Once You Get Your Position Sorted Out, Perhaps We Can Talk
I would say that I’m responding to Darleen Click’s arguments about this post, except that she doesn’t actually have any arguments. Does she propose a different way of restricting post-viability abortion while protecting a woman’s life and health than the Pennsylvania statute does? No. Does she actually address the evidence that the parade of regulations anti-choicers will use the Gosnell case as a pretext to argue for make the late-term abortions and unscrupulous providers she decries more likely? Nope. Does she have an explanation for why Gosnell operated not in a state with relatively equitable and pro-reproductive freedom policies (such as New York or Washington) but in Pennsylvania, long a national “leader” in passing arbitrary abortion regulations that make it harder for poor women to obtain safe pre-viability abortions without accomplishing anything worth accomplishing? Hell, no. Rather, she seems to be saying (it’s hard to tell) that my response was excessively rational and did not contain enough high dudgeon. Since I have the advantage of writing for an audience consisting primarily of non-morons, I don’t feel the need to emphasize that infanticide is profoundly wrong and that if the charges are true Gosnell should be punished severely. But, for the record, that is still my position.
Speaking of irrationality and high dudgeon, it’s hard to stop Red State:
In the first instance, in Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court drew a line and declared that those on the “slave” side of the line were entitled to no protection from the law, and could be treated with impunity by their masters. That slaves were human was beyond dispute; instead, the Court found solace in an artificial and tortured distinction which treated those humans belonging to the category of “slave” as a special kind of human that was not to be treated like the rest of humanity.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court repeated the same exercise, this time engaging in spectacular mental gymnastics with the word “person”…
It gets worse! As with most people making the Dred Scott analogy, this member of the Trike Force doesn’t seem to understand what made Dred Scott controversial at the time. The Supreme Court didn’t establish the grossly immoral proposition that slaves were not persons in the eyes of the law — something that was true by definition — but did try to establish the proposition that Congress lacked the authority to ban slavery in the territories. You can see why today’s “states’ rights” fetishists would probably prefer not to discuss the actual opinion even if they knew anything about it. (Taney’s opinions also made exceptionally odious arguments about the inability of even free blacks to be American citizens, but that’s neither here nor there in terms of the abortion debate.)
But more relevant to the current debate is that while there is a legitimate argument about whether or not the Constitution protects a woman’s reproductive freedom, there is for all intents and purposes no serious debate about whether the fetus is a legal “person.” If the problem with Roe is that fetuses were not declared persons, then the dissenters were just as wrong as the majority, Scalia and Thomas just as wrong as Stevens and Ginsburg. As far as I can tell, no federal judge has ever made such a claim, for the obvious reasons that 1)only a vanishingly small minority of people believes it (or, at least, is willing to act as if the belief were true) and 2)it would require legal policies whose unworkability only begins with the fact that all 50 states would be constitutionally required to prosecute women who obtain abortions for first-degree murder. Unlike the position of the Dred Scott dissenters — which took all of three years to be vindicated in a national election — the idea that fetuses are constitutionally protected “persons” is a fringe if not crackpot position.
For this reason, I continue to see little reason to engage with the “fetuses are legal persons” argument. Since even the people who claim to believe it don’t take it seriously, I have no idea why I should.
It’s obviously not the main thrust of your argument, Scott, but it’s something of an interesting question as to whether holding a fetus to be a “person” under the constitution would “require states to prosecute women who obtain abortions for first-degree murder.” I’m not sure why that would be. Are States constitutionally bound to make murder a crime? I’m not sure why they would be. States are obviously free to (and do) differentiate between killings of “persons” in terms of degree of criminality, up to and including excusing it altogether (self-defense or justification, for example). As a due process matter, it obviously would not be the State that was depriving fetuses/persons of their life. And equal protection principles would not necessarily prevent the states from making a distinction between the born and unborn.
Are States constitutionally bound to make murder a crime?
Well, perhaps not, but 1)all fifty states have statutes banning murder, and 2)unless wingers have succeeded in repealing the 14th Amendment without my knowledge states cannot exclude a class of persons from the protection of the law.
States cannot exclude a class of persons from the protection of the law without sufficient justification.
But once there’s either a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision declaring fetuses persons, it would be impossible for there to be a sufficient justification except in cases involving the life of the mother.
Or perhaps in cases where a fetus has an incurably fatal condition, and wasn’t viable post-birth.
If “personhood” begins at conception then all the miscarriages that occur will need to be accounted for, as they involve the death of a person. & a “Fetal-American” will have the right to sue a “Uterine-American” who endangers him by smoking, drinking, or engaging in other dangerous, but otherwise legal, behavior.
Glenn,
I appreciate your argument, but I am uneasy in allowing any person to deprive any other person of his life. The Declaration of Independence states that we have a God given right to our life & making exceptions scares me.
We make exceptions all the time.
But the whole point of making fetal personhood law, according to its advocates, is to do away with that particular exception.
We have a God given right to our bodies, too, but you seem disturbingly comfortable saying that women don’t have a choice not to engage in serious and frequently life-threatening medical odyssey.
