The Continuing Education Of Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum has apparently just discovered that some folks see a link between eugenics, abortion, and stem cell research.  Ross Douthat tries to bring him up to speed, but even a moment with Google might have been helpful in establishing that this is hardly a new debate.

And let me comment on the calm and thoughtful responses to this, such as:

The idea that progressives in any way support "eugenics" is so stupid that it should never get mentioned more than once...

Fine, let's not mention it.  However let's mention the actual argument - progressives support particular policies and programs, such as unrestricted abortion rights or stem cell research, that may have consequences upon which a supporter of eugenics would smile.  Selective abortion of Down's syndrome babies is the example cited by Mr. Douthat, but the controversial crime-abortion link might belong in the mix as well.

Now, one might argue that this eugenics debate is similar in spirit to the frequent insistence from the left that opponents of affirmative action are racist, since it is well known (or at least, well-presumed) that racists oppose affirmative action.  One might also argue that opponents of affirmative action are implicitly racist in that they are not willing to support a program meant to reduce racism.  Obviously, this argument founders if the premise - affirmative action does more to relieve than inflame racial tensions - is false.

Similarly, the eugenics-abortion link would founder if no one could point to eugenics-type outcomes as a result of unrestrictive abortion policies, but the links above suggest that that harbor is closed.

But on a simpler question - who really believes Kevin Drum is that ignorant?  Put another way - is he that stupid, does he think we are that stupid, or is he correct that his readers really that stupid?

Yes, we tackle the toughies here.

Comments

[harry r]

If it is shown that Chief Justice Roberts has suffered a debilitating stroke, we will ask that he be removed from the Court.

Tim Johnson will not be voting on this measure...but we are sure he will be behind us.

[Ralph L]

Harry: Huh?

You mean Drum is only now discovering that many taxpaying white people give tacit approval to easy abortion in the knowledge that many brown, taxeating babies will be aborted? How's that for eugenics?

[cathyf]

Yeah, Ralph, good point. Of course there is the irony that it turns out that the taxpaying white people are victims of their own projection -- the teaxeating brown people are significantly less likely to abort their babies than the taxpaying white folks...

But that's always been the fatal flaw of the eugenics crowd. They always assume (ass-you-me) that simply giving access to birth control, abortion, etc., will result in the inferior folks reproducing less while not affecting the probabilities of the superior folks reproducing. As Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot showed, the only way to get really good genocide going and to keep it targetted is to utilize 4th-trimester abortions.

[Dave Schuler]

Tom, Tom. Eugenics is bad. If good, decent Leftwing folk with the best of intentions favor a policy, it can't possibly be bad. Therefore, a policy favored by the Left can't be eugenics. Or something.

Socrates was a man; all men are mortal; therefore all men are Socrates.

Get it?

[EH]

So, I guess we're at the level of policy-by-association? The gun-control crowd would probably be interested to see some more of the logic above if you care to elaborate, since you both seem to agree that if something can be used for bad things then that something is bad in itself. "One might argue..."

[Phelps]

Maybe people drew this conclusion because Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood with the goal of sterilizing as many black women as she could to "purify" the human race?

[Ralph L]

Cathy, IIRC, the proportion of children aborted that are black is HIGHER than that of blacks in the general population, that is, black women are having a larger share of abortions (don't know about black men).

When you consider the number of young black men killed or in prison, a young black woman who wants a black lover can't be too picky, including about condom use. And her next lover won't want someone else's bastards around, will he?

I could probably leave race out of this entirely, and just say poor and not rising.

[CaseyL]

Any woman, of any ethnic/religious/whatever background, may get an abortion if she wishes. No liberal is calling for mandated abortions of any particular group.

Stem cell therapies, once they're available, will not be limited to any ethnic/religious/whatever group, but will be available to all who want them. Such limits as exist would be financial.

If you're going to argue that financial constraints are the same as eugenic discrimation, go right ahead. Not only will you sound like an idiot, you'll also be arguing that GOP healthcare policies are eugenic, since it's the GOP that frowns on funding healthcare for poor people. Good luck with that one.

Actual eugenics - as opposed to the Right's brand new, and inaccurate, definition - are when "undesirables" are forcibly prevented from having children while "desirables" are actively encouraged to do so. Making contraception, abortion, and stem-cell therapies available to whoever wants or needs them is not eugenics.

Do a little reading up on the subject so you can understand what it actually is, eh? And make sure that you also know the difference between genetics and Lysenkoism.

[Ralph L]

Dave, your comment reminds me of when my father was training some Turkish naval officers 40 years ago. They were invited to a picnic that served Carolina Barbeque (pork). First they said the Koran says you shall not drink wine, but it says nothing about whiskey. Then the boss tried a little barbeque. He said this is good; the Koran says pork is bad, therefore, this is not pork, and they all slicked their ears back and pitched in.

[Ralph L]

Casey, good points, Cathy and I were looking at intentions, not actual policy. Don't forget what happens when government controls (i.e., funds) healthcare, there's rationing for the terminal and punishment for the reckless.

[boris]

the Right's brand new, and inaccurate ...

Let's see, planned parenthood ... eugenics? No just an unsuccessful attempt to achieve eugenic ends using propaganda rather than force. Perfectly ok apparently.

Has there ever been "force" used in the US to prevent procreation? Oh yes. Was it right wingers? Not unless the socially conscious and caring mental health care system was "right wing" back then. Guess not.

[TerryeL]

If you ever read any of the literature by people involved in eugenics in its early days, they really believed they were doing a good thing. When they sterilized people or whatever, their intentions were good.

And then came Hitler and no one wanted to admit they had ever been involved in the field.

If you read the literature out there by geneticists today, it is obvious that they too believe they are doing a good thing.

All in all there is something creepy about the whole subject.

[SteveMG]

Walker Percy anyone?

It is a disaster when only one kind of truth prevails at the expense of another. If only one kind of truth prevails, the abstract and technical truth of science, then nothing stands in the way of the demeaning of, the destruction of human life for what appears to be reasonable, short term goals.

So, progressives are adamantly opposed to funding abortions for poor women who wish to abort a fetus that has Down's Syndrome?

Or a hundred-and-one other afflictions?

I'm sceptical.

SMG

[hit and run]

Eugenecynicism

[CaseyL]

If you read the literature out there by geneticists today, it is obvious that they too believe they are doing a good thing.

Unless you're reading some very fringe geneticists, I don't think they're saying it would be a "good thing" to eliminate entire races, ethnicities, etc. They're saying it would be a good thing to treat, cure, and/or eliminate diseases and disabilities. Parkinsons, ALS, MS, congenital blindness, deafness, diabetes; using stem cells to regrow organs, spinal tissue, etc.

