On the thought experiment. The intention of abortion (chemical or invasive) is to terminate the child. That is the desired end result. The customer would not be very happy if the child were to be alive at the end of the procedure. The intention of the man is not to terminate the violinist.
One is active and intentional; the other passive. The man could have prevented a death, but choose not to continue act. Even the idea of silence gives consent was never very persuasive to me.
if you don't want abortion to be constitutional then it add an amendment saying that it's unconstitutional. i'd cut the violinist loose unless i was getting paid. PAID! sorry but i'm a jerk and i'm poor.
I'm not a fan of the violinist argument. I think it's more important to focus on the rights of an individual over their own body, but the war on drugs really detracts from that.
Abortion is most definitely the killing of a full human being already present at the moment of conception. There is no debate. The only question is what kind of society would systematically sanction the deliberate obfuscation of the known science to assist in the convenience culture of western society? Why are we in this mess?
Read 'The Attempted Murder of God:Hidden Science You Really Need To Know'
Actually it most definitely is not,which is WHY the abortion debate is going so strong.
I think your camp thinks that the rest of us secretly see zygotes are babies too, and are lying about it: We do not. There is indeed a difference between the developmental stage of a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus (this is why they have different names!)
YOU see a zygote equal to a grown human. To some it's only after quickening,after sentience kicks in, or even birth. That's why there IS a debate.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States...." -- you're trying to tell me that that sentence defines (or even implies) a person to be someone who must first be born?
Was this type of "logic" crucial to R v W? What a F-ing cop-out.
As I noted in the video, 'person' within the language of meaning of the 14th Amendment refers at least to someone who has been born. This, of course, excludes a fetus. And, yes, this was an aspect of Roe v. Wade. How is that a cop out?
The inclusion of "born" (XIV sec 1) is a prerequisite for Citizenship, that's obvious. However, one cannot infer, from this wording, that being unborn precludes personhood. The cop-out is to ignore the ethics of abortion by declaring the fetus a non-person. Consider the charge of double homocide (pregnant women) for clarificaton: here, the fetus is considered a person.
The Court didn't "declar[e] the fetus a non-person." What it said was that there was no pre-natal application of the term 'person' within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment, which was the relevant constitutional provision in Roe v. Wade.
"Consider the charge of double homicide (pregnant women) for clarification: here the fetus is considered a person."
As you no doubt know, such statutes explicitly exclude abortion from their reach.
That's just a bunch of fancy language which in effect says that the court does not consider the fetus a person. Or, if you prefer, "person" cannot be applied to the pre-natal human being. Its the same thing.
Are you claiming the court does consider the fetus a person?
"That's just a bunch of fancy language which in effect says that the court does not consider the fetus a person."
The Court is there to interpret the law, not to be philosophers, physicians, or anything other than judges.
"Are you claiming that the court does consider the fetus a person?"
I have no idea what the justices' personal opinions are. I can tell you is that as a matter of constitutional law the fetus is not a person within the meaning and language of the 14th Amendment.
@jdcremin "one cannot infer, from this wording, that being unborn precludes personhood." Fyi, the constitution CLEARLY claims 'All persons BORN...'. Hence being unborn precludes CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION even if they ARE a 'person'.
"The cop-out is to ignore the ethics" Fyi, the law is not concerned with the ethics.
"Consider the charge of double homocide (pregnant women) for clarificaton: here, the fetus is considered a person." *facepalm*
The ethical dilemma equating man-violinist and mother-fetus:
The mother created the fetus, that's one big difference. Its not as if the fetus crawled into her uterus and embedded itself as the violinist basically did. So if that analogy was supposed to throw me, you failed.
An atheist who thinks abortion is murder and hence immoral.
And finally, I disagree. Though you didn't state your opinion, rather than the masses, on whether it be immoral to unplug the violinist. I say yes; it is immoral.
Morality is an odd concept. Like a stick with two ends, Good, Bad. Seems simple. But we all gauge different things at different degrees. So the gauger is a veriable, as is what is being tested.
I also advice against abortion. For prevention only.
When I told the story of the violinist to my fiancé she had the same reply as I did which would be yes you have the right to disconnect however you also had the obligation to complete the situation that you put yourself in, however one got there, aside from rape and molestation in the case of abortion. I added, not only that but one would be shunned by society for this action. This is how I feel about abortion and she agreed.I sometimes get the feeling that abortion is looked at as blasé.
continued- Now who are we to say to a fetus, listen I understand that this is your ONLY chance in the whole history of the universe, ( billions and billions of years), to come into this world and experience conciousness. I understand that to have made it this far, ( a fetus ) you have already overcome unimaginable odds. We know all this but sorry, right now it would be a pain in the ass for us to allow you to be born so bye, bye. Better luck in the next big bang !!!
how on earth is that an argument in opposition to abortion? all you made was one long concorde fallacy...
besides, if it were legalized do you really think women wouldn't find alternative means to having abortions? means that would in turn be far more hazardous to the well being of the mother. allowing the freedom to choose, is about accepting the reality of the situation, regardless of your subjective moral view. it insures that those who are going to do it anyway, at least have it done safely.
continued- If your mother had had a headache on the night that you were concieved, causing your parents to put off their lovemaking untill the following day, it is very very very probable that someone other than the person you know as yourself would be the product. Not to mention that due to a woman's sensitive reproductive cycles it is possible that no conception at all would transpire. So you see, we are all very, very, very lucky to have been born.
I am totally against abortion. Let me assure you that I am a atheist just like yourself. I have absolutley no need for any religion or any god in my life so my opinions are not motivated by such primitive thoughts. My views are always based on science, reason, logic etc. I believe that abortion is wrong and here is why- First of all, the only way for a person to come into this world is for the genetic material of it's parents to combine.
God orders children/fetus killed: Moses was angry with the officers of the army who returned from battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Num 31:14-18]
About the sodomy, yeah I find it quite strange that many hetor-males are so against it, and I always tell them that "You know sodomy includes oral?" Technically its pretty much anything other than hetro vaginal intercourse. What a limit to put on such a fun past-time!
I find it odd that people thought it would be ok to unplug the violinist in the though experiment mentioned in the video. The violinist is an adult with an established life who can experience pain, fear, etc. An unborn fetus in the early weeks of pregnancy does not have these capabilities. Why do so many people choose the life of a blastocyst/fetus/embryo over the life of an already living, breathing, thinking human being?
I was just wondering how the segment of people who think abortion is unethical reconcile seemingly opposite views in situations such as the violinist thought experiment and other quandaries, like the whether the death penalty should remain legal. Although I suppose people could argue that men and women who find themselves on death row deserve their punishment due to a life of crime/murder, the violinist did not find himself in the situation presented in the thought experiment by committing
Sorry if I misunderstood. (If I understood correctly most people found it morally acceptable to unplug the violinist, but when later questioned about abortion some people who thought it was ethical to end the violinists life did not find it ethical to terminate a pregnancy.) I was just wondering how the segment of folks who hold seemingly contradictory viewpoints when it comes to situations such as those presented in the thought experiment reconcile those contradictory beliefs.
Ironically, I support abortion as necessary evil, but I am mystified as to the overwhelming majority of people saying they agree the Violinist-Scenario is morally acceptable. Namely I think this because the Violinist is a fully formed human and the fetus (hell the embryo) is not even capable of conscious thought and emotion.
Judith Thompson's thought experiment seems invalid because the man who "wakes up to find..." has done nothing to cause this unexpected responsibility. However, pregnancy is a direct consequence of one's decision to have sex. By using the thought experiment, it seems we have removed an important factor used to make the decision to continue a pregnancy: personal responsibility based on one's actions. In the experiment, there is certainly less responsibility for the blood recipient, perhaps none.
The reason that the 14th amendment uses the word "born" rather than "conceived" is because birth records are easily obtainable; if you're born here, there's record of it that can be verified. We don't have "conception" records as such, and even if we did, a child conceived by American parents vacationing in, say, Italy, is still an American child. It's an absolute abomination of justice that such practical common sense would be used to justify the human rights violation that is abortion.
On what basis do you claim the reason 'born' is used in the 14th Amendment was because birth records "are easily obtainable" while "conception records" don't exist? Or are you just making this up?
