Republicans block bill to shield people who travel out of state for abortions

I subscribe to the reformed protestant tradition. Throughout church history I would point to the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed, The Chalcedon Definition, The Ausburg Confession, The Belgic Confession, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith, The Canons of Dort, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, The Heidelburg Catechism, The Westminster Larger Catechism, and The Westminster Shorter Catechism as the guidebooks that summarize what I believe. This is what the Westminster Larger Catechism says about the 6th commandment:

Q. 134. Which is the sixth commandment?
A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Reference: Exodus 20:13

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreation; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild, and courteous speeches and behavior: forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

References: Eph. 5:28-29; 1 Kings 18:4; Jer. 26:15-16; Acts 23:12, 16-17, 21, 27; Eph. 4:26-27; 2 Sam. 2:22; Deut. 22:8; Matt. 4:6-7; Prov. 1:10-11, 15-16; 1 Sam. 24:12; 1 Sam. 26:9-11; Gen. 37:21-22; Ps. 82:4; Prov. 24:11-12; 1 Sam. 14:45; Jas. 5:7-11; Heb. 12:9; 1 Thess. 4:11; 1 Pet. 3:3-4; Ps. 37:8-11; Prov. 17:22; Prov. 25:16, 27; 1 Tim. 5:23; Isa. 38:21; Ps. 127:2; Ecc. 5:12; 2 Thess. 3:10, 12; Prov. 16:26; Ecc. 3:4, 11; 1 Sam. 19:4-5; 1 Sam. 22:13-14; Rom. 13:10; Luke 10:33-34; Col. 3:12-13; Jas. 3:17; 1 Pet. 3:8-11; Prov. 15:1; Judg. 8:1-3; Matt. 5:24; Eph. 4:2, 32; Rom. 12:17, 20-21; 1 Thess. 5:14; Job 31:19-20; Matt. 25:35-36; Prov. 31:8-9.

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words; oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

References: Acts 16:28; Gen. 9:6; Num. 35:31, 33; Jer. 48:10; Deut. 20:1-20; Ex. 22:2-3; Matt. 25:42-43; Jas. 2:15-16; Ecc. 6:1-2; Matt. 5:22; 1 John 3:15; Lev. 19:17; Prov. 14:30; Rom. 12:19; Eph. 4:31; Matt. 6:31, 34; Luke 21:34; Rom. 13:13; Ecc. 12:12; Ecc. 2:22-23; Isa. 5:12; Prov. 15:1; Prov. 12:18; Ezek. 18:18; Ex. 1:14; Gal. 5:15; Prov. 23:29; Num. 35:16-18, 21; Ex. 21:18-36.

Westminster Larger Catechism – The Westminster Standard​

 

I have to say that in this thread @gatorplank has provided his most thoughtful and powerful explanations of his views of just about any thread he has posted in. You can disagree with his premises and argue against his logic, but he has presented his ideas rationally and coherently. What’s even more impressive is that when challenged with certain scenarios, he has gone back and thoughtfully considered them and in some cases revised his position, making certain allowances for the extreme marginal and tragic cases.

A number of people in this thread have gone to great lengths to imagine complex situations to try to trap Plank in his ideas. What if that same kind of effort was applied from the other direction?

Pro-choice people consider that the decision to terminate the developing child should be entirely up to the woman. Does that mean at any time for any reason? Can a perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy developing child freely choose to destroy that developing child which in a few short months would become another human being in the world? Can she destroy the developing child at one month, six months, eight months, or right up until she goes into labor? Why does it arbitrarily stop there? Can she destroy the child up until the umbilical cord is cut?

These comments will probably generate some double bacon and come-on-mans, but the logic is exactly the same as those attacking Plank.

The pro-abortion people here seem to be saying it would be impossible to fairly enforce any kind of restrictions on abortions so therefore there should be no restrictions. Yet I imagine most of these people would turn around and not accept destroying the child at 38 weeks.

So from the pro abortion side, when is life magically infused into the developing child? Where is the boundary point that 1 minute before it is not a human being but one minute after it is a human being? At birth? Cutting the umbilical cord?

Many pro-abortion people will concede viability, but what does viability mean? Different hospitals are equipped differently and a delivered child at one hospital might survive while delivered in another hospital it might not.

Both sides have their difficult issues to wrestle with. It used to be the pro-abortion people considered the procedure a necessary evil. It seems like now they have dropped the evil part.