Not only do I not see a problem with this, curing such conditions would be anti- eugenic, in that some congenital diseases are more prevalent in certain races or ethnicities. Sickle-cell anemia and Tay Sachs, to name two. Eliminating those diseases would strengthen the racial/ethnic groups that are susceptible to them.

[PeterUK]

The problem arises with the politicision of science,all for the greater good of course.Then we have underage girls having abortions on the mandate of the social services,without the girl's parent permission.The ever so well meaning eradication of hereditary diseases,all those high spectrum autistic geniuses,filtered out.
Interestingly,abortion on demand requires high immigration to replace a dwindling population.
Many of the highly intelligent are opting out of the gene pool,wonderful stuff liberalism.

[SteveMG]

Sure, progressives - and lots of other Americans, admittedly - support - no demand - funding for the creation and destruction of human embryos that will be used to provide new body parts for humans.

Destroying those embryos in the process.

But let's not worry about this thing called eugenics. No, no, that's just a smear created by some Republican operative.

Creating new life - human life, what else could it be? - and then taking parts of it for our use is not in any way eugenics.

No.

It's progress.

Walker Percy knew where we were headed.

SMG

[SteveMG]

Not only do I not see a problem with this, curing such conditions would be anti- eugenic, in that some congenital diseases are more prevalent in certain races or ethnicities.

So, using one class or group of humans that will be used to improve another group of human beings is not eugenics?

Could've fooled me.

SMG

[cathyf]

Then we have underage girls having abortions on the mandate of the social services,without the girl's parent permission.

That may be how things work in the UK, but in the US when girls in the 11-14 age range get abortions without their parents' knowledge it is much more likely that it's at the "mandate" of the much older FOB (father of baby) who takes his girlfriend out of state to dispose of the evidence of his crime of statutory rape. Not because of any high-minded belief in the right to choose -- unless you count the rapist's choice to continue breathing, which is significantly less likely if her parents figure out what he has been up to.

[PeterUK]

There is a slight problem with curing sicle-cell anaemia the resistance to malaria.I have yet to see anything yet that the human race,with a bit of effort and ingenuity,could not bugger up.

[SteveMG]

Has Drum ever heard of this renowned ethicist?">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer">ethicist?

Is he aware of any of the controversies and debates on these issues of life and death?

Oy.

SMG

[PeterUK]

cathyf,
When you have socialised medicine in the gift of the state,the well being of the patient is not necessarily paramount,other factor come into play.We have a pernicious system of QUALLYS,a patient is evaluated on their quality of life,and get points upon which their life hangs.It is also being bruited abroad by the Chief Medical Officer,no less,that organ doning should be the norm,those not wishing to donate their body part would have to "opt out of the scheme".Thus bit by bit ones person becomes a chattel of the state,reducible to ones component parts.So low quallys,useful bits,how long is someone who forgets their opt out card going to last after a serious accident.I must make the point here that they take the lot,organs,skin eyes,all on being declared brain stem dead.
A brave new world indeed.

[PeterUK]

cathyf,
When you have socialised medicine in the gift of the state,the well being of the patient is not necessarily paramount,other factor come into play.We have a pernicious system of QUALLYS,a patient is evaluated on their quality of life,and get points upon which their life hangs.It is also being bruited abroad by the Chief Medical Officer,no less,that organ doning should be the norm,those not wishing to donate their body part would have to "opt out of the scheme".Thus bit by bit ones person becomes a chattel of the state,reducible to ones component parts.So low quallys,useful bits,how long is someone who forgets their opt out card going to last after a serious accident.I must make the point here that they take the lot,organs,skin eyes,all on being declared brain stem dead.
A brave new world indeed.

[CaseyL]

So, using one class or group of humans that will be used to improve another group of human beings is not eugenics?

Huh? I'm not suggesting, nor are the researchers suggesting, 'using one class or group of humans.'

Stem cells are not human beings. Human beings have bodies, internal organs, and functioning brains; they breathe, eat, excrete, reproduce, etc.

Stem cells don't do any of that, unless you consider cell division the same thing as reproduction - in which case, you should also oppose bone marrow transplants, blood transfusions, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. Do you?

[Bostonian]

CaseyL, where is your reading comprehension?

"Let's mention the actual argument -
progressives support particular policies and programs ... that may have consequences upon which a supporter of eugenics would smile. "

I don't know why it is difficult to admit that the abortion-on-demand policy has indeed achieved results that the old eugenics supporters stated as desirable goals.

Why is that so hard to admit?

[Cecil Turner]

Similarly, the eugenics-abortion link would founder if no one could point to eugenics-type outcomes as a result of unrestrictive abortion policies, but the links above suggest that that harbor is closed.

Okay, now wait a minute. Is the safe harbor closed (and hence the ship is in danger of foundering), or is it sailing safely into port on the strength of the supporting data? One way or another, your metaphor is holed (hopefully not below the waterline).

[richard mcenroe]

So Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson were conservatives?

[Rick Ballard]

"So Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson were conservatives?"

If you're asking the progs, they can't hear you. Humming, fingers in ears and head in its usual position preclude response.

[SteveMG]

Stem cells are not human beings.

Please, don't be coy. The topic is embryonic stem cells.

Not just stem cells.

The embryo - something that you and I and everyone reading this was at one time - is deliberately being destroyed in order to extract stem cells which are then used to "improve" the human race.

If that ain't eugenics, then I'm a salamander.

SMG

[reliapundit]

progressives also favor euthanasia.

and ... actually - as peterUK poiunts oout - when the State pays for healthcare AND retirement benefits it's in the State's interest to let you die, they reap DOUBLE rewards: they lower their healthcare expense and their retirement expenses/liabilities.

mao and stalin and hitler - and all their fellow travelers ON THE LEFT - favored all these PROGRESSIVE polices; they were all for THE COMMON GOOD, of course.

[Ranger]

CaseyL, where is your reading comprehension?

"Let's mention the actual argument -
progressives support particular policies and programs ... that may have consequences upon which a supporter of eugenics would smile. "

I don't know why it is difficult to admit that the abortion-on-demand policy has indeed achieved results that the old eugenics supporters stated as desirable goals.

Why is that so hard to admit?

Posted by: Bostonian | July 30, 2007 at 08:04 PM

Bostonian,

By now I am sure you have discovered that the left loves to point out where Fascism draws from the classic Right, but gets very uncomfortable when people point out that it draws just as much from the classic Progressive Left. Calling people Fascist is their way of delegitimizing, and not to be used against them (regardless of how truthful the point is).