The 14th Amendment neither expands, nor expounds upon, the "Citizenship" defined at A1 S2 C2. Nor does it do so for the "privileges and immunities" clause at A4 S2 C1. Nor does does it so for "equal protection" as provided for by the 5th Amendment ! In fact, quite the contrary. It has drawn a line of bifurcation in our Constitution. And now (since 1868) there are in fact two venues and jurisdictions the Constitution presides over; i.e. everything before the 14th Amendment, and everything after !
Yeah, I know. But I already understood that even before you felt it necessary to clarify. However, the question is and remains, what say you otherwise to both my initial written response, as well as, and especially to, my subsequent video response ?
I haven't watched your video response yet. As for your written comment, I said what I had to say. I'll watch your video response later and let you know if I have anything to say about it. Thanks.
Such is acceptable regarding my video response. However, such is not regarding my written response. Whereas, you absolutely did not address not a single word I wrote ! One would think such would be more clear; especially to someone who, as a teacher of constitutional law, should be much more comprehending than a mere layman such as myself.
As a teacher, do you have any intention of honoring your high moral and ethical obligation to answer any and all sincere inquires as truthfully as you can according to your best scholarly knowledge and wisdom ? Or do you simply plan to brush me off and "laugh out loud" at me ?
JustAboutMyPolitics, I've commented on your comment already. If you don't like my comment, that's fine. If you continue to carry on like this, I won't laugh or brush you off. I'll simply block you because you will have become unduly annoying. I trust that's clear enough for you. I assure you it's sincere and truthful.
Dear Professor, with all due respect, your answer to my written response was 100% off point. And therefore no answer at all. If you can sleep well at night with a clear conscience believing such a flippant and off point answer is sufficient, well then that might be acceptable to you, and even to some others. But I assure you sir, it is not for me ! Nor would I suspect for anyone else who holds to and values the truth as much as I do.
And if after having spoken my mind so honestly and poignantly, you find it acceptable to block me, well then that may not say anything to some, but it would certainly speak volumes to me as to the specific integrity (or should I say lack thereof) of your personal character.
I've watched your video. It demonstrates an astounding ignorance of American constitutional law, including, without any limitation, ignorance of: the supremacy of federal law that has been a fundamental aspect of our system of government from the start (Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause); the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 18), which gives Congress flexibility with respect to its enumerated powers. You haven't a clue what you're talking about, not a clue.
I'm not surprised such would be your response to my video. In fact, I expected it. I would therefore submit to you sir that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. Because neither our founding fathers, nor the Constitution they left behind for "We the People" to preserve, was ever intended to venerate the Federal government as supreme over any one of the State's; but rather only over such matters that had been specifically delegated to it.
And if you deny the absolute truth of that statement, well then sir you are severely deceived, undoubtedly behind recovery. Then again, I should have likewise expected as much from someone who has already denied God in his heart. And I speak not to any religion. But specifically to the fact that the Declaration of Independence declares our rights are inherent from our Creator and not from any constitutional document or government.
Supreme means supreme. If juries can reject laws not made in conformity with the Bill of Rights then it cannot be true that "This Constitution, and the laws...shall be the supreme law of the land." The Supremacy Clause would had to have been removed for the "passage" of the Bill of Rights in the first place.
How 'bout Senator Wayne Stump from Arizona ? Please search Google for "Wayne Stump Explains 14th Amendment Citizenship" and read what a much more learned man than either you or me Professor has to say about the nature and character of such so called "citizenship" (lowercase) and then please tell me Professor "is Senator Stump also astoundingly ignorant without a clue" ?
1st, I'm not familiar with the former state senator's educational background. Are you? If so, you may know that he is "much more learned" than you, but you haven't a clue whether he is even a drop more learned than I. 2nd, even learned people can be wrong.
3rd, what I said was that you were astoundingly ignorant of American constitutional law. It was not, as you've falsely presented it here, a general statement about your knowledge. Thanks.
How 'bout you Professor ? (how arrogant you sound) Can you ever be wrong ? You should be a professor of Ostrichology. Because as a life long student of human nature, I can say with confident presumption you obviously have no intention of reading Senator Stump's paper. Nor do I believe you would ever admit your take on the 14th Amendment is the exact opposite of the truth if you did. However, hopefully others will search out Senator Stump's paper and learn for themselves what a hypocrite you are.
If all you're going to do is come to this page to toss out ad hominem nonsense, I'm going to put you out of your misery by blocking you because it's just a waste of my time. Only a day or so ago you were private messaging me to ask if I would read and "grade" various papers you've written. Bottom line, your little love/hate relationship with me is creepy. So if you cannot control yourself, I'll take the reigns. The choice is yours. If you have nothing of substance to offer, don't come here.
Do what you feel is best Professor. But please know that I neither like nor hate you. And the only reason I asked you to grade my papers, was not so I could hear what you thought about them (I already knew what your take would be before I ever contacted you) but rather so you could be exposed to the real truth about the 14th Amendment; and maybe shed some light on your dark atheistic, liberal, and just plain false beliefs you errantly teach to others. They are the one's I care about the most.
"...maybe shed some light on your dark atheistic, liberal, and just plain false beliefs you errantly teach to others. They are the one's I care about the most."
LOL. Your flair for melodrama is duly noted. Go "save" the world on someone else's channel, JustAboutMyPolitics. Have a good life.
The disturbing thing is, religious people often do not give a damn about the women who have been raped... I never thought I would hear somebody so thoughtlessly accuse them of wrongdoing in that position, but I was wrong when I heard a Christian state: "You know, some people would just LOVE to have a baby"... and so thoughtlessly ignore the young teenage women who would not be able to afford the child or anything... I mean... what if the woman has no money? Just let the child starve to death?
I got a good laugh out of your mention of the students reactions to the sodomy laws
Something is terribly ironic that such a high percentage of americans are for applying the bible to restrict homosexuals, but when the bible is applied to all aspects of sodomy, they suddenly don't think the bible is such a great idea anymore :)
You mentioned that the Casey decision backed up Roe, but didn't it also add a lot of leeway to add restrictions to it also?
I admit I haven't been paying a lot of attention lately, but there has been so many states passing "questionable" if not outright unconstitutional restrictions
In short, it doesn't look too good in general, considering the disposition of the judges.
"You mentioned that the Casey decision backed up Roe, but didn't it also add a lot of leeway to add restrictions to it also?"
Indeed it did. Casey brought the "undue burden" standard, which provides a far more lenient way to evaluate restrictions than existed prior to Casey. The leading opinion in Casey, by former Justice O'Connor, states that it upholds the "essential holding" of Roe.
I also think it says something that most women get abortions to avoid a lifestyle change. Don't get me wrong, being male, i think males who leave the women they impregnate w/out support are just as bad if not worse than women who get abortions. But killing something that is even.0001% human to avoid a cramp in your lifestyle seems irresponsible and cruel.
I didn't mean anything demeaning by cramp. But the reality is in this day and age, just because you have a baby doesn't mean you have to keep it. Give it up for adoption or take it to a hospital or police station where they will take it, no questions asked. The economic and family hardship argument is null and void here.
The reality of such hardships is undoubtedly difficult, but legalized abortion presents a morally corrupt easy way out to a difficult problem. And I have personally had to face this problem in several ways in my life. Thats why i feel so strongly about it.
Ah, OK. Well, I respect your having to deal with this personally and what that experience has led you to conclude about the matter. That said, I think one has to unpack terms like 'morally corrupt' to bring out and examine what the issues are. This is, as you no doubt know all too well, complicated stuff.
Complicated, certainly. But a solution must be found, and the present one isn't the way. If the money that currently goes to abortion clinics were instead used to fund the adoption agencies, we would be in a better place. The reasons abortion was legalized has a lot to do with it being a feminist women's rights symbol, not because it was necessarily morally or constitutionally correct.
Im all for women's rights, i just don't happen to believe the right to kill your own child is one of them. Watch the "Silent Scream" videos on RoeVWade's Channel to get idea of why i say "kill". Most people dont realize thats what happens to the person inside them. Granted the so called "scream" is a little dramatic, but the message of the videos stay the same.
but theproblem with the whole violinist argument is that the "plugged in" person had no choice. People who get pregnant, with the exceptions of rape and incest, do have a choice., to me, that changes the range and scope of the argument to where it doesn't say a whole lot. That choice to have sex is important.