 

The point is that largely the notion of life being used to justify this is fundamentally a metaphysical issue. Claiming that it happens at conception is largely the belief that a soul is "magically" (to use your word- which I find dismissive) granted to a couple of cells. Other people might think of human life as being a function of some sort of consciousness or some other neurological marker. Other people might think of it from the perspective of viability.

Having a government tell a person what they can do with their body because it decides to side with you on a metaphysical point is a massive overreach.

 

There is certainly room for compromise. And yes, at 38 weeks, it would be difficult for anyone to say the woman has the right to abort for any reason. Especially since at 37 weeks, it is considered full term, and birth can happen at any time.

Fortunately, even with Roe protections previously, this hardly, if ever, came up. 93% of all abortions in the US are done in the first trimester. And the number 1 reason a woman waits until the 2nd, where 6% of abortions occur? Lack of funds to pay for the procedure.

Most European countries have a 15 week ban. After 15 weeks, abortion only in the case of the mother's health. But these countries also pay for the woman to have the abortion. A law that is modeled off of this would be acceptable for almost all pro-choice sides I know. Women could get help to pay for the procedure in the first trimester, and any abortion after this point would only occur if the health of the mother was at risk.

 

First off I apologize for saying “magically.” It was the way I was picturing it, but I did not mean to be dismissive.

I recognize that different people have different views of when life begins. President Obama said it was above his pay grade. It strikes me that in every other area of human health and safety, we want to be on the safe side. In designing buildings and bridges we use a design factor which increases the strength well above what is needed. When assessing chemical exposure in the workplace, we take the toxic limits and reduce it by some multiple. Just to be safe. But when it comes to when does life begin, so many want to say no one really knows so let’s not err on the safe side, let’s let people destroy it regardless.

Regarding intervening, if you saw your neighbor beating his child, would you intervene or would you say it’s not your place, it’s his decision? You might respond that the difference is the neighbor’s child is a separate human, but the prolife side would say so is the unborn child residing in a woman’s womb.

 

You mention “have gone to great lengths to imagine complex situations to try to trap Plank in his ideas.” imagine?! there have already been cases. I.e. a 10 yr old girl pregnant from rape left her state to obtain an abortion. A women’s fetus died and she had to carry a dead fetus in her womb for 2 weeks because she couldn’t get an abortion procedure. Both of these would cause harm if not kill the mother. And its only been a month. We’ll see more. And I’m still waiting on feedback if a state catches and stops a woman from getting an abortion should she be imprisoned until she gives birth.
(And put me down as abortion is morally unacceptable).

 

The issue is that there isn't a clear "safe side" here. If you over-shoot it, you are having the government tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. In effect, you are saying that her body doesn't belong to her to do with as she pleases. Quite the violation in the name of "safety," isn't it?

The pro-life side will not argue that the "unborn child" is a separate person. We have no conception certificate declaring them a person. We do not grant them any of the rights granted to people (e.g., if the mother commits a crime, we get to imprison them for a crime they didn't commit). We don't count them in the census. They don't treat them as people. They want to grant them an entirely unique status.

 

A secondary point is that the source he is holding up as proof that life begins at conception doesn't say life begins at conception.

 

Even in your hypothetical, there are probably grey areas with the word "beating." If someone were under control while spanking their kid for trying to put his finger in an electric outlet, that's different from someone repeatedly punching their kid in the face for wetting the bed. I'm sure drawing that line could be tough. Bruising? What's the test?

In any event, in those instances, there is no doubt that the child is sensing some degree of pain and suffering, which we have to weigh against the parental right to discipline. I tend to think pain and suffering should be a relevant factor in the abortion analysis. Judge Cooper recently went through the expert testimony on that issue in his Order but I don't remember what the evidence was in terms of when a fetus is able to experience pain in the way we understand it. IMHO, the beginning of life questions raise similar issues as end of life questions - such as people debated with respect to Terri Schiavo. If someone is considered "brain dead," cannot feel pain, has no capacity to suffer, etc., do they have the same rights/protections? Are they a living "person" in any practical sense? Of course, none of this even gets into the health of the mother issues, which complicates things further.

it's above my pay grade as well, but I do think most people are between the two extremes, even if their rhetoric may suggest otherwise.

 

Az, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I understand your viewpoint and where you’re coming from. However, from a pro life standpoint, it is not really much of a compromise. The basis of the pro life position is not the age of the developing child but rather numbers of the developing children being destroyed. Your proposal still allows destroying most of the unborn children for any reason whatsoever.