[Michael Kennedy]

"Stem cells don't do any of that, unless you consider cell division the same thing as reproduction - in which case, you should also oppose bone marrow transplants, blood transfusions, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. Do you?

Posted by: CaseyL "

Casey, you might study a bit before you make those arguments. James Taranto calls this situation "the Roe effect" in that left wingers are more likely to abort their inconvenient fetuses and the birth rate of red staters is higher. The issue with stem cell research is the creation of embryos for harvesting of stem cells. Here is where we get to the slippry slope. If we do that, why not increase euthenasia to shift resources to more deserving members of society ? Pretty soon, you get to the situation in the Netherlands where a chronic emphysema patient who arrives in the ER with respiratory insufficiency gets a lethal injection of morphine. ER docs who refuse to do this (and consent is not requested) lose their jobs.

[Rick Ballard]

"ER docs who refuse to do this (and consent is not requested) lose their jobs."

Well of course. That's a basic condition of free health care. The euthanasia is free and that's what is important. It's just basic resource management.

[CaseyL]

MichaelKennedy:

James Taranto is an opinion writer at the WSJ: not a sociologist, not a statistician, not a bioethicist. His opinion of abortion and its demographic consequences is exactly that - opinion - and skewed by his ideology. Even if his statistics are correct, they're meaningless. "Liberals" are not a species, any more than "conservatives" are; political ideology is not genetically-based.

As for a slippery slope that leads from ESC research to euthanasia - how, exactly, do you see that happening? Are you saying that ESC advocates are inevitably indifferent to the living, and therefore would happily see the disabled and ill killed out of hand?

If that's what you're saying, you have a breathless disregard for logic. How do you reconcile such a belief with the fact that ESC advocates support ESC precisely because it could lead to treatments and cures for the disabled and the ill?

I realize the Right has built a charicature of pro-choice, pro-ESC people; that the Right believe we abort fetuses and rip blastocysts apart for the sheer joy of it. I don't know whether it does so out of simple hatred for us, and project your hatred onto us, ascribing to us its own bloodthirstiness; or if it do so because to do otherwise would mean having to think about its own positions in more depth than it can bear or is capable of.

Projection probably has more to do with it. So-called pro-life advocates are indifferent, if not outright hostile, to the "post-born" (poor people, gays, Muslims, Democrats, liberals, illegal immigrants, blacks, the mentally ill, people suffering from intractable illness, paraplegics, quadriplegics, wounded soldiers, anyone who opposes George Bush). So-called pro-life advocates support torture, support tearing families apart, and support war without end. So-called pro-life advocates routinely call for the murder of liberals and Democrats, doctors and researchers, scientists and anti-war advocates.

When it comes to the Rightwing "pro-life" movement, life apparently begins at conception... and ends at birth.

[Rick Ballard]

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood.

That was written in 1920 and absolutely nothing has changed since. Well, except for the "legality" of the murderous bitches proposals...

[Tom Maguire]

Do a little reading up on the subject so you can understand what it actually is, eh?

Sorry, read what? In Drum-world, this discussion began about 36 hours ago.

Now, folks who think I am utterly swayed by the "affirmative action opponents are racist" argument will probably conclude that I am swayed by the "abortion rights = eugenics" notion. Whatever. But do follow the link to Douthat, where the intellectual ground gets a bit more of a plowing.

As to the notion that there are no eugenics implications for abortion rights advocates to worry about since they are not calling for the forced exterminastion of races - where is the nuance?

And can we say that affirmative action opponents can't be racist since they are not advocating a return to slavery?

Interesting - unless a person holds the extreme view it is not fair to associate him with any of the views. Who knew?

[Rick Ballard]

"But do follow the link to Douthat, where the intellectual ground gets a bit more of a plowing."

From Douthat:

And the trends that the Right dislikes find their defenders, or at least their enablers, in two camps: bio-libertarians who welcome our transhuman future, and progressives who, whether they welcome transhumanism or not, are committed to an unfettered right to abortion, with all the consequences that entails.

Which returns to Sanger and her commitment to being an "agent for change" in helping us all to appreciate Darwinism in all its glory. Eugenics is just "helping" Mother Nature to improve the species.

Who could possibly object to helping Mom clean house a little?

[MikeS]

CaseyL
It’s nice to have another intelligent liberal contribute. We get a lot who are pure vitriol and zero substance. I’d like to point out a couple things though.

No one here has called for the murder of liberals and Democrats. I don’t deny that it has happened.
No one here hates you for being liberal, some extremist might, but you aren’t addressing them.

There are some bad people on both sides of these issues, but those kinds of people don’t hang around JOM much.
Regards,

[CaseyL]

As to the notion that there are no eugenics implications for abortion rights advocates to worry about since they are not calling for the forced exterminastion of races - where is the nuance?

And can we say that affirmative action opponents can't be racist since they are not advocating a return to slavery?

Nuance? Eugenics is a specific thing. Eugenics means the deliberate extermination of what eugenics advocates consider the "unfit."

To say there are "no eugenics implications for abortion rights advocates... since they are not calling for the forced exterminastion of races" - thus hinting that they are but are being coy about it - is sly, but not very clever.

We could with equal slyness say that there are no eugenics implications for opponents of ESC research, since they are not calling for the outright withholding of medical care for people with Parkinsons, MS, ALS, etc. There's a nuance for you.

Slavery is also a specific thing, unlike racism. One can be racist without advocating a return to slave-holding; one can also advocate a return to slave-holding without being racist. Greeks enslaved one another, as did Native Americans, Africans, Asians, Arabs, Romans, Saxons, Picts... in fact, I can't think of any race that hasn't enslaved its own people at some point. (Including Europeans, since serfdom wasn't a whole lot different from slavery.)

[Pofarmer]

who really believes Kevin Drum is that ignorant? Put another way - is he that stupid, does he think we are that stupid, or is he correct that his readers really that stupid?

Yes, yes, and yes to all of the above. Have you ever tried to have a diologue with the folks at his site? Yikes.

[paul]

I find the left's dismissal of those who oppose stem cell research as religious nuts to be the shallowest of beliefs. I'm an atheist, but I accept that the govt should not be in the business of experimenting with life-and yes- it is life.

Since there is no ban on private research, privately funded, I'm inclined to let capitalism takeover.

The promises that are being made are absolutely ludicrous. Parkinsons? you might be able to grow stem cells into brain cells, but the programming and pruning that put the machine together was done laong ago. A drug which slows parkinsons? cheaper and far more likely. Spinal cord injuries? The spinal cord was built as the organism was developing, in the womb-it will not be repaired by planting 'magic beans'.