Don't get lost in the hypothetical Ajsharkmaniac07. A couple can take all of the available precautions against conception before having sex, then have sex, and the woman could still end up pregnant.
I wasn't saying anything about birth control. I was talking about the choice to have sex in the first place. As you say, there is always a chance you may get pregnant even if all precautions are taken, so I say if you can't handle the possibility of getting pregnant, you shouldn't have sex. And if you do, and you get pregnant, you shouldn't take that out on the baby.
One more thing. You asked shanedk "Why would it be better to have abortion as a state issue, in your opinion?" I'd also like to answer this. It wouldn't be better. It's better for abortion to be considered a woman's right on the federal level. Unfortunately, the plain language of the constitution (including the 14th Amendment) doesn't seem to support the notion that it ALREADY IS considered as such, and I don't believe the ends always justify the means in constitutional matters.
Oh, I noticed you did watch shanedk's response. Blackstone's quote is, however, only important in the case that the 14th amendment DOES establish a prenatal application of 'person.' If it did, then the court would have been right in saying that states do not have the right to declare abortion LEGAL. But the court seems to have committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent in their decision.
Ugh. I'm as pro-choice as just about anyone (and more so than most, as I agree with Peter Singer's ideas on doctors being permitted to euthanize severely disabled infants), but at the same time, I'm against Roe v. Wade, and think this is a bunch of embarrassing legal sophistry. Watch the beginning of shanedk's response for a concise explanation as to why. I loved the violinist analogy though.
I hope we can continue this debate (I just so happen to have to get read for a Con Law Midterm myself). Anyways if I don't respond for a while, this sparked my interest. Thanks again for taking the time to put together the video and comments.
A reponse to people who are anti abortion. Which is also taking women's rights away from them. Would gbe: What do you think by all the foster children who are being drugged by the State? I bet my sweet arse they wouldn't even KNOW this!
Ie., they pretend to care som much for an unBORN foetus but care less for UNWANTED children being abused!!!
I was surprised to hear that the majority said is was morally acceptable to unplug the violinist. it seems like murder to me. i don't necessarily extend that to abortion, but it was just my initial reaction.
because the man knowingly causes/allow the violinist to die for no other reason than the man's own convenience. it was wrong of the violin society to do that to the man, but once they did it the violinist's life is in his hands. say someone had left a baby on in the man's trashcan -- he shouldn't just leave the baby there to die because it's convenient or he's angry that someone left it there against the trash can owner's will. it seems like the same question, just a matter of degrees
and this is clever to apply to abortion, because it seems less wrong to me to terminate the experiment right away and more wrong to end it, say, 8 months and 20 days into it. the problem with that analogy tho is that the violinist is unarguably a sentient human being. it really doesn't matter much that he's a great violinist. he could be a terrible fry cook and it'd be the same question.
this reminds me of some ethical study i encountered somewhere with questions about people stuck on railroad tracks, and you flipping switches to divert the train to kill old people instead of young ones, trading lives, shades of grey like that. i can't remember who did the study
Yes, the various trolley problems -- another example of artificial dilemmas designed to get at people's intuitions about morality. Philosopher Philippa Foot is, I believe, the one who came up with those, although Judith Thomson and lots of others have used them, too. You might be interested in Marc Hauser's "Moral Sense Test," which he has been using as part of his research for a while now.
I'd give you the URL here, but the comments section won't take URLs. Google "The Moral Sense Test." It will be the first entry that comes up. By the way, those trolley problems are quite good at bringing into relief, among other things, that people sometimes cannot articulate why they believe X is moral or immoral. Hauser sees this as evidence that moral judgments are often the product of principles not consciously available to us.
thanks for the reference. i agree completely that "that moral judgments are often the product of principles not consciously available to us." i'm tempted to say they're intuitive, but i'm not sure that's correct.
It appears they are. In his book "Moral Minds", Marc Hauser posits that this is the result of human beings having an innate moral faculty akin to the innate linguistic/grammar faculty that Noam Chomsky was the first to posit. The theory is that moral judgments are made pre-reflectively, pre-emotionally, and pre-rationally. For the most part, they are the product of principles not consciously available to us.
There are *some* moral judgments for which people can readily identify principles, but for the most part the judgments come first and the rational and emotional frameworks appear to come later. Hauser argues that moral judgments trigger the rational and emotional bits, contrary to Kant (who had reason as the cause of moral judgments) and Hume (who had emotion as the cause of moral judgments).
In part, Hauser got started with all of this because of John Rawls's observation that our sense of justice cannot be entirely described by reference to "familiar common sense precepts" or "obvious learning principles." Rawls opined that an adequate explanation of moral judgments must "go beyond the norms and standards" with which we're all familiar.
It might not be a nice thing to do, but it still is his decision. I think this analogy misses one crucial point: After the 9 months, the man has no attachment to the violinist at all. He doesn't have to care about this person, who he is living with, etc. I don't think the 9 months are the largest burden, IMO. But, I am a man, so maybe I am wrong. :)
As Thomson originally framed the hypothetical, it was nine *years*. I merely offered a paraphrase of the hypothetical. When one has nine years in mind, it gets at what you're talking about here, Loveisallneed.
faced with nine years it seems a lot less wrong to disconnect from the violinist. nine years is more than an inconvenience, although i'm not sure where between 9 months and 9 years the transition happens
I was also surprised at the results of the violinist question! It felt like negligence of duty to me. He can't morally abandon his post unless he first finds a replacement.
I don't extend those feelings to abortion, though.
I think because of the way the violinist hypothetical was phrased; it was wrong for him to be hooked up without consent, but the violin society did ask permission after the fact, and he agreed.
Thanks very much, DjJani5. (And thanks to Shawn, of course.) This has turned out to be a hot topic in a way I hadn't anticipated. That's a good thing, of course. In any case, I greatly appreciate your feedback.
I wasn't questioning if you were one or not, but was really wondering. How do I know, it could just be a name.
Obviously you are making ad hominem as well, implying that I have never read Roe or the 14th Amendment. You clearly manipulated your quote of the citizenship clause. You cut it off when there was no puncuation. You completely left out the part about citizenship. Clause 1 mearly defines citizenship and that is it.
You seem to be forgetting the 10th Amendment (though good old FDR and his court killed it, thanks to Darby), but you are right, the Constitution does not protect the right to life for a fetus, but not because it isn't a citizen. That is a ridiculous argument, is it not against the law to kill non-citizens? Last time I checked murder is murder, regardless of alienage.
I didn't say anything about citizens, Jersdream. Justice Blackmun, writing for the Roe majority, dealt with the question of personhood. And the specific question was whether the fetus was a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. Clearly, since it's not born, it's not. As Justice Blackmun wrote, there is no prenatal application of 'person' in the 14th Amendment.
Again, I still don't see what your point is that the Constitution does not protect the right to life of a fetus....that doesn't change the fact a state cannot protect that right. Remember the 9th and 10th Amendments? You know the state can expand and give more protections to the people of its state? Obviously you don't believe that because all you can say is "Constitution says no fetus protected".
Of course states may go beyond the protections of the federal constitution. However, when something has been placed beyond the reach of the states, as abortion has, then they may not legislate on the matter. Certainly you understand that.
The claim you make would set dangerous precedent. You claim if the constitution does not protect a particular right (life) for a particular group (fetuses) than the state cannot protect that right for that group? Again, the 14th Amendment does not define personhood. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It mearly says that any person BORN is a citizen.
It does not say that they are entitled to the right to life. I am not making the claim that the Constitution protects fetuses, I am making the claim that the state has the right to do so themselves. The DP Clause says "any person". It does not say "citizen", but only "person". Where does the federal government have the power to tell the state that they cannot define a fetus as a person??
:: sigh :: You must be kidding. I "clearly manipulated" the 14th Amendment?! lol The text of the entire amendment doesn't fit on the screen. Good grief. I manipulated nothing. Now have you read Roe? Do you understand Blackmun's argument vis-a-vis the meaning of 'person' in the context of the 14th Amendment? It seems not.
*sigh*...I do understand it, I am making the argument that he is WRONG. As you previously said, a state can expand protections (but not in this matter since the court did take it out of their hands). My point that this was WRONG and that Blackmun's personhood argument within the context of the 14th is irrelevant. I am arguing that the state should be able to define a person, seperate from the 14th Amendment.
