Johanan Raatz on Feb 11, 2008 at 12:42 PM:

Thanks for your response Kathy. I would like to also thank you for being civil. I have had many discussions over abortion and they have oftentimes not been very civil.

"So I ask Raatz: Why does there have to be a moral justification for policy?"

Because if a legal policy does not have moral justification it is capricious. Without moral justification there is morally no reason for it. All laws are at some point or another based in morality.

"If you are going to ask for a “moral justification” for federal policy, shouldn’t you take time to define morality? Seems like a mighty task if you ask me. Morality is not a concept that can be defined in black and white."

Well you can construct a rational moral system from Kantian principles. You critiqued the idea of morality being black and white. While individual actions are complex and are perhaps morally "grey". We shouldn't forget that even grey is comprised of black and white specks. Any rationally deduced system of morals requires a black and white structure as a foundation. Without this you can't construct rules or guidelines by which to judge something as good or bad. All you are left with then are emotions which may be misleading. So you need to have a system whose foundation is at least black and white for your moral system to have any real meaning.

"So why would you try to force your own morals upon an entire country?"

Because one ought to. See "ought" is a moral term. When one has strong moral convictions about how things should be one doesn't let injustices just go by. I would try to impose it for the same reason that Lincoln believed it was right to impose his abolitionist morality on slave-owners.

"Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I thought the beauty of American government was supposed to be the freedom guaranteed to its citizens."

We are a free country but that doesn't mean we can have a free-for-all. We are a republic not an anarchy. Allowing one class of people to kill members of another class because they feel like it is a rather anarchical thing to do. The fetal children being killed by abortion deserve rights and freedoms as well.

"We have the right to make our own decisions and our government is not to tell us what our morals should or should not be—plain and simple."

No one is telling you can't have your own system of morals. However one can not always act on that system of morals. You can't act on that system of morals if it infringes on others rights. Abortion infringes on fetal rights.

"I guess I will run with a favorite cliché here—if you oppose abortion, Mr. Raatz, don’t have one."

Yes that is cliche. I know you didn't mean this in an offensive way but it comes across as such to fetal rights advocates such as myself. You see to us abortion = murder. So when you say this what we hear is: "If your against murder don't commit it."

This argument can easily be flipped on it's head. If your against shooting abortionists don't do it. If your against torture don't do it. Once you make this argument you forfeit the right to criticize anything that Bush does on moral grounds for example.

"Even further, if you truly oppose abortion, don’t have sex with a woman who may want to have one, and don’t refer your loved ones to your local clinic;"

I don't for precisely that reason.

"but don’t try and force your morals onto my life or the American legal system."

Then don't impose your morality on your baby or let other women impose their moralities on their babies. This "not imposing morality" stuff cuts both ways.

"The real issue is that, when abortion is illegal, women die. This is not a moral argument; it’s a fact."

Yes, but what you argue after this point is a moral argument. You see many on the pro-choice side often seem to have discriminatory bias against fetal children in favor of their mothers.

So what's worse: Having a couple hundred women die from botched abortions or having 1.2 million fetal children die from legal abortions? Especially considering that the women who got botched abortions pre-Roe did so when it was legally defined as and conventionally known to be murder. Also the statistics on this have been exaggerated. The former abortionists Bernard Nathanson, who now supports fetal rights, stated that he was among several who exaggerated statistics of women's deaths for the purpose of providing momementum to legalize abortion. In Poland where abortion is currently illegal the statistics of botched abortions are extremely low.

"So, Mr. Raatz, you can argue that my morals are not strong enough and I will continue to live my life knowing that the policies that dictate it are built upon freedom and justice, not something as fickle as an individual’s morality."

"Justice" is a moral term. You can't have justice without morality. If you say that morality is fickle. You are arguing that justice is fickle. You can't have justice and then expect to dispense with morality.

"I urge you to do the same, as this principle is what makes our country one worth living in."

We are a free country but as Abraham Lincoln said: "No one has a right to do what is wrong." We have freedom but our freedom stops where our children's freedom starts.

I would also like to point out that much of the rhetoric used currently to support abortion was very similar to that used to support slavery before the civil war.

Katie Jesse on Feb 13, 2008 at 09:31 AM:

I would like to make a general statement about Mr. Raatz's arguments.

I feel as though you're taking one "person's" rights over another. When you break down the arguments to the very minimalist of terms you argue on behalf of fetal rights and we argue on behalf of woman's rights. Mainly, a woman's right to do what she wish with her own body.

You talk a lot about the idea that the rights of the fetus are more important than the rights of it's mother because to think otherwise would be murder and I say that nothing is more important to me than being able to decide my bodies own fate. I think that is what Kathy was trying to say, and how most woman feel.

If we, as American's, loose our ability to make decisions on behalf of our own person, our own being, then what are we left with but a society that is less than free?

As a side note, I would also remind you that in most cases a want to have choice over our own bodies is not necessarily an automatic want for the ability or potential ability to kill an unborn fetus. Most pro-choice woman you will also find are adamantly against abortion and would never consider it a viable option. But again, the need to have rights over our own body takes president over all else.

I could make loose references to forces castration for all men and you’d probably think me ridiculous. Yet to us the loss of our reproductive freedom is nothing less than a ridiculous and inhumane notion.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 13, 2008 at 09:58 AM:

"You talk a lot about the idea that the rights of the fetus are more important than the rights of it's mother because to think otherwise would be murder and I say that nothing is more important to me than being able to decide my bodies own fate."

