Judge Tosses Anti Abortion Bill Without a Hearing
Just because a fetus has a heartbeat a six weeks does not mean it is a "human being."
That was what an Iowa State Judge correctly ruled without holding a hearing. Last year the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Iowa women have a right under the Iowa Constitution to abortions. That is why the Judge found the "heartbeat" bill passed by the Iowa Legislature and signed by its Governor without enough merit to bother holding a hearing. It goes without saying court time cannot be used up with ridiculous matters while serious matters await.
The "heart beat" gambit is just another of the endless attempts by anti abortion zealots to claim a human life begins sometime before its birth. Under current U.S. law birth is the beginning. Some factions of Christianity, including Catholics, have in their dogma that a human life exists at the moment of conception. That is, one fertilized cell is a "human being."
After realizing the odd notion that one fertilized cell is a human being does not fly with most people, especially the Supreme Court, anti abortion zealots began test marketing other notions. They include the moment at which the fetus supposedly recognizes its mother's voice, has fingers, feels pain, DNA and on and on. The latest is the heart beat gambit.
The ability to market these claims has been unsuccessful. The Iowa Supreme Court last year went out of its way to say in effect, "Quit bringing these odd ideas about when a human being's life begins to court without a solution addressing the rights of women. It is unconstitutional to deny women the health care they rightfully can obtain."
The U.S. Supreme Court seldom overrules issues involving State Constitutions.
As your friend Noah recently wrote, Yada, yada, yada. one becomes a human being when one is born. heartbeat doesn't count, DNA doesn't count, yada, yada, yada. If nothing else counts, why, then, does the short trip down the birth canal transform a non-human entity into a human entity? Seems to me that that assertion requires a bit of explanation, an explanation that goes beyond considerations other than yada, yada, yada. So once again, please explain the philosophical, biological, legal, sociological reasoning that undergirds your dogmatic assertions. What would you say, if I were to say that one is not a human being until about two years post birth? When "reason" and language begin to kick in? Or if one ceases to be a human being when the ability to reason is lost (as in dementia or coma). Or when the cost of one's care exceeds one's quality of life value? I know, of course, that I am not likely to get a satisfactory response to queries such as these. But in any rational and real world one would expect to get more than a smug dismissal of the serious arguments involved. Something more than yada, yada, yada.
ReplyDeleteI've decided to let www.theskrive.com be a cesspool of Jon Lindgren articles. I pulled all of my content off theSkrive.com. Feel free to visit my new, uncensored, unedited home on the blogosphere at https://mattnoahfargo.wordpress.com/. TheSkrive really never worked as the Forum couldn't find its fingers at the end of their hands if they had a map. In fact, I don't think the search engines even found theSkrive! It must be part of the dark web. For its part, the Forum seems to have let one lonely staffer create it and then they deep-6-ed the thing. The lonely staffer took her job too seriously and yanked one of my articles down after Jon complained. Lesson learned.
DeleteJon still hasn't learned his lesson about moderation. My comments are "under moderation" by the great and powerful JL.
DeleteYada, yada, yada is, of course, what anti abortion zealots do when they come up with their continue definitions of when a human being starts. There is a new one every year. Even your own question, "Tell us when you think life begins?" is another yada, yada. I've been asked, or better, it has been demanded, to state my position on the moment a human being begins. The answer is the definition of when a human being begins is when that definition works. There are societies where a baby is not considered human until 2 years. It is then given a name. The reason for this is very high infant mortality. So many babies die the 2 year rule is a way to emotionally deal with these deaths. A two year rule works for that society. In our case, the "moment of conception" takes so many rights away from women it will not work. Simply impossible. Currently, our law is that a life begins at birth. That works. Maybe there is some other law that would work If you want to change it, go for it.
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say that "human beingness" is not an intrinsic attribute of the creature homo sapiens. It all depends on "what works". And who I might ask, makes the great "what works" call?. The most powerful perhaps? The likes of Hitler, Stalin, et al? Peter Singer? The old slave holders at least conceded that slaves were human beings: slaves just didn't have any rights that American law was obliged to recognize (as in Dred Scott).
ReplyDelete"What works" is what is important. What an invisible god tells you is not important. Other invisible gods tell others something different, so what the god tells you is of no interest. Now, if a society makes choices or believes something self destructive, it dies. "What works" is far more important than whatever you god whispered to you. Apparently, you believe an invisible god whispered things to ancient goat herders. There were all kinds of gods telling people different things. Why do you continue to believe your god is the only one doing its mischief?
DeleteAs usual, you and I are arguing past one another. You say that there is no God, a god to set our moral standards. From which it follows that it is up to a society or an individual at any given point in time to set the standards, basing them on some notion of "what works" or whatever. From which it further follows that morals are social/individual creations, meaning that they are mostly arbitrary, an exercise of collective or individual will. Q.E.D. Now, of course, one could go the Way of Aristotle (e.g. the classical natural law tradition), grounding our morality in our nature as rational beings. Or one could go in what is sometimes characterized as the Way of Nietzsche, the way of arbitrariness and power, the way in which your remarks suggest that you are going. In any case, any attempt to ground morality on the "whatever works" standard ultimately leaves you with an ungrounded morality, a dangerously ambiguous "situational," relativistic morality. Seems to me, then, that is the moral reality that an atheist has to live with (while somehow claiming to live by some "higher" moral code.
ReplyDelete"any attempt to ground morality on the 'whatever works' standard leaves you with an ungrounded morality..."
ReplyDeleteThat statement is self contradictory. What works is a grounding. It is a standard. It is a measure of soundness. Arbitrary is using the opinions of ancient goat herders. I can't think of anything more arbitrary than the opinions of ancient goat herders. If you took several moral standards, pasted them on a dart board and picked the one the dart hit that would be your version of how to choose a moral standard. It is also the version used by Christianity.