Heh...so basically you are saying since SCOTUS says it, then it is true. Nice to know you support such great precedent that is embedded in anything BUT law.
Actually, no, I'm not saying that at all, Jersdream. There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions with which I disagree, that I believe misinterpreted the Constitution.
Of course, we then arrive again at the issue of what we call a person. Is it a person because it has human biological components? Does that include Only DNA, which would then, perhaps, mean "every sperm is sacred"? Is it that their organs begin to function? Is it that they have thought? What is thought? Is it that they have identity?
Self-identity or imposed identity? If only self (as the issue is with 'fully AI hypothetical beings' and people with Dissociative Identity Disorder,), can a fetus, or even an infant, have self-identity?
JSResponds, you raise interesting points about how to define personhood. One of the most consistent aspects of the abortion debate is that those who oppose abortion being legal tend to define 'person' in a way that includes the human fetus, while those who support abortion being legal tend to define 'person' in a way that excludes the human fetus.
Ultimately, of course, that sort of thing is unproductive. In Roe, Justice Blackmun clearly stated that he and his fellow justices were not competent or empowered to decide such philosophical debates. So the Court stuck with the legal question, i.e., whether the fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment.
I will say that while I understand Blackmun's argument, it does seem that one could also make the case for it meanign that the "person" simply hasn't been "born" yet, but that they're still a person in the womb. And I think what Jersdream Really wants to do is use this definition (Which would require RvW overturned), or Add protection to fetuses via this definition in a state (if that's possible).
The violinist analogy is certainly interesting. I expect that the difference in opinion comes from the social attitudes towards children and the expectations that we place on mothers.
We expect mothers to take care of their children, and the idea that they should be allowed to kill them seems morally repugnant. When you present the two people as complete strangers (as in the violinist analogy), that disappears.
However, this is partly why it isn't a perfect analogy. The mother has created a new life; should she not be responsible for that action? This extra issue of responsibility for one's offspring is something not captured in the violinist analogy.
Another interesting analogy might be that of two conjoined twins. Suppose that one of the twins wants surgery to be separated, but it would mean killing his twin. Is the first twin obligated to act as life support for his brother?
Well, Fragglet, this maps onto the same idea of responsibility. In the conjoined twin hypothetical, the one twin is taking the fate of the other in his or her hands. In the violinist hypothetical, once the man consents to remain plugged in, he has assumed responsibility for the predicatment of the violinist.
Thomson's violinist hypothetical is not meant to be an explicitly complete replication of an abortion dilemma. Rather, it's meant to get at the ways people think about it without engaging them in a discussion about abortion, a discussion that most people have rehearsed many, many times in their lives.
The state's interest seems to be more than compelling, if the people of the state believe that a fetus is a human being. Protecting the right to life of a human being (all though, I do not believe the fetus has reached personhood) if that is the interest of the state and their people should take precedent, even under the strictest of scrutiny.
Anyways, you do bring up very interesting points. Hope you can respond. Nice video though, nice to see somebody has interest in this shit.
All persons born or naturalized, Jersdream. Apparently, you're not connecting to that language. Nor do you understand its relevance vis-a-vis what the Roe majority said would happen if the fetus were determined to be a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. Go inform yourself by reading Roe and the 14th Amendment -- if you've already read them, which seems doubtful, read them again.
That being said, regardless if the fetus is a citizen under the U.S. Constitution, that does not matter. The U.S. Constitution does not define what a human being is, or what person hood is, but rather citizenship. So a fetus is just not a U.S. citizen, now if a particular state wants to grant citizenship to fetuses, then they are well within their right to establish state citizenship laws.
The fetus is not a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment because the 14th Amendment talks only about "persons born." Unless and until that changes, the fetus has no constitutionally protected right to life. That's the law as it is. You may wish it were otherwise, but you should resist the temptation to identify the way the law is with your wish about how it should be. Alas, it seems it is *you* who has equated his/her preferences with an objective analysis of the law.
Finally, you have no reason to question my professional status. I'm not interested in ad hominem, Jersdream, and I won't tolerate it on my channel. So if you'd like to be able to comment here, stick to the substantive stuff, otherwise you can go somewhere else. Thanks.
The violinist hooked to the other man, is clearly a logical fallacy, I don't even know where to start with that....(and I am pro-choice all the way).
But, the 14th Amendment arguments from Roe are weak, thanks to Justice Blackmun. Roe is embedded in Griswold (which was rightly decided, just bad logic), the whole penumbra of rights is ludicrous. It would have been much easier to use the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to make the argument.
On the thought experiment. The intention of abortion (chemical or invasive) is to terminate the child. That is the desired end result. The customer would not be very happy if the child were to be alive at the end of the procedure. The intention of the man is not to terminate the violinist.
One is active and intentional; the other passive. The man could have prevented a death, but choose not to continue act. Even the idea of silence gives consent was never very persuasive to me.
warterra 6 months ago
if you don't want abortion to be constitutional then it add an amendment saying that it's unconstitutional. i'd cut the violinist loose unless i was getting paid. PAID! sorry but i'm a jerk and i'm poor.
dogfight156 6 months ago
So a common reason someone uses is essentially that to have the baby is very inconvenient ???
orangemod 7 months ago
@orangemod That's one reason.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
I'm not a fan of the violinist argument. I think it's more important to focus on the rights of an individual over their own body, but the war on drugs really detracts from that.
CrazyBluePrime 8 months ago
Wait, they answer "yes" to the question regarding the violinist? WTF?
LordZentei 1 year ago
Zygote, embryo, fetus, baby=same person.
A person is a person no matter how small.
The court go it WRONG!
2000yrCatholic 2 years ago
The 14th Amendment talks about those who have been born. The Court must deal with the law as it is, not as it wishes it to be.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Abortion is most definitely the killing of a full human being already present at the moment of conception. There is no debate. The only question is what kind of society would systematically sanction the deliberate obfuscation of the known science to assist in the convenience culture of western society? Why are we in this mess?
Read 'The Attempted Murder of God:Hidden Science You Really Need To Know'
byScrooby 2 years ago
Actually it most definitely is not,which is WHY the abortion debate is going so strong.
I think your camp thinks that the rest of us secretly see zygotes are babies too, and are lying about it: We do not. There is indeed a difference between the developmental stage of a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus (this is why they have different names!)
YOU see a zygote equal to a grown human. To some it's only after quickening,after sentience kicks in, or even birth. That's why there IS a debate.
Kayelle1980 1 year ago
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States...." -- you're trying to tell me that that sentence defines (or even implies) a person to be someone who must first be born?
Was this type of "logic" crucial to R v W? What a F-ing cop-out.
jdcremin 2 years ago
As I noted in the video, 'person' within the language of meaning of the 14th Amendment refers at least to someone who has been born. This, of course, excludes a fetus. And, yes, this was an aspect of Roe v. Wade. How is that a cop out?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The inclusion of "born" (XIV sec 1) is a prerequisite for Citizenship, that's obvious. However, one cannot infer, from this wording, that being unborn precludes personhood. The cop-out is to ignore the ethics of abortion by declaring the fetus a non-person. Consider the charge of double homocide (pregnant women) for clarificaton: here, the fetus is considered a person.
jdcremin 2 years ago
The Court didn't "declar[e] the fetus a non-person." What it said was that there was no pre-natal application of the term 'person' within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment, which was the relevant constitutional provision in Roe v. Wade.
"Consider the charge of double homicide (pregnant women) for clarification: here the fetus is considered a person."
As you no doubt know, such statutes explicitly exclude abortion from their reach.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
That's just a bunch of fancy language which in effect says that the court does not consider the fetus a person. Or, if you prefer, "person" cannot be applied to the pre-natal human being. Its the same thing.
Are you claiming the court does consider the fetus a person?
jdcremin 2 years ago
"That's just a bunch of fancy language which in effect says that the court does not consider the fetus a person."
The Court is there to interpret the law, not to be philosophers, physicians, or anything other than judges.
"Are you claiming that the court does consider the fetus a person?"
I have no idea what the justices' personal opinions are. I can tell you is that as a matter of constitutional law the fetus is not a person within the meaning and language of the 14th Amendment.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@jdcremin "one cannot infer, from this wording, that being unborn precludes personhood." Fyi, the constitution CLEARLY claims 'All persons BORN...'. Hence being unborn precludes CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION even if they ARE a 'person'.