That's the problem with those who have latched onto the idea that stem cells are the panacea of the world. Limited knowledge of the future applications, bouyed by the snake oil salesman, promising something they have no chance of delivering.

The only applciation that will be available in the next 20-30 years, not 5-10, will be organ replacement-kidney, liver-but sorry-no heart muscle. This thing will never be ready for clinical trials anytime soon, especially when half the patients will develop tumors, growing at an exponential rate. The stem cell guys will produce something, but never get the permission to attempt it's use on humans, (at least not in the US,) and they will come to the end of their research.

[Ralph L]

Funny that Casey brought up projection.

[Pofarmer]

Stem cell therapies, once they're available, will not be limited to any ethnic/religious/whatever group, but will be available to all who want them.

Tell ya what, once you get any emobryonic stem cell therapies into the trial stage, let's have this conversation. My littlest boy has had two Stem Cell Transplants.
Conveniently from his older brother. Adult stem cells are being used for cures. Embryonic stem cells appear to be being used for funding.

[EH]

Some people are never so righteous as when they are predicting the future.

[paul]

I find it ironic that the american left sees europe as a more 'progressive'-considering that the cutoff for an abortion in most european countries is 12 weeks, on some things I agree that they may be more progressive than america.

Strange that some of our left leaning sc judges have pointed to the wisdom of laws in other countries, but remain selctively ignorant when addressing abortion 'rights' in america, relative to europe.

[Aaron]

The quickest way to get the Libs to reverse their position will be when the gene wizards find a way to "treat" homosexuality in the womb - presto! The liberals will say this should not be allowed.

[PeterUK]

"Eugenics is a specific thing. Eugenics means the deliberate extermination of what eugenics advocates consider the "unfit."

Abortion is a specific thing. Abortion means the deliberate extermination of what abortion advocates consider the "unfit." or inconvenient.
Now where are all these stem cells going to come from.

[PeterUK]

Some observations on socialised medicine are apposite here.You will be told not to smoke,eventually health lobbies with have it banned,not to consume too much alcohol,never become obese.There are sanctions those with unsanctioned habits are finding they are refused treatment.If however you are a good little work unit and forswear such bad habits,oddly promiscuous sex is not amongst them,the next crime you can commit is getting old and feeble,lets face it,you can't work you are a drain on resources and your body parts are worthless.So rather than be a drain on scarce resources,please vacate your home to make way for a productive family,lie there under the chemical cosh in the antechamber to the Styx while we call the Ferryman.

[boris]

Eugenics means the deliberate extermination of what eugenics advocates consider the "unfit."

No wonder rational discussion is impossible. Why not just call it Nazi Genocide then?

Eugenics = Nazi Genocide

Therefore anything short of Nazi Genocide can't be Eugenics.

Here all this time most would consider policies that promote selective breeding to improve the gene pool to be Eugenics. Most would consider policies that promote abortion to the "underclass" (less fit) to be Eugenics. But N o o o o o o o o o o ...

You actually have to target some specific unfit population group for extermination to engage in "Eugenics". Who knew?

[PeterUK]

Of course the "liberals",(why don't they have the cajones to call themselves socialists?)will have only your best interests at heart when it comes to eugenics.

"This is how the prominent liberal web site Wonkette covered the news:

Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed."
Powerline

[PeterUK]

Of course the "liberals",(why don't they have the cajones to call themselves socialists?)will have only your best interests at heart when it comes to eugenics.

"This is how the prominent liberal web site Wonkette covered the news:

Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed."
Powerline

[Appalled Moderate]

The thing about giving people freedom to make a choice of any kind is that they might make that choice for reasons which offends your sensibilities. The kicker is that you can have this very argument about global warming, executive compensation, drug regulation.

You give people a choice, they won't necessarily make the one you think they should make. The great debate is, should the government be a nanny, or do we trust the individual.

[anduril]

But on a simpler question - who really believes Kevin Drum is that ignorant? Put another way - is he that stupid, does he think we are that stupid, or is he correct that his readers really that stupid?

Posted by Tom Maguire on July 30, 2007 | Permalink

How 'bout this: does Kevin Drum think I'm stupid enough to read his work?

And, PeterUK, can you imagine the reaction if a prominent conservative website said something comparable about Justice Breyer?

[PeterUK]

anduril,
The left have one abiding principle,"The end justifies the means".This is why they cannot be trusted with the control of medical research.

[Rick Ballard]

"This is why they cannot be trusted with the control of medical research."

I would put "Because they're blinkered idiots." first. One must look on the bright side though - they aren't chomping at the bit for forced sterilization and lobotomies this time around. They've 'moved on' - to euthanasia and involuntary harvesting of body parts which you're not gonna need anyway.

Now, that's "true" progressivism.

[glasater]

"The end justifies the means"--from PeterUK @9:46AM
This statement represents--to me--the basic philosophy of the Clinton administration that ended seven years ago.
Now that we are facing the possibility of another Clinton administration in 2009 and universal healthcare, we should all be very worried.

[Ranger]

The thing about giving people freedom to make a choice of any kind is that they might make that choice for reasons which offends your sensibilities. The kicker is that you can have this very argument about global warming, executive compensation, drug regulation.

You give people a choice, they won't necessarily make the one you think they should make. The great debate is, should the government be a nanny, or do we trust the individual.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate | July 31, 2007 at 09:13 AM

This issue is not so much the choice, but the level of consequence in that choice.

If a person believes that terminating a fetus is an act of homicide (the killing of a human being), is the choice to commit homicide one that should be given to an individual, or one that should be given only to society as a whole or at least to those designated by society to have the level of training and experience to make that decision properly?

Also, should the choice not be clearly stated as what it is, the choice to commit homicide?

Now, I am sure you will say that calling the termination of an embryo homicide rests on the assumption that life begins at conception. But, I would also point out that in our society the benefit of the doubt goes to the party without power (in this case the embryo). In which case we should assume the embryo is alive until it can be proven that it is not because if we assume the opposite (that life does not begin at conception) the moral consequences of being wrong are catastrophic.

So, if you can show me with certainty that life does not begin with conception, then I will accept that the issues at hand are those that can be made by the individual. Absent that, you should admit that you simply do not know if terminating an embryo is homicide or not.

