We don't need to know what Americans do about abortion.

In South Australia yesterday the Live Births Bill was defeated by a single vote; so there's nothing cut and dried about killing babies as a lifestyle choice - which is all abortion is in most cases.

If you want to yap about abortion in America, how about the American woman being jailed for three years for opposing abortion.

The author repeatedly refers to a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

He conveniently, and hypocritically, chooses to turn a blind eye to the fact that the only purpose of abortion is to remove another (living) body from the woman. In the process, of course, killing this other human being.

As abortionist William Harrison rather inconveniently noted, “No one, neither the patient receiving the abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at any time, unaware that they are ending a life”. William Harrison, “Why I provide abortions”, Daily Kos, May 31, 2007

Abortion is a fundamental human rights issue

It is also a fundamental human responsibility to ensure it is not done for social convenience !
Only the female carrying the early stage embryo has the right to decide as have those who she expects to support her when the father doesn't !

In this whole article, the author wrote only one sentence on the topic:

"It is a women's rights issue-among the right to vote, the right to free movement, and the right to live free of violence."

All the rest was American politics!

Either abortion is right or it is not - perhaps the author could explain the rationale, perhaps the author could expand and get into the metaphysics of the question, yet nothing, no substance, absolutely nothing...

Whatever the truth, American politics is the last thing to have any bearing on it.

A bit off topic but in my opinion also highly relevant to the situation of women in the US this essay provides (to me) a deeply disturbing insight into the nature of applied patriarchal Christian politics

http://religiondispatches.org

It is a great shame that abortion has become such a polarising and partisan issue in the USA. I think part of the problem is that abortion rights rested for decades on the assumption derived from the 1973 Roe v Wade case that the US Constitution guaranteed the right to abortion. Many lawyers thought this was a legal error, including some on the liberal left who support abortion rights in principle but thought the Roe case was legally flawed and could be successfully challenged, leaving reproductive rights in a much worse state.

This 2013 interview with prominent Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems prescient:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

I support abortion rights in general, but the issue is not black-and-white. There are many complex moral questions around late-term abortions, or terminating foetuses because they are found to be physically imperfect, for example. Women’s rights are extremely important in this issue, but not the only consideration.

In Australia the question of abortion rights is less controversial and more settled, in part because it has evolved as Ginsberg would have preferred in the USA: “gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts.” Alon’s preference asserting an absolute human right to abortion beyond the reach of courts and governments risks reinstating the situation in the USA before Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022, where entrenching abortion as a supposed constitutional right left no room for the evolution of a near-consensus such as we have here. As the USA found out in 2022, that could actually make women’s rights more precarious, not less.

You have me intrigued Rhian – you say, “Women’s rights are extremely important in this issue, but are not the only consideration”.

What other considerations do you think can trump women’s rights, and why?

BTW, what do you understand to be the basis for “women’s rights”, “abortion rights”, indeed, “human rights”?

Do you think that “rights” are justified simply by majority opinion/consensus?

Hi JP

Fair questions.

When rights are constrained, it is usually because they clash with other important rights. The right to free speech does not extend to libel or incitement to violence. Freedom of religion does not, in Australia, accommodate polygamy.

The crux of the abortion debate is the clash between the rights of a woman and the rights, if any, of her unborn child. The Catholic church teaches that personhood starts at conception - the zygote deserves the same protections as an adult human. Philosopher Peter Singer has argued that even infants are not persons and it can be morally acceptable to kill them in some circumstances.

Do foetuses have rights? The Declaration of the Rights of the Child says that "the child … needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". The UN also recognises a right to abortion, but only under limited circumstances, such as when pregnancy endangers the life or health of the mother.

In Australia, I think we get the balance between these incompatible rights about right. The law mostly allows unrestricted access to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy but limits it once the foetus is fairly developed (about 22-24 weeks, depending on the jurisdiction). Beyond roughly this point, the foetus can feel pain and has a rudimentary consciousness, and may be viable outside the womb. From this point, its rights may trump its mother’s rights.

I do not think “rights” are justified by consensus. But Roe v Wade shows that rights imposed unilaterally from above can be overturned unilaterally from above. Ginsburg’s insight – that the slow and messy processes of legislation and legal review produces a more accepted and durable outcome – is borne out by the comparison of the US and Australian experience.

Similarly ... progress towards women’s equality has taken centuries with many milestones along the way – universal suffrage, equal property rights, equal pay, anti-discrimination laws. We’re not there yet. But I faced much less of this crap than my grandmother, and my granddaughter will face less than I did.

What about the father's Rights ? Ultimately, yes the mother is to be nr one but not without the fathers involvement !