"The cop-out is to ignore the ethics" Fyi, the law is not concerned with the ethics.
"Consider the charge of double homocide (pregnant women) for clarificaton: here, the fetus is considered a person." *facepalm*
onijester56 10 months ago
The ethical dilemma equating man-violinist and mother-fetus:
The mother created the fetus, that's one big difference. Its not as if the fetus crawled into her uterus and embedded itself as the violinist basically did. So if that analogy was supposed to throw me, you failed.
An atheist who thinks abortion is murder and hence immoral.
jdcremin 2 years ago
Youre the best.
hijackn2890 2 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oh, my Elohiym,
So many long videos, this will take me a while.
And finally, I disagree. Though you didn't state your opinion, rather than the masses, on whether it be immoral to unplug the violinist. I say yes; it is immoral.
Morality is an odd concept. Like a stick with two ends, Good, Bad. Seems simple. But we all gauge different things at different degrees. So the gauger is a veriable, as is what is being tested.
I also advice against abortion. For prevention only.
DansLookingGlass 2 years ago
When I told the story of the violinist to my fiancé she had the same reply as I did which would be yes you have the right to disconnect however you also had the obligation to complete the situation that you put yourself in, however one got there, aside from rape and molestation in the case of abortion. I added, not only that but one would be shunned by society for this action. This is how I feel about abortion and she agreed.I sometimes get the feeling that abortion is looked at as blasé.
shaybshay 3 years ago
continued- Now who are we to say to a fetus, listen I understand that this is your ONLY chance in the whole history of the universe, ( billions and billions of years), to come into this world and experience conciousness. I understand that to have made it this far, ( a fetus ) you have already overcome unimaginable odds. We know all this but sorry, right now it would be a pain in the ass for us to allow you to be born so bye, bye. Better luck in the next big bang !!!
highindex 3 years ago
how on earth is that an argument in opposition to abortion? all you made was one long concorde fallacy...
besides, if it were legalized do you really think women wouldn't find alternative means to having abortions? means that would in turn be far more hazardous to the well being of the mother. allowing the freedom to choose, is about accepting the reality of the situation, regardless of your subjective moral view. it insures that those who are going to do it anyway, at least have it done safely.
sheepwshotguns 3 years ago
"if it were legalized do you really think women wouldn't find alternative means to having abortions?"
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean I believe people will stop breaking the law.
"means that would in turn be far more hazardous to the well being of the mother."
To that I suggest the mother not choose a hazardous method that will not only endanger her own life but the innocent unborn child's life as well.
"at least have it done safely."
No such thing as 'safe' murder.
SinistaPlot 2 years ago
1. exactly
2. precisely
3. better 1 dead than 2, and your interpretation of what defines murder isn't universally accepted.
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago
'better 1 dead than 2'
Better none dead.
"and your interpretation of what defines murder isn't universally accepted."
Oh please. Spare me.
SinistaPlot 2 years ago
"Oh please. Spare me."
will do.
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago
love your logical arguments!!
dragonpat666 2 years ago
continued- If your mother had had a headache on the night that you were concieved, causing your parents to put off their lovemaking untill the following day, it is very very very probable that someone other than the person you know as yourself would be the product. Not to mention that due to a woman's sensitive reproductive cycles it is possible that no conception at all would transpire. So you see, we are all very, very, very lucky to have been born.
highindex 3 years ago
I am totally against abortion. Let me assure you that I am a atheist just like yourself. I have absolutley no need for any religion or any god in my life so my opinions are not motivated by such primitive thoughts. My views are always based on science, reason, logic etc. I believe that abortion is wrong and here is why- First of all, the only way for a person to come into this world is for the genetic material of it's parents to combine.
highindex 3 years ago
i cant help but feel that if a fetus has a heart and u stop that heart from beating- then u are killing. its that simple.
oakfire12 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God orders children/fetus killed: Moses was angry with the officers of the army who returned from battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Num 31:14-18]
exodus21v20 3 years ago
About the sodomy, yeah I find it quite strange that many hetor-males are so against it, and I always tell them that "You know sodomy includes oral?" Technically its pretty much anything other than hetro vaginal intercourse. What a limit to put on such a fun past-time!
BayerLexan 3 years ago
I find it odd that people thought it would be ok to unplug the violinist in the though experiment mentioned in the video. The violinist is an adult with an established life who can experience pain, fear, etc. An unborn fetus in the early weeks of pregnancy does not have these capabilities. Why do so many people choose the life of a blastocyst/fetus/embryo over the life of an already living, breathing, thinking human being?
guildpactminish 3 years ago
Well, as I understand it, the thought experiment isn't phrased as a choice between a born human being and a fetus.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I was just wondering how the segment of people who think abortion is unethical reconcile seemingly opposite views in situations such as the violinist thought experiment and other quandaries, like the whether the death penalty should remain legal. Although I suppose people could argue that men and women who find themselves on death row deserve their punishment due to a life of crime/murder, the violinist did not find himself in the situation presented in the thought experiment by committing
guildpactminish 3 years ago
any crimes.
Sorry if I misunderstood. (If I understood correctly most people found it morally acceptable to unplug the violinist, but when later questioned about abortion some people who thought it was ethical to end the violinists life did not find it ethical to terminate a pregnancy.) I was just wondering how the segment of folks who hold seemingly contradictory viewpoints when it comes to situations such as those presented in the thought experiment reconcile those contradictory beliefs.
guildpactminish 3 years ago
Ironically, I support abortion as necessary evil, but I am mystified as to the overwhelming majority of people saying they agree the Violinist-Scenario is morally acceptable. Namely I think this because the Violinist is a fully formed human and the fetus (hell the embryo) is not even capable of conscious thought and emotion.
grungefreak10 3 years ago
Judith Thompson's thought experiment seems invalid because the man who "wakes up to find..." has done nothing to cause this unexpected responsibility. However, pregnancy is a direct consequence of one's decision to have sex. By using the thought experiment, it seems we have removed an important factor used to make the decision to continue a pregnancy: personal responsibility based on one's actions. In the experiment, there is certainly less responsibility for the blood recipient, perhaps none.
HealthySkeptic 4 years ago
The reason that the 14th amendment uses the word "born" rather than "conceived" is because birth records are easily obtainable; if you're born here, there's record of it that can be verified. We don't have "conception" records as such, and even if we did, a child conceived by American parents vacationing in, say, Italy, is still an American child. It's an absolute abomination of justice that such practical common sense would be used to justify the human rights violation that is abortion.
mrsthomas 4 years ago
On what basis do you claim the reason 'born' is used in the 14th Amendment was because birth records "are easily obtainable" while "conception records" don't exist? Or are you just making this up?
ProfMTH 4 years ago
yeah the fetus is a person at teh moment the sperm enter the egg live start there, so no more talk.
chickenegge 4 years ago
"the fetus is a person at teh moment the sperm enter the egg"
Not legally, it isn't.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
The 14th Amendment neither expands, nor expounds upon, the "Citizenship" defined at A1 S2 C2. Nor does it do so for the "privileges and immunities" clause at A4 S2 C1. Nor does does it so for "equal protection" as provided for by the 5th Amendment ! In fact, quite the contrary. It has drawn a line of bifurcation in our Constitution. And now (since 1868) there are in fact two venues and jurisdictions the Constitution presides over; i.e. everything before the 14th Amendment, and everything after !
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
My point about the 14th Amendment was that by its terms it applies only to those who have been born.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Yeah, I know. But I already understood that even before you felt it necessary to clarify. However, the question is and remains, what say you otherwise to both my initial written response, as well as, and especially to, my subsequent video response ?
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
I haven't watched your video response yet. As for your written comment, I said what I had to say. I'll watch your video response later and let you know if I have anything to say about it. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Such is acceptable regarding my video response. However, such is not regarding my written response. Whereas, you absolutely did not address not a single word I wrote ! One would think such would be more clear; especially to someone who, as a teacher of constitutional law, should be much more comprehending than a mere layman such as myself.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
lol
ProfMTH 4 years ago
As a teacher, do you have any intention of honoring your high moral and ethical obligation to answer any and all sincere inquires as truthfully as you can according to your best scholarly knowledge and wisdom ? Or do you simply plan to brush me off and "laugh out loud" at me ?