Now homicide is not necessarily murder. Murder is a form of homicide, but there are many other forms as well which are accepted by society for a wide range of reasons. In this regard the eugenisists were much more honest about the debate than the current advocates of abortion on demand and fetal stem cell research, in that they did not make any attempt to avoid the moral consequences of their choices, they simply argued that the homicide they advocated was in societies interest, and therefore on the morally acceptable side of the social line that separates unacceptable homicide (murder, manslaughter, etc.) from the acceptable forms.

[kim]

Simply, conception seems a discrete point. But is it?
================================

[MarkD]

"Even if his statistics are correct, they're meaningless. "

I think this translates as "I don't want to have to deal with inconvenient facts."

[clarice]

Another ground breaking study in the NYT:
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/nation/07/31/0731sex.html>Why people have sex

[Appalled Moderate]

Ranger:

Debating something which is essentially a matter of faith is not going to get us very far. If you believe abortion is muder, then it is rational that you desire the state to forbid it in the same way it forbids murders.

If, however, part of your discussion is that a number of people who have abortions are doing it for reasons you find distateful, you get into another discussion. If you give people the liberty to do something, some folks are going to abuse that liberty. Period. So, what's the alternative? Well, if you have a libertarian bent, you conclude that the state can't regulate what I do with my body, and take another hit off your bong. If you are a nanny state loving progressive, you frown, contemplate regulating the content of a person's thoughts at the time of decision, think about the person signing a multitude of forms all with the requisite waiting periods, and certifications (proving that the applicants motives are pure and notarized), and then make a speech about abortons being rare. If you are a conservative politician, you fulminate, secure in the knowledge that there will never be a voter who fails to get an abortion as a result of your fulminations.

[boris]

essentially a matter of faith

BS. There are perfectly good humanist arguments against government destruction of live embryos.

You are again attempting to use your lack of imagination or understannding as a logical argument. It isn't.

[Cecil Turner]

Nuance? Eugenics is a specific thing. Eugenics means the deliberate extermination of what eugenics advocates consider the "unfit."

Not quite. American Heritage® gives it as:

eugenics (y¡-jèn´îks) noun (used with a sing. verb)
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. [emphasis added]

The factor we're specifically talking about here is restricting "undesirable" breeding (whether by sterilization or abortion seems moot).

The argument that individual private decisions don't amount to eugenics (even though they might add up to a fair facsimile in the aggregate), because only state programs qualify as eugenics, does seem to beg the question a bit. And if we're agreed that state run eugenics is generally a bad thing™, then I think it's worthwhile to explore why it's okay for amateurs to dabble in a remarkably similar exercise.

[Appalled Moderate]

Boris:

Most arguments on abortion boil down to a postulate -- life begins at conception. This is true no matter what system of beliefs you are using.

Anyway -- the conversation was the relationship of eugenics to abortion, not stem cell research.

[Appalled Moderate]

CT:

If you concede a right to an abortion under circumstances other than health of the mother, your idea is a pretty awful one. The reason why I exercise one of my rights is none of the government's business.

If you don't concede a right to an abortion, then, fine, admit the eugenics thing is a red herring.

[Richard Aubrey]

Are liberals a "race"?
Of course not. But does that have anything to do with the Roe Effect?
Of course not.

People looking at the Roe Effect have stated, without cites, that about 80% of kids are likely to follow their parents' world view.
So, in a kind of para-genetic way, libs beget libs beget libs. Red-staters begetting red-staters as well.

So let's do the math.

If a lib couple has 1.2 kids, about one of them will become a lib. The other portion will gravitate to something else, and most of what's left is right.

If a conservative has 2.2 kids, one and two-thirds will become conservative. The remaining portion will, let us say, go separate ways. One sixth will become liberal and one-sixth will become......conservative Christian.

If a conservative Christian family has three kids, 2.4 of them will remain conservative Christian. Three tenths will become liberal and three tenths conservative not particularly tied up with conservative Christianity. Add in the fraction of the conservative who becomes conservative Christian and you're up to about 2.5 conservative Christians.

One and two-thirds conservatives.

One liberal.

There are two ways to attack that. One is to insist libs have more kids and/or redstaters fewer than I stated. The other is to discover the tendency to follow one's parents is significantly other than 80%.

I know a family whose women for two generations are all public school teachers. Most of the generation now having kids--five between three couples and no end in sight--are conservative Christians and do not plan to use public schools for their own kids.
The table talk is how the sordid, fetid aspects of our society can't be kept out of public schools.
The first kid to hit school age is going to Christian pre-K.
Interesting dynamics.

[boris]

Anyway -- the conversation was the relationship of eugenics to abortion, not stem cell research.

Really ?

Ranger: In this regard the eugenisists were much more honest about the debate than the current advocates of abortion on demand and fetal stem cell research

Look, you might not know this but my arguments are not based on religious principles. In fact I have no moral problems with either, I just prefer rational debate to religion-bashing.

As a counterexample consider this ... is the problem with using abortion for sex selection faith based?

Clearly not.

[syn]

China's government-run health care system, which primarily aborts the female as the way to end poverty, is one reason why I am against nationalizing health care in America.

Abortion isn't about helping the poor, it is about exterminating poor people ie in Margaret Sanger's world 'poor people breed poverty so don't let them breed'

It is sickening to think that the second wave feminist sisterhood who encouraged their sisters to abort their offspring when they were in their 20s are now in their 40s rich and desperate to have a baby today buy buying the eggs of 16 year olds in order to get pregnant.

Progressive Leftism is creepy collectism for wealthy liberals.

[Cecil Turner]

If you don't concede a right to an abortion, then, fine, admit the eugenics thing is a red herring.

I certainly don't concede an unrestricted "right" to an abortion, nor does the law. (Nor do I believe in an inherent "privacy" right, though apparently the law's a little less defined on that point.) But we're talking about a whole class of actions that are hardly identical. For example, the idea of creating embryos for the purpose of scientific research, which is a lot closer to the bioethics of eugenics than abortion.

There are interrelated but different arguments for the various issues raised by advancing science. Trying to spin it as different aspects of the abortion argument ignores several facts . . . including that the scientists involved are not primarily experimenting inside their own bodies.

[Ranger]

Posted by: Appalled Moderate | July 31, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Ranger:

Debating something which is essentially a matter of faith is not going to get us very far. If you believe abortion is muder, then it is rational that you desire the state to forbid it in the same way it forbids murders.

An interesting comment on a couple of levels. First, you simply ignore the main point I was making, that being that there is a difference between homicide and murder. I assume this is because you fear dealing with the question that follows from that distinction (more on that later).

First, let's deal with the "matter of faith." The only such "matter of faith" in my argument is that there is an inherent value to human life. I would hope that this is a "matter of faith" we could all agree on. If not, then the rest of this discussion is pointless.