The solution is obvious: give fetuses the vote.
And guns.
To vote with.
What else would someone vote with if not guns?
Large, white penises, of course.
LargeSmallish, white penises, of course.[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by LG&M, Scott Lemieux. Scott Lemieux said: Unserious anti-choice arguments (but I repeat myself): http://bit.ly/gBRyeT [...]
“slaves were not persons in the eyes of the law”
in some cases … as Abraham Lincoln said at Cooper Union, when the Constitution speaks of slaves, they call them “persons”
Living in Colorado with the Egg Amendment being foisted and failing twice, we actually had to think about “fertilized eggs as persons”. The proponents didn’t have to think, they were forced birthers and thinking hurts their brains, but the rest of us had to. My contributions were
1) Any woman of childbearing age could drive in a HOV lane because the might be carrying a fertilized egg.
1a) corollary: If you carried a frozen fertilized egg, you could drive in an HOV lane
2) Get all the fertility clinics into a liberal area of the state and insist on it having multiple Congressional Districts.
Whoa, I’ll be ordering my fertilized egg right now. I wonder if I can get it freeze-dried. More convenient to carry.
Ugh, what an odious mess. First, the idea that any post on protein Wisdom has a point is ludicrous. The entire site has degenerated into one long primal scream of rage about the “unfairness of it all.” It’s become impossible to tell the difference between wannabe doctor of the English language and any of the half-educated jackasses share the front page.
With that said, there is an argument style that demagogues prefer and it’s roughly the “if I can predict your argument, then I have refuted it.” Darleen is such a halfwit that her argument is “if I can describe your argument, then I have refuted it.” Limbaugh loves this: “If I throw water on some lib, we all know what he will say! It’s wet! Of course, a liberal would say that….” That’s all Click is doing: this argument is wrong because I can say what it is.” It’s sloppy thinking, but, hey, it’s Goldstein’s place and he’s a Bircher now.
Your argument relies on the law and logic and on William Saletan’s moronic continuation of a theme. To be fair, given his belief in the genetic predisposition of IQ (the Bell Curve belief), I’m surprised he opposes Gosnell. Isn’t he just doing all of Saletan’s friends a favor?
Isn’t there a genetic correlation with IQ? I thought genetics determined what your IQ range could be, with actual IQ determined by environment.
It’s unclear (and I say that as someone who’s tested out with a 150+ IQ and read a ton of the literature) what the correlation with genetics is, if any. Environment, nutrition, and upbringing seem to count for a lot more, especially in light of the Flynn Effect (which, last I checked, nobody could explain adequately).
So, uh. Maybe? And the Bell Curve gets maligned a lot in these discussions, mostly because it’s huge fucking book (it took me a month to read it and I’m fast) and over the years racists both crypto- and otherwise have made a huge deal out of the 7-8 point gap between average black and white IQ scores. That gap is about half of what specialists currently consider to be a standard deviation, which is a handy way of saying it doesn’t mean anything.
Trauma has been shown to affect scores, as has lead exposure in early childhood. Add in that children in poverty are more likely to have undiagnosed learning disabilities and you can see where that point spread comes from.
First, the idea that any post on Protein Wisdom has a point is ludicrous. The entire site has degenerated into one long primal scream of rage about the “unfairness of it all.”
At this point, Tim, I’m tempted to agree. His latest rant is pure, unadulterated insanity. Here’s a sample:
How someone can write that without recognizing that they’ve lost it is beyond me.
at the expense of a private sector he routinely punishes;
Curiously, despite this punishment, corporate profits have risen every quarter since Obama took office.
You with your facts. Can’t you see Jeff’s being repressed?! Restrained!? Just look at his comments in that post: his rights are being violated, and he has no choice but to embrace the fringe because this is what it has come to.
You with your facts.
Clearly, this is proof the BEA was been infiltrated as the first step in seizing the commanding heights under Obama’s New Economic Policy.
Just look at his comments in that post
You know, I had been trying to think of an excuse to not change the litter boxes here in Casa de Mal, but now that you have offered an alternative, I’d rather deal with the cat shit.
You’re not kidding: I just read an article about Bruno Mars because it was there.
Off topic, and after cat shit: did you see the punchline to the comic book guy?
I did. I think it’s established we both follow Warren Ellis.
I think it’s established we both follow Warren Ellis.
I’m not that cool. We’ve established I live near Boston is all.
Sorry if my comment sounded annoyed. I was going for dry, but was derailed by allergies.
Not at all. And I readily admit to being old and uncool. I’m trying to set an example for Donalde.
And doing a piss-poor job of it. He’s currently ranting — and attempting to post numerous links to, which I’m deleting — about how Lemieux believes abortions have civil liberties. No, I have no idea what that means either.
You could go Thers’ route, and simply edit all Donalde’s links back to S,N takedowns.
I went over to Donalde’s place, because I had to see if the “civil liberties for abortions” thing made any sense in context.
First, uh, no, it doesn’t.