The impasse between both sides hinges entirely on this issue: when does life begin? Pro-life people see the developing child as a human being and can’t see why people should be allowed to destroy it. Pro-abortion people do not see the developing child as a human life, and so see no problem with destroying it. When they look at pro-life positions they have to ascribe some other motivation than saving lives, like desire to dominate women. That’s why the reaction so strongly by pro-life people: we see it is a human life being destroyed.

Not all pro life people feel the way I do, but I am willing to make certain concessions in the very rare, tragic situations. In other threads any concession by a pro-life person has been called hypocritical, however I see it differently. I see it is triage. There are times in life when decisions can have lose-lose outcomes. Being pro-life does not mean lack of compassion for the mother. It does mean compassion for the developing child.

 

I wasn’t referring to those cases. I was referring to all the iterations of what X in 100,000 of risk to the mother constitutes justification for terminating the developing child.

I haven’t read the Texas law so I don’t know what specifically it calls for. To me, if the fetus has died then it’s not a live human being, and therefore you are not destroying a human life by removing that dead person. If I find someone squatting in my garage I cannot kill them to get rid of them. If I find them laying dead in my garage it is perfectly acceptable to remove them.

 

And yet killing a pregnant woman can result in a charge of double homicide.

 

I’ll bite. Yes, choice from beginning to end, full stop.

I haven’t dropped “evil”, because I have never included it.

If there is such thing as evil, and such thing as answering for it, so be it.

But that is an individual’s responsibility.

I see no problem with encouraging the behavior you want everyone to exhibit. I see no bigger problem than forcing that behavior on unwilling individuals who have an inherent right to regard your morality to be just as absurd as you view theirs.

This is not even a close call. A person is either allowed to choose their own belief system or they aren’t.

 

So what do you mean by “to end?” The baby being delivered? Cutting the umbilical cord? Where is this end in which the choice also ends?

As for the rest of your post, I have to admit I don’t really understand what you’re saying.

 

You are right about that. He seems a calm and good man, and I fear I've been unfair to him. This is because I find his obsession with scripture inapplicable to modern man except for the teachings of Jesus. See Jeffersonian Bible. I suspect he must be a pastor or priest.

I have not read every word of every post on the topic of abortion, but I can't recall a single pro choice poster taking the position in bold type. Thou shall not kill is an admonition fundamental to society. There are, of course, many exceptions to it. I think most reasonable people - those not hostage to an inflexible ideology or buffeted by political winds - would agree that one is not killing a fetus who has not reached viability. To ban abortions before then is not reasonable and to allow them afterwards is killing.

"Viability" is a medical term. It means capable of surviving outside the womb to a degree of reasonable medical certainty. No standard is perfect. The rare instances of imperfection is not a reason to ban all abortions. Well, you may say, there might be exceptions - rape, incest, etc. - but that would be to admit that there are times when killing a fetus is acceptable.

 

Only because Pro-Life Republicans tried to use it as leverage against abortion. That wasn't the case for decades after Roe.

 

In some states. They had to pass laws to do so, because that wasn't in the definition of murder. In many of the states that have such laws, the wording explicitly says that it only applies to murder or manslaughter statutes. In other states they created new crimes like "murder of an unborn child". In Florida, unborn children don't even get a status of their own, criminals who cause death or injury to an unborn child get punished as if the injury or death had occurred to the mother.

Even in the states that charge a murderer with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, the unborn child was not granted any legal recognition. There is no death certificate. There is no personhood. They aren't counted in the census. The hopeful parents get no tax benefits.

 

How could it possibly be clearer? I don’t understand how you don’t understand. I feel like trying to agree on some “end” so you can try to find a way to call it “evil” is likely an exercise in extreme frustration for you.

I don’t really care what “end” you want. You call it. The instances of a woman managing a pregnancy for 9 months only to go horror movie mad at delivery will be so rare that it is a futile consideration.

 

I'm wondering if part of the reason people use rhetoric that sounds extreme or assert seemingly all-or-nothing propositions is not just an aversion to nuance (which may also be true) but also that it's easier to defend simple propositions in a debate? If one person gives an inch or concedes any point, someone on the other side can simply accuse them of being inconsistent or hypocritical. I think this may be, in part, what Emerson was conveying about a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds.

 

I do not like the term "pro life". It is a self-righteous conceit. Pro choice is not " pro death".

After reading through these mostly well written and persuasive posts on both sides, it seems to me the only conclusion one may reach is that it ought to be left up to each person to decide, and governments ought to stay out of it.