But, if we can agree to that basic "matter of faith" (and it is a matter of faith because we have nothing but anecotal evidence to support it), then we must also agree that homicide (the ending of a human life my another humanbeing's actions) is an issue of central morality.

The central underpinning of my argument is actually not based on a matter of faith, but a matter of sceptisism: I am highly sceptical that we know (or even can know) when "life" begins. Since I hold that basic sceptical position, I then have come to the conclusion that I must assume (since I can not know otherwise) that life begins at conception. I make that assumption because any other assumption leads to the possiblility that homicide will be committed without the understanding that it is homicide. I may be wrong in this assumption, but it is the only way I can see moving forward without risking moral catastrophy.

If, however, part of your discussion is that a number of people who have abortions are doing it for reasons you find distateful, you get into another discussion.

Now we come to the point where you have to conflate homicide with murder to make you point. I never said all terminations of a pregnancy were murder. I said that I make the assumption that they are homicide, and it is for society to decide which of those homicides may be justifiable and which ones are not. By avoiding the issue of when life begins (or more precisely, by pretending that you can declare with certainty when life begins), you avoid the possibility that some abortions may not be justifiable homicide. You can not even entertain the idea that life may begin at conception, because to do so means that those "reasons you [I] find distateful" you might find distaseful as well as justifications for homicide.

If you give people the liberty to do something, some folks are going to abuse that liberty. Period. So, what's the alternative? Well, if you have a libertarian bent, you conclude that the state can't regulate what I do with my body, and take another hit off your bong. If you are a nanny state loving progressive, you frown, contemplate regulating the content of a person's thoughts at the time of decision, think about the person signing a multitude of forms all with the requisite waiting periods, and certifications (proving that the applicants motives are pure and notarized), and then make a speech about abortons being rare. If you are a conservative politician, you fulminate, secure in the knowledge that there will never be a voter who fails to get an abortion as a result of your fulminations.

And if you are intelectually honest, you go back to the point I made above about being sceptical of knowing when life begins (I personally don't know when it begins, do you?).

The reason that people who support abortion on demand have to fight so hard to distance themselves from the eugenicists is that the eugenicists were intelectually honest about what they were doing. They were arguing about where the social line on homicide should be drawn and why is should be drawn where they wanted to put it. The modern abortion on demand crowd know if they have to debate on that ground they will lose because they know in our society people will not accept that someone should have the right to kill another human being simply for their own convience. So, they argue that it is not about life and death. I disagree.

[MikeS]

Doctor Accused of Killing Patient to Harvest Organs

[cathyf]

Cathy, IIRC, the proportion of children aborted that are black is HIGHER than that of blacks in the general population, that is, black women are having a larger share of abortions (don't know about black men).

You are measuring the wrong statistic. Eugenics consists of improving the human species by differential success at reproduction. So all that matters is the net fertility rate of the "inferior" vs. "superior" zygotes. Actually, not even fertility, which only counts the number of live births per female. What really matters is the offspring making it to reproduction themselves -- whether the zygote does not exist because he/she was murdered before reaching reproduction age, or because he/she was never conceived, it doesn't matter.

So if your "undesirables" are becoming pregnant at a high enough rate that it makes up for any excess rates of abortion, miscarriage, infant mortality, childhood accidents, etc., then your "eugenics plan" is going to go awry.

[clarice]

There is and always has been a eugenics component to abortion..I don't think it is the entire impetus behind it or universally understood to be the case, but it is clearly there from the outset of Sanger's movement and many of its proponents.
when I was a law student Brandeis' grandson who had, I believe, 5 children was very active in Planned Parenthood. I asked a professor who was friends with him, why that wasn't inconsistent. He told me the guy believed that was for the untermenschen (in essence).

Is there a similar component to embryonic stem cell research? Ask yourself would the Kennedys or Kerrys or Pelosis or Feinsteins donate their embryos for the experiments?
Thank you for listening.

[PeterUK]

We have for example,
Institutionalised organ harvesting,
Compulsory ID cards with electronic chips with personal data.
A world wide shortage of organs.
A culture of involuntary euthanasia.
Harold Shipman
International criminal organisations.
A progressive belief that the individual belongs to the state.
A belief that embryos can be harvested.
Widespread abortion culture.
Eugenics.
Scientific arrogance.

It is all here now,start mixing some of those up and what is the result

[Appalled Moderate]

CT:

I am staying out of the stem cell debate for the simple reason that I agree with you that it involves entirely different issues than what got me typing. I'll note, though, that the doctors are not trying to breed a better human, but are trying to cure disease. The intentions of those durng the research are not those of the eugenicists, who are trying to breed out traits they deem undesirable. Whether the results end up the same -- well, that's why the bioethics as you note do resemble those for eugenics.

Ranger:

Common word usage does not draw the distinction you do between homicide and murder. Homicide is what murder is called on TV shows like Law and Order. So, I think your discussion is going to be lost on most people.

When we cut through the semantical discussion you offer, what we get to is your operating presumption that life begins at conception, therefore an abortion involves the ending of a life. Accordingly, the terms of the abortion debate should concetrate on that point. You figure the American people, if they understood this point, would not support abortion.

Well, there are a whole series of philosophical muddles with those who take your viewpoint. First is abortion cases of rape and incest. Most folks support such an exception In your viewpoint that's homicde. Why would that be justifiable homicide? The person who existed at conception did nothing wrong. Why should that life be extinguished for the mother's convenience?

And if we say, well it's not fair that the mother get the responsibility for bearing the child in this instance, we have admitted, in some fashion, that part of our concern is not life but that the child is a consequence of consensual behavior, and the mother should bear that consequence.

Look -- abortion is a muddle like so much in life, and I have never seen a philosophy that dealt with it that does not run into problems. Usually, in situations, it s best to muddle along until we find some legal status quo that this democracy can be comfortable with.

[maryerose]

I'm sorry to see a solution of just muddle through when we are talking about human life being aborted. It is a life because 2 human beings created it.From the moment of conception the cells start to multiply. Laziness,inconvenience and selfishness are the 3 main reasons for women to get abortions.
The federal government should not have the final say on this issue. If states want to take it on,fine but then everyone will know which state to travel to for the procedure.
What makes someone with an illness more valuable as a potential human being than one who has yet to be born. I have family members with diabetes so I am not speaking in a vacuum. Morally, people know in their heart what is right and wrong. Trying to rationalize and pontificate reasons to allow it only serves to minimize the intrinsic value of life. I wish the outrage over abortion on demand would equal the current cacaphony about dog-fighting.