Second, I’m beginning to feel bad about laughing at him, after reading that post, particularly the fact that he still seems to think that Mahablog was cheering on Gosnell when she said the “system worked” and not that she was cheering on his arrest. I’m starting to think that Donald is seriously ill, as in delusional or deranged, and I don’t like mocking the sick for things out of their control.
Of course, I am not a doctor and even if I were, I did not examine him, so maybe I’m wrong and he’s just a stupid, dishonest scumbag hack who deserves all the mockery he can get.
You know, I thought Donalde’s position was that abortions do have civil liberties.
You know, he has linked to Mark Levin multiple times. Apparently, he has become a follower of that charlatan.
Thank God for the rain which has helped wash away the garbage and trash off the sidewalks. I’m workin’ long hours now, six in the afternoon to six in the morning. Sometimes even eight in the morning, six days a week. Sometimes seven days a week. It’s a long hustle but it keeps me real busy. I can take in three, three fifty a week. Sometimes even more when I do it off the meter. All the animals come out at night – whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets. I go all over. I take people to the Bronx, Brooklyn, I take ‘em to Harlem. I don’t care. Don’t make no difference to me. It does to some. Some won’t even take spooks. Don’t make no difference to me.
This is BTW only halfway a joke; the Travis Bickle vibe is in at least the correct key.
The Donalde can take over for the scene where he takes the political operative he’s stalking to a porno flick.
The Gosnell case provides a very clear example of the difference between pro-choicers and anti-abortionists.
We pro-choicers think Dr. Gosnell, if he really did what he is accused of, was a criminal, but the murdered Dr. Tiller was a hero.
The anti-abortionists see no difference between Dr. Gosnell and Dr. Tiller.
Great distinction.
Note that Dr. Tiller was tried and acquitted on charges similar to those being made against Dr. Gosnell–which ought to make you a bit skeptical of those charges.
Go read the grand jury report that the wingers are ranting about. It is a real piece of work full of inflammatory assertions with no evidence to back them up. No citations to sworn testimony or any other evidence.
I don’t know Pennsylvania law, and my own state almost never uses grand juries, but I would be surprised if an indictment would refer to testimony–grand jury testimony is supposed to be confidential.
True. I had forgotten about that, but the highly inflammatory language and general effort to lay the blame for this on pro-choice forces still points to an anti-abortion crusading politician.
Where are you seeing that? The impression I’m getting is not that they’re blaming “pro-choice forces,” but that they’re blaming state and local authorities for not cracking down on a doctor who was exploiting and abusing poor women of color. And the current Philadelphia DA is not a “crusading anti-abortion politician.”
I would remind you that Scalia recently stated that women were not considered persons at the time of the 14th amendment and so therefore he does not consider them persons now, in a Constitutional sort of a way.
he didn’t say they were not considered “persons”
thebewilderness is generous enough to try to find a textual basis for Scalia’s ravings. No, he didn’t explicitly say that–what he actually said made less sense.
yes, it was half-ass. It is quite true that at the time most equal protection requests by women would have been rejected. But, he was wrong to suggest all were. Women were persons and citizens and narrow as it might have been, they had federal rights.
I guess the picture has bounced around enough by now that I should just be happy it has, but for the record …
An internet tradition of which you should be proud!
I’ve seen it everywhere, never knew where it came from. If only there were a way to watermark it … by which I mean, seriously, watermark it! Credit will be given where due.
I thought about that, briefly, but I decided that since it was a mashup, and not an original creation from scratch, it didn’t merit it.
(So I just roam around the Internet, yelling at people, instead.) ;)
P.S. Thanks for adding the link to the post. Much appreciated.
P.P.S. Or thanks to Scott, or whoever did add it.
You’re welcome! Great work…
I think you’re pretty safe thanking “Scott” (he says, in a blatant attempt to steal the credit).
Add to the kudos, Brendan. Like SEK sez, it’s all over the net (so you have alot of yelling to do.) Always dug it, and now I know who to thank for it. Should I ever have need of it, I’ll be sure to give you the credit. (Maybe I’ll even help you with the yelling, seeing as how you’re a fellow nihilist…)
We nihilists need no reason to yell!
[...] Scott Lemieux dismisses the whole “fetuses are persons” argument as right wing nuttery, nuttery that was basically concocted as a rationalization for a pre-existing anti-women’s right belief: If the problem with Roe is that fetuses were not declared persons, then the dissenters were just as wrong as the majority, Scalia and Thomas just as wrong as Stevens and Ginsburg. As far as I can tell, no federal judge has ever made such a claim, for the obvious reasons that 1)only a vanishingly small minority of people believes it (or, at least, is willing to act as if the belief were true) and 2)it would require legal policies whose unworkability only begins with the fact that all 50 states would be constitutionally required to prosecute women who obtain abortions for first-degree murder. Unlike the position of the Dred Scott dissenters — which took all of three years to be vindicated in a national election — the idea that fetuses are constitutionally protected “persons” is a fringe if not crackpot position. [...]