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
JustAboutMyPolitics, I've commented on your comment already. If you don't like my comment, that's fine. If you continue to carry on like this, I won't laugh or brush you off. I'll simply block you because you will have become unduly annoying. I trust that's clear enough for you. I assure you it's sincere and truthful.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Dear Professor, with all due respect, your answer to my written response was 100% off point. And therefore no answer at all. If you can sleep well at night with a clear conscience believing such a flippant and off point answer is sufficient, well then that might be acceptable to you, and even to some others. But I assure you sir, it is not for me ! Nor would I suspect for anyone else who holds to and values the truth as much as I do.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
And if after having spoken my mind so honestly and poignantly, you find it acceptable to block me, well then that may not say anything to some, but it would certainly speak volumes to me as to the specific integrity (or should I say lack thereof) of your personal character.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
I've watched your video. It demonstrates an astounding ignorance of American constitutional law, including, without any limitation, ignorance of: the supremacy of federal law that has been a fundamental aspect of our system of government from the start (Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause); the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 18), which gives Congress flexibility with respect to its enumerated powers. You haven't a clue what you're talking about, not a clue.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I'm not surprised such would be your response to my video. In fact, I expected it. I would therefore submit to you sir that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. Because neither our founding fathers, nor the Constitution they left behind for "We the People" to preserve, was ever intended to venerate the Federal government as supreme over any one of the State's; but rather only over such matters that had been specifically delegated to it.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
And if you deny the absolute truth of that statement, well then sir you are severely deceived, undoubtedly behind recovery. Then again, I should have likewise expected as much from someone who has already denied God in his heart. And I speak not to any religion. But specifically to the fact that the Declaration of Independence declares our rights are inherent from our Creator and not from any constitutional document or government.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
Oops ! I meant to say "beyond" recovery; and not "behind" it.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
Supreme means supreme. If juries can reject laws not made in conformity with the Bill of Rights then it cannot be true that "This Constitution, and the laws...shall be the supreme law of the land." The Supremacy Clause would had to have been removed for the "passage" of the Bill of Rights in the first place.
neothomist1275 4 years ago
Nonsense.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
C'mon Prof, you have to give me more than that! And, yes, I am intimating that Madison and Co. pulled a slick one.
neothomist1275 4 years ago
"C'mon Prof, you have to give me more than that!"
No, I don't. :-)
ProfMTH 4 years ago
How 'bout Senator Wayne Stump from Arizona ? Please search Google for "Wayne Stump Explains 14th Amendment Citizenship" and read what a much more learned man than either you or me Professor has to say about the nature and character of such so called "citizenship" (lowercase) and then please tell me Professor "is Senator Stump also astoundingly ignorant without a clue" ?
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
1st, I'm not familiar with the former state senator's educational background. Are you? If so, you may know that he is "much more learned" than you, but you haven't a clue whether he is even a drop more learned than I. 2nd, even learned people can be wrong.
3rd, what I said was that you were astoundingly ignorant of American constitutional law. It was not, as you've falsely presented it here, a general statement about your knowledge. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
How 'bout you Professor ? (how arrogant you sound) Can you ever be wrong ? You should be a professor of Ostrichology. Because as a life long student of human nature, I can say with confident presumption you obviously have no intention of reading Senator Stump's paper. Nor do I believe you would ever admit your take on the 14th Amendment is the exact opposite of the truth if you did. However, hopefully others will search out Senator Stump's paper and learn for themselves what a hypocrite you are.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
LOL! You are as good at reading people as you are at constitutional law -- that is, horrible. Keep your day job.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Presumption affirmed. And I pray that someday you lose yours.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
If all you're going to do is come to this page to toss out ad hominem nonsense, I'm going to put you out of your misery by blocking you because it's just a waste of my time. Only a day or so ago you were private messaging me to ask if I would read and "grade" various papers you've written. Bottom line, your little love/hate relationship with me is creepy. So if you cannot control yourself, I'll take the reigns. The choice is yours. If you have nothing of substance to offer, don't come here.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Do what you feel is best Professor. But please know that I neither like nor hate you. And the only reason I asked you to grade my papers, was not so I could hear what you thought about them (I already knew what your take would be before I ever contacted you) but rather so you could be exposed to the real truth about the 14th Amendment; and maybe shed some light on your dark atheistic, liberal, and just plain false beliefs you errantly teach to others. They are the one's I care about the most.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
"...maybe shed some light on your dark atheistic, liberal, and just plain false beliefs you errantly teach to others. They are the one's I care about the most."
LOL. Your flair for melodrama is duly noted. Go "save" the world on someone else's channel, JustAboutMyPolitics. Have a good life.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Why not read the senator's paper and make a video on it? - Jesus, you are a bit pompous.
jdcremin 2 years ago
The disturbing thing is, religious people often do not give a damn about the women who have been raped... I never thought I would hear somebody so thoughtlessly accuse them of wrongdoing in that position, but I was wrong when I heard a Christian state: "You know, some people would just LOVE to have a baby"... and so thoughtlessly ignore the young teenage women who would not be able to afford the child or anything... I mean... what if the woman has no money? Just let the child starve to death?
sonic8005 4 years ago
I got a good laugh out of your mention of the students reactions to the sodomy laws
Something is terribly ironic that such a high percentage of americans are for applying the bible to restrict homosexuals, but when the bible is applied to all aspects of sodomy, they suddenly don't think the bible is such a great idea anymore :)
unclexbob 4 years ago
"...when the bible is applied to all aspects of sodomy, they suddenly don't think the bible is such a great idea anymore :)"
Exactly. Many don't even realize it would apply in this way. The first time I saw that reaction was in law school. It was fascinating. :-)
ProfMTH 4 years ago
You mentioned that the Casey decision backed up Roe, but didn't it also add a lot of leeway to add restrictions to it also?
I admit I haven't been paying a lot of attention lately, but there has been so many states passing "questionable" if not outright unconstitutional restrictions
In short, it doesn't look too good in general, considering the disposition of the judges.
unclexbob 4 years ago
"You mentioned that the Casey decision backed up Roe, but didn't it also add a lot of leeway to add restrictions to it also?"
Indeed it did. Casey brought the "undue burden" standard, which provides a far more lenient way to evaluate restrictions than existed prior to Casey. The leading opinion in Casey, by former Justice O'Connor, states that it upholds the "essential holding" of Roe.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I also think it says something that most women get abortions to avoid a lifestyle change. Don't get me wrong, being male, i think males who leave the women they impregnate w/out support are just as bad if not worse than women who get abortions. But killing something that is even.0001% human to avoid a cramp in your lifestyle seems irresponsible and cruel.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
Well, if you look at the research I cited, you'll see it's far more than a lifestyle "cramp" that is concerning the women.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I didn't mean anything demeaning by cramp. But the reality is in this day and age, just because you have a baby doesn't mean you have to keep it. Give it up for adoption or take it to a hospital or police station where they will take it, no questions asked. The economic and family hardship argument is null and void here.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
I think that's probably easy to say when one isn't personally faced with the reality of such hardships.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
The reality of such hardships is undoubtedly difficult, but legalized abortion presents a morally corrupt easy way out to a difficult problem. And I have personally had to face this problem in several ways in my life. Thats why i feel so strongly about it.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
Ah, OK. Well, I respect your having to deal with this personally and what that experience has led you to conclude about the matter. That said, I think one has to unpack terms like 'morally corrupt' to bring out and examine what the issues are. This is, as you no doubt know all too well, complicated stuff.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Complicated, certainly. But a solution must be found, and the present one isn't the way. If the money that currently goes to abortion clinics were instead used to fund the adoption agencies, we would be in a better place. The reasons abortion was legalized has a lot to do with it being a feminist women's rights symbol, not because it was necessarily morally or constitutionally correct.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
Im all for women's rights, i just don't happen to believe the right to kill your own child is one of them. Watch the "Silent Scream" videos on RoeVWade's Channel to get idea of why i say "kill". Most people dont realize thats what happens to the person inside them. Granted the so called "scream" is a little dramatic, but the message of the videos stay the same.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
Have you ever read the Roe v. Wade decision, Ajsharkmaniac07?