[Sue]

Usually, in situations, it s best to muddle along until we find some legal status quo that this democracy can be comfortable with.

And therein lies the rub. We "the people", never got to muddle along with this particular issue. We had it foisted upon us. I think if we had fought this issue out at the ballot boxes, like women did with suffrage, the debate would be over. As it is, the debate will continue because the "democracy" was never allowed into the muddle.

[Cecil Turner]

I'll note, though, that the doctors are not trying to breed a better human, but are trying to cure disease. The intentions of those durng the research are not those of the eugenicists, who are trying to breed out traits they deem undesirable.

Personally, I don't find the idea of getting rid of undesirable traits all that undesirable. It's the collateral damage--getting rid of the individuals with those traits (either preemptively, in utero, or in vitro)--that's hard to feature. And sure, it'd be nice to cure every sufferer of ALS, but it'd also be nice if it were possible to cure a baby of Down’s syndrome. It's not the goal that makes it objectionable, but the method.

Look -- abortion is a muddle like so much in life, and I have never seen a philosophy that dealt with it that does not run into problems.

Well, I hope we're in agreement that it's not a good thing™. And while we might ultimately come to the conclusion that the interests of the mother are the overriding factor, hopefully we won't extrapolate that to mean embryos or fetuses may be treated as valueless in situations where there is no competing mother's interest.

[Sue]

I wish the outrage over abortion on demand would equal the current cacaphony about dog-fighting.

Kind of ironic, no? The masses will rear their heads when an animal is involved, because the animal has no choice in the matter. But a potential human being, with no choice in the matter, can be flushed down the drain with little or no thought. I would even settle for the outrage demonstrated over dog fights to manifest itself to "partial birth abortion". And let Rove v. Wade do what it was intended to do. Federal regulations during the 1st trimester and then it becomes a states issue.

[Jane]

I'm not sure the outrage would be as great if we were hearing stories of litters being aborted pre-birth so it is sort of apples and oranges. FWIW But I agree that this dog story has taken up far too many headlines.

[Sue]

Jane,

Okay. But in a way, that is even sadder.

[hit and run]

Clarice:
Another ground breaking study in the NYT:
Why people have sex

Or here's one...why a certain subset of people don't have sex. Or at least who they don't have sex with...

WELLINGTON (AFP) - They say you are what you eat, and growing numbers of vegans are shunning sex with meat-eaters because they see them as "a graveyard for animals", a New Zealand researcher says.

These vegans not only refuse to eat meat or animal products but refuse to have sexual contact with meat-eaters because their bodies are made up of dead animals, the researcher was reported saying in The Press newspaper on Tuesday.

Annie Potts, co-director of the New Zealand Centre of Human and Animal Studies at New Zealand's Canterbury University, said she coined the term vegansexuals during her research.

You learn something new every day. Some of it involuntarily. And some of it wistfully, in hindsight.

[hit and run]

I'm a carnivorous sexual by the way.

[hit and run]

Wait. You know what I meant, right?

mrs hit and run eats meat.

That's all I meant.

[Ranger]

Posted by: Appalled Moderate | July 31, 2007 at 01:38 PM

Ranger:

Common word usage does not draw the distinction you do between homicide and murder. Homicide is what murder is called on TV shows like Law and Order. So, I think your discussion is going to be lost on most people.

So we should avoid having an intelectually honest discussion because "it's too hard" to explain to "the ignorant masses" what we are debating?

When we cut through the semantical discussion you offer, what we get to is your operating presumption that life begins at conception, therefore an abortion involves the ending of a life. Accordingly, the terms of the abortion debate should concetrate on that point. You figure the American people, if they understood this point, would not support abortion.

That is not what I said. What I said is they would not support abortion on demand. I never said they would oppose all abortions. What we would have is a debate about which abortions were socially acceptable and which were not. My take is that the US population in general would reject abortions for retroactive controception, but would accept many other situations as legitimate.

Well, there are a whole series of philosophical muddles with those who take your viewpoint. First is abortion cases of rape and incest. Most folks support such an exception In your viewpoint that's homicde. Why would that be justifiable homicide? The person who existed at conception did nothing wrong. Why should that life be extinguished for the mother's convenience?

It's not a muddle, it is exactly the difficult debate societies have to engage in to decide where that line between the legitimate taking of a life and the illegitimate taking of a life sits. These "muddles" are the hard points that arrise when ideology encounters reality, and we should take them head on, rather than pretending they simply do not exist so we can avoid having to deal with them.

And if we say, well it's not fair that the mother get the responsibility for bearing the child in this instance, we have admitted, in some fashion, that part of our concern is not life but that the child is a consequence of consensual behavior, and the mother should bear that consequence.

One again you jump from one argument to the other. Of course it is about the consequences of consentual behavior where the consequence is the creation of life. Presumably you are arguing that abortion is simply an effort to undo the "unfairness" of biology. And yet, when the father's rights are brought up and argued as equal to the mother's, I am sure you would say the father has no right to demand any voice in a decision that effect a child that is half his. The call to "fairness" is very closely circumscribed to the mothers advantage here.

Look -- abortion is a muddle like so much in life, and I have never seen a philosophy that dealt with it that does not run into problems. Usually, in situations, it s best to muddle along until we find some legal status quo that this democracy can be comfortable with.

In other words, use the courts to force the results you want until society can be trusted to vote the right way. Why is it that so many people who claim to support democracy only do so when people can be counted on to vote the way they want.

You talk about these issues as if they are all or nothing. In fact, they are not. Most Americans support abortion in limited situations, but oppose abortion on demand. That implies that contrary to your argument above, people do fundimentally understand that there is a difference between homicide and murder and that some homicides are (regretably, but nessessarally) justifiable.

[clarice]

HIT, I doubt you and I are missing anything. I expect vegans are not so hot in bed.

[Ranger]

One more question for you Appalled Moderate.

Can you tell any of us with metaphysical certitude that life does not begin at conception?

If so, when does life begin and how do you defend that statement?

If not, then why do you dismiss my scepticism of any answer to that question?

Simply refusing to deal with the question of when life begins only guts your argument of any real moral weight.

[HoosierHoops]

Wait. You know what I meant, right?

mrs hit and run eats meat.

That's all I meant.

Posted by: hit and run
mmmm..sure i get it..
( running away at a brisk pace now )

Now i'd like to address something Casey said..

So-called pro-life advocates support torture, support tearing families apart, and support war without end. So-called pro-life advocates routinely call for the murder of liberals and Democrats, doctors and researchers, scientists and anti-war advocates.