Abortion is a key fundamental in the relentless march of Western Society towards Godlessness. To further the relentless march of the anti social proponents of abortion , there needs to be maintained a fierce opprobrium amid against religious objections.

The abortion debate is a dead dog. The true and honest aim, (if any honesty remains in secular society in the West), is to further the destruction of social norms outside of radical leftist ideology.

Leftists should be shot: At that point, women will simply get on with life carrying to full term, their new born, along with the female responsibility to nurture the child in a normal human manner without complaint.

Indyvidual

Am I surprised you’re not awake to this convenient scam of the feminist, no.

To involve the father in any decision making attributed to the life of the fetus, the fact remains essential, he must play no role in the decision of its destiny. ( the leftist Bible, chapter Feminism.).

To actually achieve the identification of the father, an interventionist procedure is necessary.
This procedure will be hotly opposed by the feminist ideologue.
However, after the birth, ( assuming there is one), a simple dna sampling can be performed to identify the lucky winner of a lifetime scorch of his resources as a jackpot to the mother and child.

To alleviate this unexpected and crippling burden on the powerless father with NO choices over abortion decisions, he may either go into hiding to escape the authorities; live a life of wage servitude or commit suicide. ( The leftist idea of poetic justice)!

'In this presidential election, there is only one option to uphold women's right to abortion, which is a fundamental human rights issue that has made America proud for more than two centuries.'

1/ So killing the unborn is now a fundamental human rights issue?
Says who, did you actually consult the unborn on this matter?
Did they hold a meeting, form a union and come to some consensus?

2/ I'm not sure I want to hear from Jewish people about dead babies.
I've already seen a few videos of IDF killing kids already today.

Protester asks Israeli weapons firms for 'baby killing technology’
http://youtu.be/Z-2GEQ6-xRo

The fearful have fled…is it that blood and guts has become so intolerable to modern powder puff man in the West, that now he must abandon all to terrorisms embrace to fulfil his need for a mothers security and comfort?

In North Africa right now, a Christian is slaughtered by a jihadist every two hours: and all we hear is weeping for Palestinian jihadists fitting the description of modern day Neanderthal head hunters.

All at the same time, Western man sits in his over comfortable, smug and secure over pampered and insulated zone of denial, debating the slaughter of his own unwanted children.

We are a lost cause!

I don't see you complaining about Christians being slaughtered in Lebanon you cuck.
http://x.com/LegitTargets/status/1847314196129566945

I don't see you complaining about the Jew Zelensky ransacking churches in Ukraine you cuck.
http://x.com/aussiecossack/status/1848062655975850338

I don't see you complaining about Mexico's Jewish President Claudia Sheinbaum, invoking prayer to pagan gods during inauguration.
(Mexico is 90% Christian)
http://x.com/DrLoupis/status/1842665161821438136

Let's face it you don't care about Christians
You're just a NAZI-Jew shill.

Here's some more dead kids piled up for you, thanks to Israel.
I'm sure you'll enjoy these ones Mr. One-Eyed-Fake-Christian.

http://x.com/Partisangirl/status/184777513800110914

'Love your enemies'
'Thou shall not kill'
'Love thy neighbour'
'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'

You best go back to bible study, schoolboy.

Are the Palestinians and other Islamists conducting abortions now Dan?
Or is it only westernised countries that do this?

Thanks for replying Rhian - I’m disappointed though in that I don’t think you really answer my “fair” questions!

I asked you what you think is the basis/justification for “rights”. Where do rights come from and what gives them their authority? It seems to me that there are only three possible answers to these questions.

It could be claimed that rights are things that just happen to have been thrown up by an evolving, mindless, materialist universe. It would seem to be a rather odd thing though to say that physical matter can generate rights, but even if it is claimed that is so, why should such rights have any authority? These rights would have unintentionally happened into being for no real purpose, so why should anyone care about them? Moreover, how could anyone know, and then prove to others, that they had genuinely discerned these rights?

A second alternative would be to claim that human beings, using their rational intelligence, have made up the notion of rights. In typical usage however, rights seem to have an elevated status above simply the opinions of people. You yourself wrote that you don’t think that rights are justified by consensus. What is it that gives rights their elevated status? And if they are not determined by consensus, how are they determined?

What you then go on to say seems to indicate that you think that rights are best established by the “messy processes of legislation and legal review”. So for you, are rights then just another term for laws? If so, then they seem to lose any special status of being above popular opinion. After all, laws can be changed and therefore rights can be changed too. A right would have no more authority than a law.

A third alternative would be to say that rights have been established by God who has intentionally created us. That would justify rights having an elevated status above merely being the opinions of human beings. You do not indicate any preference for that position.

So where do you stand?

