about a poor woman getting an abortion but they don’t want any of this kind coming to SD to try to start a better life if she decided to keep her baby.
They wouldn’t want her on Medicaid, would complain about her being on Section 8 housing if she needed it.
I would tell her to stay away from places like SD, and that she would probably actually be in danger if she did head there with all the anti-immigrant hate rallies that go on all the time.
WTF, Chuck-Z! “Is the young lady simply a slut”. That has to be one of the most disgusting sentences ever written on this blog. All of your requests for missing info for are completely irrelevant. It is the young lady’s decision as it is her body. You do make one valid point in your pile of crap response, it is none of our business!
Jim in DC is right, Chuck-Z: your questions are completely irrelevant. They demonstrate the vast snoopery in which conservatives want to engage. Everything you ask about the young woman’s situation is not the business of any other human being. None of the factors you suggest have any bearing on her legal right to control her body. None of the factors you suggest give any other person, not even the person who inseminated her, any right to restrain her from exercising her bodily autonomy.
But Chuck, tackle the moral question I pose: would you physically restrain this young woman from obtaining an abortion with your own hands? Would any of the factors you mention change whether you would restrain this young woman? Or do you hold to the position that her decision really is none of your or our business?
For the record: on the burning building question, I grab the crying child and rush her to safety. I do not run back into the building for any frozen embryos.
If I see a person about to kill an infant, if I don’t freeze in terror, I try to stop the killer.
If I see a woman headed for an abortion clinic carrying a picket sign saying, “I’m going to get an abortion right now,” I do not interfere.
OldSarg, I asked a question. It is, contrary to your statement, the question I want you to answer.
OldSarg, you also erroneously accuse me of trying to reverse a question and twist the truth. I asked my question first. You deliberately avoided it and tried to distract with a question you prefer.
But to show I’m a good sport, I’ll tackle your question even before you show me the respect of answering my opening question.
“Do you support killing the innocent?”
No.
Now, if you see a woman who is about to “kill the innocent”, will you physically restrain her from going to an abortion clinic to consummate the act that you so absolutely oppose?
My point was that we don’t know this girl or her circumstances. The decision should be between her and her doctor. It should not be up for debate among a bunch of people who assume they know what is best for her.
Jerry had asked me:
I’d replied:
Jerry writes:
What you mean when you say I could “save” the embryos is vague.
“bearcreekbat” writes:
I’d grab the crying child.
I’d physically stop her.
Mr. Evans, have you ever once blogged without
I think you are a bit of a fancy, but I’d vote for you again.
Thank you bcb, for your great work.
Chuck, thank you for that clarification. I wondered if that point might be in there; it got lost in the noise about the questions.
Let’s focus on that point: This young woman’s decision should not be up for debate and certainly not subject to the control of people who do not have information about her specific situation. The only people who have a right to such information are the young woman and the people she allows to be personally involved in her life, the people from whom she seeks advice. Those of us who do not have this young woman’s permission to be involved in her life—i.e., everyone in this conversation, everyone in the Texas legislature, everyone in Congress, everyone in the White House—have no right to interfere with her decision.
Now notice that Kurt gets to the question (and does so well with the blockquote indentations that Grudz distractingly calls fancy but which I deem highly useful) of his threshold for deciding when to interfere with a stranger’s decision. He would try to persuade a woman not to have an abortion, but he wouldn’t physically restrain her. He would physically restrain a woman from killing a newborn infant.
I have heard no one else advocating here for Trump’s physical restraint of the young woman in Texas give a clear answer to those two scenarios.
My contention is that if you give Kurt’s answer, you can’t justify Trump’s response. If you haven’t answered those two scenarios, you are hiding something that is highly relevant to whether you can justify Trump’s action.
right back atcha Jerry.
Yeah, the questions were meant to be absurd. That’s OK, I am often misunderstood. Maybe that’s why Pat keeps deleting my seemingly benign comments.
Mt Evans – just to be clear on what you’ve said here “sacrificing my own child’s life …(for some particular weighted reason)… would seem to be the right thing to do.”
I.E. you would make the decision based on the relevant value of your own child’s life vs. some “other” life – or something – just as pregnant women come to a determination to abort by weighing the value of that potential child’s future life against some other value.
In short sir – YOU would morally justify choosing to have an abortion – “depending” on some other factor. See how you REALLY are?
It’s also evident from Mr. Evan’s answers that he would be more willing to sacrifice his own child’s life to that of a stranger child.
Again – seeming to recognize a higher moral authority over his own progeny vs. the offspring of others. In other words – a greater right to control the “output” or resource obligation of his own body, vs that of others’.
His is the position of a pro-choice advocate.
Mr. Schriever, that is the observation that I now have of Mr. Evans as being pro-choice. This will help him in his election endeavor for sure. Women are asserting themselves more and more each day and that is a great thing for our country. Women should be allowed complete freedom to do as they see fit with their bodies and their lives.
One of the stranger arguments made by the the Texas Attorney general and some conservative judges on the appellate court this 17 year old girl’s case was that she is “not a person” under our Constitution.