When it comes to the Rightwing "pro-life" movement, life apparently begins at conception... and ends at birth.

Posted by: CaseyL

You aren't really serious about this are you?
I was thinking maybe you were just exaggerating to make some kind of point..although, bringing anti-war views into a abortion debate seems alittle wierd..
You know this is a very complex issue that I tread lightly upon..I've known a few woman that have had this procedure and it isn't like maryrose characterized it as laziness or convienence. Many social issues played a part in a very difficult and life changing action. Maybe it's just easier to discuss this if we call or characterize each side of the debate as some sort of monsters of the left or right wing zealots.
I know it's impossible to seperate the medical discussion from the political discussion from the morale discussion in this thread and in life in general.
What we can't do here is discuss the granularity of the case by case situation each woman finds herself facing and the complexities within. And because we can't see that granularity i find myself in the position of believing it is each womans right to determine the fate of her fetus..
yes, some will abuse or kill or abort if you will for a stupid selfish reason..
But being torn between the morality of the choice and the gov't making that choice for her..Damn, i can see both points in some situations.. I must err on the side of the mother and an individual.. In this case, Gov't regulations must take a back seat to the mother..
I know many of you feel strongly that I am wrong..But it's my view.

[Sue]

although, bringing anti-war views into a abortion debate seems alittle wierd..

Now that you mention it, I brought abortion into a death penalty debate one time. In order to make liberals feel better about the death penalty of 17 years olds, call it late term abortions. And I was only half joking.

[Sue]

::oops::

[Ralph L]

For decades, the government has practiced reverse eugenics: subsidizing the birth of children to the reckless, the stupid, or the unmarriagable (ugly or bitchy), and the kind of men they attract (also undesirable as parents/gene donars), in addition to the unlucky. It isn't surprising that some people want to counteract that, since stopping all the subsidies is impossible, to say nothing of reducing the state apparatus that controls them in every other way. Oddly, the abortion-on-demand advocates are usually part of that apparatus. They hit the gas pedal and stand on the brake simultaneously.

[Appalled Moderate]

Ranger:

1. The decision to have a child should actually be a decision, not an accident, even if the accident is the result of laziness, sleaziness, or alcohol abuse. I believe the mother has a right to fairly consider that decision, based on the input of the father, the beliefs of the mother. The mother should have a reasonable time to consider the situation and act. The mother is denied that right -- to the detriment of herself and the future child's life -- if that ability to decide is denied her. Now, once you get past the first trimester, that period of decision seems to have past.

Like a majority of Americans, I have no real problem with parental notification and waiting periods. The importance of the decision is such that it is best if it is considered, and that minors be forced to address these issues with their parents.

Note that I do not consider fetal life here. I don't really think of that as the first consideration in the first three months in the womb. Is it life before the first, second or third trimester? I really don't know. Legally, though, I don't think you have a person until birth, and I think that is a more appropriate place to draw the line.

Feeling as I do, it should come as no surprise that I tend to dismiss your semantical juggling of homicide and murder. Both of those terms have equal emotional weight and use of the terms is designed to shift the terms of the debate to your side. As a matter of fact, you admit in your posting that this is precisely your object. So, excuse me for not playing.

2. I would really prefer the repeal of Roe V. Wade so that the political system would be alowed to work this issue once and for all. Roe is the sort of judicial reults-based grandstanding that has allowed this issue to fester rather than be settled.

3. When I say abortion is a muddle -- I mean it. there is no perfect answer to it that does not result in someone aborting their child for a crappy reason, or someone not getting an abortion that fairness dictates they should have been able to receive. Hence, the question with fathers is tough. But then, the reality is that the father might skip when the going gets tough, and the father isn't the one who runs the discomforts and risks of pregnancy. So I feel more comfortable giving the decision to the mother than I do forcing a spouse to get a husband's or father's consent.

[Ralph L]

Sue's Modest Proposal: the Post-Natal Abortion. Reassert parental authority! Keep those teenagers in line!

[Ralph L]

Appalled, curious that you used "mother" and "father" in your first paragraph. That gives the game away. You mean "womyn" and "sperm donor/rapist/seducer".

[PeterUK]

Perhaps those seeking abortions for reasons on choice should see the Second">http://www.emmasdiary.co.uk/second_trimester/images/17weeks.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.emmasdiary.co.uk/second_trimester/medical1.html&h=270&w=200&sz=6&hl=en&start=20&um=1&tbnid=YiAFvCmdnhDTEM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dscan%2Bof%2Bsecond%2Btrimester%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGFB,GGFB:2006-38,GGFB:en%26sa%3DN">Second Trimester scan
Is it abortion or pre-birth euthanasia?

[HoosierHoops]

For decades, the government has practiced reverse eugenics: subsidizing the birth of children to the reckless, the stupid, or the unmarriagable (ugly or bitchy), and the kind of men they attract (also undesirable as parents/gene donars),

I didn't know our tax dollars went to finance sex between the 'stupid','bitchy' and 'undesirable'
what program is that called?
Free Beer night?

[Appalled Moderate]

PUK:

Perhaps they should, and make their decision accordingly. They'd likelier be happy with it than with a decsion that the state compelled.

[Bostonian]

A former liberal myself, I always supported the "right to choose." It was the first consideration in any election, for nearly two decades. It was absolutely reflexive: never ever vote for anyone who would take away this "right."

I have become a little more open-minded since those days, both about the political process (Roe was very undemocratic) and about life itself (I no longer think I know enough to take chances with a human life).

So it is with great interest that I read the comments above by the self-styled "Appalled Moderate."

AM has ignored Ranger's entire argument about the uncertainty of when life begins, substituting for it his or her own conviction that we need to draw the line only at birth. There is simply no discussion of the uncertainty involved.

Or perhaps AM doesn't think it much matters if you accidentally kill someone who could be considered living. This is breathtakingly callous, is it not?

***
But the amazing part (to me) is that people like "Appalled Moderate" think that their point of view is actually moderate.

I don't have the data handy, but opinion polls have shown steady support for limited access to abortion, for decades--but AFAIK, the majority has never favored abortion on demand up until birth, as "Appalled Moderate" thinks is appropriate.

[maryerose]

AM:
You really don't believe that the fetus is a human being until birth? Have you ever witnessed an ultrasound? That's a living person inside the uterus. I know I carried and delivered two children naturally. This is science I'm talking here not morality.Accepting responsibility is the missing ingredient here.

[MikeS]

The decision to abort a pregnancy is usually made by breathtakingly young girls or women who are under duress.

The eugenics and stem cell harvesting decisions will be made by grownups.