ProfMTH 4 years ago
but theproblem with the whole violinist argument is that the "plugged in" person had no choice. People who get pregnant, with the exceptions of rape and incest, do have a choice., to me, that changes the range and scope of the argument to where it doesn't say a whole lot. That choice to have sex is important.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
Don't get lost in the hypothetical Ajsharkmaniac07. A couple can take all of the available precautions against conception before having sex, then have sex, and the woman could still end up pregnant.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I wasn't saying anything about birth control. I was talking about the choice to have sex in the first place. As you say, there is always a chance you may get pregnant even if all precautions are taken, so I say if you can't handle the possibility of getting pregnant, you shouldn't have sex. And if you do, and you get pregnant, you shouldn't take that out on the baby.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
One more thing. You asked shanedk "Why would it be better to have abortion as a state issue, in your opinion?" I'd also like to answer this. It wouldn't be better. It's better for abortion to be considered a woman's right on the federal level. Unfortunately, the plain language of the constitution (including the 14th Amendment) doesn't seem to support the notion that it ALREADY IS considered as such, and I don't believe the ends always justify the means in constitutional matters.
Eyedunno 4 years ago
Oh, I noticed you did watch shanedk's response. Blackstone's quote is, however, only important in the case that the 14th amendment DOES establish a prenatal application of 'person.' If it did, then the court would have been right in saying that states do not have the right to declare abortion LEGAL. But the court seems to have committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent in their decision.
Eyedunno 4 years ago
Oops, messed up Blackmun's name there :/
Eyedunno 4 years ago
I knew who you meant. I'll be responding to your comments soon, by the way. Thanks for taking the time to offer them.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Ugh. I'm as pro-choice as just about anyone (and more so than most, as I agree with Peter Singer's ideas on doctors being permitted to euthanize severely disabled infants), but at the same time, I'm against Roe v. Wade, and think this is a bunch of embarrassing legal sophistry. Watch the beginning of shanedk's response for a concise explanation as to why. I loved the violinist analogy though.
Eyedunno 4 years ago
Great video. In fact, you finally convinced me that I need to read "Moral Minds".
RationalRat 4 years ago
It's an excellent book. Enjoy.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Thanks for this great video! It was quite timely, in that it helped me form a better argument for a recent debate at my school.
IdleBystander1 4 years ago
Excellent, IdleBystander1. I'm very pleased that you found it helpful. Did your side prevail in the debate?
ProfMTH 4 years ago
So far we are doing well, but there is still another round.
IdleBystander1 4 years ago
Well, good luck. Let me know how it turns out.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
ProfMTH, as usual, I have thouroughly enjoyed your work. THanks.
luxurymink 4 years ago
Thanks very much, Luxurymink. Great screen name, by the way.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Professor,
I hope we can continue this debate (I just so happen to have to get read for a Con Law Midterm myself). Anyways if I don't respond for a while, this sparked my interest. Thanks again for taking the time to put together the video and comments.
jersdream 4 years ago
Good luck with your midterm, Jersdream. Of course we may continue the discussion.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
A reponse to people who are anti abortion. Which is also taking women's rights away from them. Would gbe: What do you think by all the foster children who are being drugged by the State? I bet my sweet arse they wouldn't even KNOW this!
Ie., they pretend to care som much for an unBORN foetus but care less for UNWANTED children being abused!!!
zezt 4 years ago
I was surprised to hear that the majority said is was morally acceptable to unplug the violinist. it seems like murder to me. i don't necessarily extend that to abortion, but it was just my initial reaction.
mysterywalker 4 years ago
Interesting, Mysterywalker. Why does it seem like murder, if you don't mind my asking?
ProfMTH 4 years ago
because the man knowingly causes/allow the violinist to die for no other reason than the man's own convenience. it was wrong of the violin society to do that to the man, but once they did it the violinist's life is in his hands. say someone had left a baby on in the man's trashcan -- he shouldn't just leave the baby there to die because it's convenient or he's angry that someone left it there against the trash can owner's will. it seems like the same question, just a matter of degrees
mysterywalker 4 years ago
and this is clever to apply to abortion, because it seems less wrong to me to terminate the experiment right away and more wrong to end it, say, 8 months and 20 days into it. the problem with that analogy tho is that the violinist is unarguably a sentient human being. it really doesn't matter much that he's a great violinist. he could be a terrible fry cook and it'd be the same question.
mysterywalker 4 years ago
this reminds me of some ethical study i encountered somewhere with questions about people stuck on railroad tracks, and you flipping switches to divert the train to kill old people instead of young ones, trading lives, shades of grey like that. i can't remember who did the study
mysterywalker 4 years ago
Yes, the various trolley problems -- another example of artificial dilemmas designed to get at people's intuitions about morality. Philosopher Philippa Foot is, I believe, the one who came up with those, although Judith Thomson and lots of others have used them, too. You might be interested in Marc Hauser's "Moral Sense Test," which he has been using as part of his research for a while now.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I'd give you the URL here, but the comments section won't take URLs. Google "The Moral Sense Test." It will be the first entry that comes up. By the way, those trolley problems are quite good at bringing into relief, among other things, that people sometimes cannot articulate why they believe X is moral or immoral. Hauser sees this as evidence that moral judgments are often the product of principles not consciously available to us.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
thanks for the reference. i agree completely that "that moral judgments are often the product of principles not consciously available to us." i'm tempted to say they're intuitive, but i'm not sure that's correct.
mysterywalker 4 years ago
It appears they are. In his book "Moral Minds", Marc Hauser posits that this is the result of human beings having an innate moral faculty akin to the innate linguistic/grammar faculty that Noam Chomsky was the first to posit. The theory is that moral judgments are made pre-reflectively, pre-emotionally, and pre-rationally. For the most part, they are the product of principles not consciously available to us.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
There are *some* moral judgments for which people can readily identify principles, but for the most part the judgments come first and the rational and emotional frameworks appear to come later. Hauser argues that moral judgments trigger the rational and emotional bits, contrary to Kant (who had reason as the cause of moral judgments) and Hume (who had emotion as the cause of moral judgments).
ProfMTH 4 years ago
In part, Hauser got started with all of this because of John Rawls's observation that our sense of justice cannot be entirely described by reference to "familiar common sense precepts" or "obvious learning principles." Rawls opined that an adequate explanation of moral judgments must "go beyond the norms and standards" with which we're all familiar.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
It might not be a nice thing to do, but it still is his decision. I think this analogy misses one crucial point: After the 9 months, the man has no attachment to the violinist at all. He doesn't have to care about this person, who he is living with, etc. I don't think the 9 months are the largest burden, IMO. But, I am a man, so maybe I am wrong. :)
loveisallneed 4 years ago
As Thomson originally framed the hypothetical, it was nine *years*. I merely offered a paraphrase of the hypothetical. When one has nine years in mind, it gets at what you're talking about here, Loveisallneed.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
faced with nine years it seems a lot less wrong to disconnect from the violinist. nine years is more than an inconvenience, although i'm not sure where between 9 months and 9 years the transition happens
mysterywalker 4 years ago
And you would not be the only one would struggle to identify the transition point.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I was also surprised at the results of the violinist question! It felt like negligence of duty to me. He can't morally abandon his post unless he first finds a replacement.
I don't extend those feelings to abortion, though.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
Why do you think you don't extend these feelings to abortion, MercifulMing?
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I think because of the way the violinist hypothetical was phrased; it was wrong for him to be hooked up without consent, but the violin society did ask permission after the fact, and he agreed.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
If he had not agreed, if he had backed out right then, I think he would be within his right to pull the plug.
A key difference between this and abortion is the conspiracy element.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
A key difference between this an abortion is the conspiracy element.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
The conspiracy element?
ProfMTH 4 years ago
by conspiracy, I mean the violin society seems to act immorally when they get the man hooked up w/o consent. right?
MercifulMing 4 years ago
Oh, I see what you're getting at. Interesting.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Excellent work,Prof...as always...didnt know you were a lawyer or rather thought law
Dalbert342 4 years ago
Thanks, Dalbert. If nothing else, I use the classroom as a way to warn students away from law school. ;-)
ProfMTH 4 years ago
D4Shawn sent me this way.
Amazing video here..lookin forward to seeing more.
djJani5 4 years ago
Thanks very much, DjJani5. (And thanks to Shawn, of course.) This has turned out to be a hot topic in a way I hadn't anticipated. That's a good thing, of course. In any case, I greatly appreciate your feedback.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
"Professor",
I wasn't questioning if you were one or not, but was really wondering. How do I know, it could just be a name.