Imagine that if you can. These conservatives believe that a fetus is a “person,” that a corporation is a “person” (with religious rights to discriminate), but a 17 year old pregnant child is not a “person.”
Circuit Court Judge Patricia Millett wrote in response that:
(Source)
The full DC Court rejected the “non-person argument 6-3, citing Millett’s opinion.”
If the court had agreed that this person is not a person, then the State of Texas would have commenced dealing with a whole class of persons similarly situated to Jane Doe as if they were not persons either. There’s a lot that a state could do with a sack of flour that it couldn’t do with a person. You could imagine in your wildest nightmares what kind of evil the State of Texas would have unleashed on “non-people” if the court had accepted its argument. The fact that Texas was making this play should surprise nobody.
Not a person—scary!
Reading Jerry’s comment puts my primary question into perspective: the absolute abortion opponent must commit to physically intervening and restraining the abortion-bound woman. The abortion opponent who goes no further than vigorous persuasion is, like me, legally pro-choice. Being pro-choice does not mean we like the choice this young woman made or that any other woman makes. Being pro-choice means simply that we recognize we have no right to make that choice for her, either by personal force or force of law.
Arguably, an anti-choice person might just be choosing to obey laws that generally prohibit the use of force on another, when faced with a decision about how to try to stop an abortion. To be fair, my extension of Cory’s hypothetical to a newborn doesn’t take this legal justification for behavior into account. It is obviously legal to use force to stop a mother from killing a newborn, hence there is a rational distinction in how to behave in each circumstance, unrelated to whether one is pro-choice.
Jerry’s modified hypothetical of the old trolley problem, which substitutes the living child vs. the frozen embryo, however, seems a more accurate indicator of whether someone actually believes an embryo to be the equivalent to a living baby. Regardless of one’s position on abortion, most folks know an embryo is not yet a baby and would not hesitate to save the actual baby, even if it meant the destruction of 1000 embryos.
I was surprised, and appreciative, that Kurt said he would save the child when responding to the modified hypothetical. I thought he would dodge the question, but he did not and he deserves to be commended for that. No one on this blog wants to encourage any woman to obtain an abortion, and I doubt very much whether anyone on this blog would sacrifice a living child to protect an embryo. Can we agree on those points?
The full DC Court rejected the “non-person argument 6-3, citing Millett’s opinion.”
That 3 people voted to keep the non-person argument should really be scary.
I agree, BCB, even though I am from iowa.
Third woman accuses Hitler Weasel Bush of groping them from his wheel chair. No abortions needed, yet.
I’d written to Jerry:
I’d apparently used the word surrogate incorrectly there. I’d meant to refer to an adoptive mother to raise each child as her own.
Richard Schriever writes to me:
Yes, I’d generally justify a mother’s decision to have her child aborted in order to save the lives of 1,000 others.
No, my answer in each scenario would be the same regardless of whether any of the children were my own.
Cory writes:
“bearcreekbat” writes:
Exactly right. If civil law permitted a mother to have her two-year-old killed, I generally wouldn’t physically restrain her either. That doesn’t mean I believe it should be legal.
My main consideration there was that only a tiny fraction of frozen embryos (around 7,000 so far) have ever been born to adoptive mothers. Even if there were 1,000 potential mothers readily available, there are well over 500,000 frozen embryos. Grabbing 1,000 out of a fire wouldn’t necessarily result in a single additional live birth.
It seems possible to me that one or more people commenting at this blog want to encourage mothers to have their children aborted.
Mr. Evans, that post only had 7 quotes. Your average is slipping.
We know what you meant Mr. Pro-Choice Kurt Evans, and we all thank you for your honesty. That honesty looks good on you dude. Wear it with pride.
Mr. Evans, I’m the last person most of these libbies here would say could speak for them, but I think you have it wrong, sir. I see nobody blogging here that is encouraging mothers to have their children aborted. I have seen people here defend the right of mothers to make choices that pertain to those mothers’ lives, and are no business of yours or mine. There is a difference, sir.
On law versus morality: if the law allowed the arbitrary killing of Jews, would you stop your neighbor from grabbing his gun and shooting at a passing Jew?
I’d written:
Cory replies:
I’d try to stop him in ways compatible with civil law but probably wouldn’t resort to abducting or confining him.
Is that a pragmatic response, not wanting to be arrested by the Gestapo, or a moral response, demonstrating consistent respect for the rule of law and resistance to vigilantism?
Cory had written to me:
I’d replied:
Cory asks:
I’d say it’s both a pragmatic response and a moral response, but it doesn’t necessarily demonstrate resistance to vigilantism.
So the mere existence of civil law isn’t the overriding principle dictating your inaction in defense of Jews from the Gestapo or the defense of fetuses from pregnant but aborting women?
Cory asks me:
No, it isn’t.
http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-sessions-court-20171103-story.html
Drumpf wants the Scotus to punish ACLU lawyers for helping young woman obtain an abortion despite every effort of the US government to prevent her.