On the question of "rights":

Rights are man-made concepts,
they are not present in nature,
they do not reflect any reality beyond,
so if/when/where people assign rights to someone or something,
then that thing has rights,
and if they don't then it does not.

No object deserves any rights, not even if it is made of organic compounds, not even if it behaves intelligently, not even if it screams when stung or exposed to extreme heat, cold, etc.: rights are typically assigned to objects not because they in themselves deserve so, but only because we respect their owner who dwells within them.

A reasonable analogy would be car-registration: the car seemingly receives a right to go on the road, but truly it is given in respect of its driver/owner (and their payment) - the car itself doesn't even care!

Going a step further, when rights are assigned to bodies, it should be as a way and in the spirit of showing respect to the image-of-God who adopted them and dwells within.

There is however a caveat: the respect must truly be there, otherwise it is only for show, and one cannot possibly force another to respect (that, in fact, would constitute disrespect of the other who is also made in the image of God).

Hi JP

Sorry, I didn’t explain myself clearly.

I think the most important rights are universal – they apply to all human beings in all times and places by virtue of us being persons (this is a rather old-fashioned view nowadays, and many philosophers would disagree). These kinds of rights are outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So, women’s right to equality applies always and everywhere, even though in most times and cultures it has not been accepted and/or implemented.

Other rights are social and/or contextual.

Social rights arise because we, as social beings, recognise that there are certain rules of behaviour that benefit us all as individuals and as a society if we all obey them. Some are enforced by law, some by convention. Of the 10 commandments, for example, every society makes “thou shalt not steal” enforceable by law but none makes “honour your father and mother” a legal requirement, though many societies have this as a value.

Contextual rights are a subset of social rights that depend on circumstances. In rich countries like Australia, most people accept that every citizen has a right to education, basic healthcare and a safety net of unemployment benefits and aged pensions. The parameters of these rights are not based on absolute principles and evolve as social values and economic conditions change, but they are grounded in a sense of serving the common good and protecting the vulnerable.

For these kind of rights, some kind of social or political process is needed to work out what is in society’s interests and how best to deliver it.

Most rights, though - whatever their foundation - become accepted, respected, defended and entrenched through social dialogue and what I called the messy processes of legislation and legal review. This is also the only way to resolve matters such as abortion where different rights are incompatible. That Roe v Wade didn’t go through this process in the USA is part of the reason the abortion issue has re-emerged so fiercely, whereas it’s far less controversial in Australia.

Fact is we are dealing with imported US GOP anti-abortion agitprop propagated by parts of the right and RW media.

Fact is the GOP did not make an issue of abortion till Paul Weyrich of the Republican National Committe and Atlas Koch Heritage Foundation in early '80s saw 'pro life' as an issue to coopt Evangelical Christians and Catholics.

Cynical RW faux conservative political strategy that sits next to the faux environemtnal white Christian nationalist Tanton Network influence (see SPA, TAPRI, MB & RW MSM); dec. John 'passive eugenics' Tanton was pro abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and Islamophobic, while his chum Peter Brimelow informed Fox News and reported to Murdoch?

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/if-you-are-business-fox-news-you-are-hook-its-white-nationalism

Fact is, so what?..that’s faux news.

Fact is, all news is partisan, eg your quote from NYT to make a point, which is?

Hello Rhian – You say that “the most important rights are universal – they apply to all human beings in all times and places by virtue of us being persons” and “these kinds of rights are outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

I guess that you know that the UDHR was made up by a small group of people after WW II. These “rights” were then declared to apply universally to all human beings. I say, “made up” because, being a secular document, these is no suggestion that these purported “rights” come from some divine being such as a God who created us. No, these “rights” are the creations of human minds.

That is not to say that you and I and probably almost all people don’t like all, or at least most, of the sentiments contained in the UDHR. However their popularity or otherwise does nothing to change the fact that these “rights” have no intrinsic value, but only the value that anyone chooses to attribute to them. These “rights” do not have any actual special elevated status.

To say that they apply to all human beings in all times and places is simply an unsubstantiated assertion. To add on, “by virtue of us being persons”, does not help, as again that is just a further assertion. In a materialistic/atheistic universe what is so special about human beings that they should have any meaningful claims to certain “rights”?

So a person can say that they want “women’s rights” (or men’s or human rights) to be respected or advanced but all they are really saying is that they have a particular preference for such-and-such to happen. The impression is often given that an appeal to “rights” increases the authority of the appeal but that is not so. Indeed, when we recognise that “rights” have no intrinsic value, any “rights” talk is just an attempt to manipulate people.

In a materialistic/atheistic universe, we have no actual obligations or responsibilities toward each other. We can make up things like the UDHR but we should acknowledge they have no moral weight.