Obviously you are making ad hominem as well, implying that I have never read Roe or the 14th Amendment. You clearly manipulated your quote of the citizenship clause. You cut it off when there was no puncuation. You completely left out the part about citizenship. Clause 1 mearly defines citizenship and that is it.
jersdream 4 years ago
You seem to be forgetting the 10th Amendment (though good old FDR and his court killed it, thanks to Darby), but you are right, the Constitution does not protect the right to life for a fetus, but not because it isn't a citizen. That is a ridiculous argument, is it not against the law to kill non-citizens? Last time I checked murder is murder, regardless of alienage.
jersdream 4 years ago
I didn't say anything about citizens, Jersdream. Justice Blackmun, writing for the Roe majority, dealt with the question of personhood. And the specific question was whether the fetus was a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. Clearly, since it's not born, it's not. As Justice Blackmun wrote, there is no prenatal application of 'person' in the 14th Amendment.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
And that is completely correct, but again, what could Blackmun say if the state's definition of personhood expanded to the prenatal period?
jersdream 4 years ago
That this was no longer a matter on which the states could rule.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
(sorry for the posts being out of order...)
Again, I still don't see what your point is that the Constitution does not protect the right to life of a fetus....that doesn't change the fact a state cannot protect that right. Remember the 9th and 10th Amendments? You know the state can expand and give more protections to the people of its state? Obviously you don't believe that because all you can say is "Constitution says no fetus protected".
jersdream 4 years ago
Of course states may go beyond the protections of the federal constitution. However, when something has been placed beyond the reach of the states, as abortion has, then they may not legislate on the matter. Certainly you understand that.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
The claim you make would set dangerous precedent. You claim if the constitution does not protect a particular right (life) for a particular group (fetuses) than the state cannot protect that right for that group? Again, the 14th Amendment does not define personhood. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It mearly says that any person BORN is a citizen.
jersdream 4 years ago
It does not say that they are entitled to the right to life. I am not making the claim that the Constitution protects fetuses, I am making the claim that the state has the right to do so themselves. The DP Clause says "any person". It does not say "citizen", but only "person". Where does the federal government have the power to tell the state that they cannot define a fetus as a person??
jersdream 4 years ago
:: sigh :: You must be kidding. I "clearly manipulated" the 14th Amendment?! lol The text of the entire amendment doesn't fit on the screen. Good grief. I manipulated nothing. Now have you read Roe? Do you understand Blackmun's argument vis-a-vis the meaning of 'person' in the context of the 14th Amendment? It seems not.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
*sigh*...I do understand it, I am making the argument that he is WRONG. As you previously said, a state can expand protections (but not in this matter since the court did take it out of their hands). My point that this was WRONG and that Blackmun's personhood argument within the context of the 14th is irrelevant. I am arguing that the state should be able to define a person, seperate from the 14th Amendment.
jersdream 4 years ago
Jersdream wrote: "I am arguing that the state should be able to define a person, seperate from the 14th Amendment."
Fine. I disagree.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Heh...so basically you are saying since SCOTUS says it, then it is true. Nice to know you support such great precedent that is embedded in anything BUT law.
jersdream 4 years ago
Actually, no, I'm not saying that at all, Jersdream. There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions with which I disagree, that I believe misinterpreted the Constitution.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Of course, we then arrive again at the issue of what we call a person. Is it a person because it has human biological components? Does that include Only DNA, which would then, perhaps, mean "every sperm is sacred"? Is it that their organs begin to function? Is it that they have thought? What is thought? Is it that they have identity?
JSResponds 4 years ago
Self-identity or imposed identity? If only self (as the issue is with 'fully AI hypothetical beings' and people with Dissociative Identity Disorder,), can a fetus, or even an infant, have self-identity?
JSResponds 4 years ago
JSResponds, you raise interesting points about how to define personhood. One of the most consistent aspects of the abortion debate is that those who oppose abortion being legal tend to define 'person' in a way that includes the human fetus, while those who support abortion being legal tend to define 'person' in a way that excludes the human fetus.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Ultimately, of course, that sort of thing is unproductive. In Roe, Justice Blackmun clearly stated that he and his fellow justices were not competent or empowered to decide such philosophical debates. So the Court stuck with the legal question, i.e., whether the fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I will say that while I understand Blackmun's argument, it does seem that one could also make the case for it meanign that the "person" simply hasn't been "born" yet, but that they're still a person in the womb. And I think what Jersdream Really wants to do is use this definition (Which would require RvW overturned), or Add protection to fetuses via this definition in a state (if that's possible).
JSResponds 4 years ago
You may be right, JSResponds. I'll have to review Jersdream's comments in light of your take on them. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
The violinist analogy is certainly interesting. I expect that the difference in opinion comes from the social attitudes towards children and the expectations that we place on mothers.
We expect mothers to take care of their children, and the idea that they should be allowed to kill them seems morally repugnant. When you present the two people as complete strangers (as in the violinist analogy), that disappears.
fragglet 4 years ago
However, this is partly why it isn't a perfect analogy. The mother has created a new life; should she not be responsible for that action? This extra issue of responsibility for one's offspring is something not captured in the violinist analogy.
Another interesting analogy might be that of two conjoined twins. Suppose that one of the twins wants surgery to be separated, but it would mean killing his twin. Is the first twin obligated to act as life support for his brother?
fragglet 4 years ago
Well, Fragglet, this maps onto the same idea of responsibility. In the conjoined twin hypothetical, the one twin is taking the fate of the other in his or her hands. In the violinist hypothetical, once the man consents to remain plugged in, he has assumed responsibility for the predicatment of the violinist.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Thomson's violinist hypothetical is not meant to be an explicitly complete replication of an abortion dilemma. Rather, it's meant to get at the ways people think about it without engaging them in a discussion about abortion, a discussion that most people have rehearsed many, many times in their lives.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Thank for taking the time in presenting a well put together video on Roe v Wade, and for answering the questions in a thought out manner.
Much appreciate :)
roevswade 4 years ago
You're welcome, Roevswade. Thanks for the very nice words and for the opportunity to answer the questions you posed.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Great video! A lot of information I had not heard before.
sorienor 4 years ago
I'm glad you liked it, Sorienor. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Another Win, MTH.
JSResponds 4 years ago
Thanks very much, JSResponds.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
The state's interest seems to be more than compelling, if the people of the state believe that a fetus is a human being. Protecting the right to life of a human being (all though, I do not believe the fetus has reached personhood) if that is the interest of the state and their people should take precedent, even under the strictest of scrutiny.
Anyways, you do bring up very interesting points. Hope you can respond. Nice video though, nice to see somebody has interest in this shit.
jersdream 4 years ago
All persons born or naturalized, Jersdream. Apparently, you're not connecting to that language. Nor do you understand its relevance vis-a-vis what the Roe majority said would happen if the fetus were determined to be a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. Go inform yourself by reading Roe and the 14th Amendment -- if you've already read them, which seems doubtful, read them again.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
That being said, regardless if the fetus is a citizen under the U.S. Constitution, that does not matter. The U.S. Constitution does not define what a human being is, or what person hood is, but rather citizenship. So a fetus is just not a U.S. citizen, now if a particular state wants to grant citizenship to fetuses, then they are well within their right to establish state citizenship laws.
jersdream 4 years ago
The fetus is not a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment because the 14th Amendment talks only about "persons born." Unless and until that changes, the fetus has no constitutionally protected right to life. That's the law as it is. You may wish it were otherwise, but you should resist the temptation to identify the way the law is with your wish about how it should be. Alas, it seems it is *you* who has equated his/her preferences with an objective analysis of the law.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Finally, you have no reason to question my professional status. I'm not interested in ad hominem, Jersdream, and I won't tolerate it on my channel. So if you'd like to be able to comment here, stick to the substantive stuff, otherwise you can go somewhere else. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
The violinist hooked to the other man, is clearly a logical fallacy, I don't even know where to start with that....(and I am pro-choice all the way).
But, the 14th Amendment arguments from Roe are weak, thanks to Justice Blackmun. Roe is embedded in Griswold (which was rightly decided, just bad logic), the whole penumbra of rights is ludicrous. It would have been much easier to use the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to make the argument.