No not at all. My point was that the fetal child and her mother are equal. Not that one is better than another. What I was arguing is that a greater right should take precedence over a lesser right. Not that some people have greater rights and some have lesser rights but that some categories or rights are greater than others. We all have a right to autonomy, but we also all have a right to live. However, the right to autonomy wouldn't even exist without the right to live. So the right live should take precedence. So in this case the fetal child's right to live should take precedence over the women's right to autonomy. Not because fetal children are somehow more important than their mothers, but because the right to life is more important than the right to autonomy.

"and how most woman feel."

Actually polls have indicated that a majority of women are pro-life.

"If we, as American's, loose our ability to make decisions on behalf of our own person, our own being, then what are we left with but a society that is less than free?"

You are equivocating on the meaning of "free" though. Slave-owners shouldn't have been "free" to own slaves just like mothers shouldn't be "free" to commit fetal homicide. Freedom stops where another persons rights begin. Otherwise the person whose rights are being infringed on by one form of freedom aren't free.

"But again, the need to have rights over our own body takes president over all else."

Why? Even greater considerations? Also what about the fetal child's body? Women should have rights over their own bodies but not over their children's bodies. Now in the case of pregnancy it is obviously a little more complicated as both bodies are involved. However in any case this shows that the issue can not be broken down in a simplistic fashion such that only the women's interests get represented. We should respect ALL rights not just the women's right to autonomy. Both the woman's right to autonomy AND fetal rights should be taken into consideration.

"I could make loose references to forces castration for all men and you’d probably think me ridiculous."

Actually you might be suprised. I do think it might actually not be a bad idea to castrate sexual predators.

Now I do also think that child support on the part of males should be rigidly enforced. I don't believe that if we were to eliminate abortion that we should simply let women have to pay for the kids all on their own. Men are equally responsible here and should be held equally accountable.

"Yet to us the loss of our reproductive freedom is nothing less than a ridiculous and inhumane notion."

Yes but the idea that people can have a unfettered right to kill their own children just because they happen to be dependent on them is nothing less than a ridiculous and inhumane not to mention barbaric notion.

Also you are free to reproduce or not if you so choose. But I beleive you are misapplying the term: "reproductive freedom" here. If you are pregnant you have already excersised that freedom because the reproduction has already occured. As such abortion can not properly be thought of as a "reproductive right" because it is inherently post-reproductive.

Now if you say that you didn't mean to get pregnant and that the only way to get out of it is abortion. Then I would say that is too late. Unplanned parenthoods are a potential recognized sexual liability. As with all activities there are liabilities involved. Having sex is no different. That doesn't mean however that we therefore have a right to shirk our parental responsibilities afterward.

If you look into the history of slavery before the civil war you will find that much of the same "freedom of choice" rhetoric was used to promote slavery. Choice however should end when it leads to injustice. We don't have a right to do what is wrong.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 13, 2008 at 10:02 AM:

Katie Jesse. BTW I would like to thank you for responding in a civil fashion. I know this debate can get very heated at times, and as such it is always best to start it off as level-headed as possible.

James Lazar on Feb 15, 2008 at 08:45 PM:

"No not at all. My point was that the fetal child and her mother are equal."

There is no such thing as a "fetal child". That makes about as much sense as a "fetal adult". Would it be correct for me to consider you an elderly person, not because you are one, but because you COULD become one?

What you advocate is a denial of a woman's right over her own body. It's that simple. You can attempt to "justify" it however you want by saying that it's a "necessary action" to take to preserve the "right to life" but the fact remains that you are supporting the bondage of women through forced pregnancy. That's what it comes down to.

James Lazar on Feb 15, 2008 at 09:05 PM:

IF we go by your assumption that fetuses are "children" or at least "deserve" "equal rights" then what would that make miscarriage? Manslaughter? Do you consider a women that had a miscarriage to be a murderer?

David Felten 847-960-9049 on Feb 15, 2008 at 11:11 PM:

To The Editor:

Sen. Obama has proven himself and his campaign staff to be quite the "marketing gurus."

Bombarding educated young Americans with charisma, hyperbole, and a "brain-washing" "yes we can" slogan, he has tapped into the neurons that individuals in this segment absorb as a sponge.

They are being placed upon an assembly line of programmed ideologists. They are free of the scars and the callousness of seasoned voters. They have been robbed of analytical, rational thinking, and refuse to "press" Obama on the question of "how?"

Their actions resemble an emotional "pep rally."

The problem is that they have not looked beyond their "banners and pom-poms."

There shall be a point when the rallies are no longer relevant. The rhetoric and esoteric speeches no longer needed.

Then, what?

Time for surgery. The time that a severely diseased and faltering Nation needs experienced, masterful hands to save it from an untimely death.

Supporters of Sen. Obama must stop the train and demand to ask Obama how supporting any form of "amnesty" for illegal residents could possibly be beneficial for our Nation and African American citizens.

They must ask Obama, "where's the money?" Sen. Obama states he has plans to give away everything to everyone, except for the "holy grail."

Of course most of his young college supporters have only been exposed to "theory," not "practical application."

They must recognize that the most sophisticated, uplifting elocution in the world shall not change the future unrest the citizens of our Nation are brooding upon.

Obama supporters, this is not a National "frat party." It is time to cross-over into reality. What can a man, raised on Chicago politics; coveted by far-left liberals like Kennedy and Kerry, yet still loose their mother State in the primaries; a man who is now indebted to these Democrats for advice and direction; possibly deliver to our troubled Nation.

Our Nation needs an independent performer. A candidate that has the experience, common sense, logic, and understanding of the repercussions of major decisions upon our Nation; without being mis-guided by the icons of "bleeding heart liberalism."

Wake up, our future generation. It is time for the most significant "reality check" you shall ever make in your life's journey.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 16, 2008 at 08:24 PM:

"There is no such thing as a "fetal child"."

No it is an accurate term. A "child" in the broad sense is someone who is subadult. An individual in a fetal stage of development certainly qualifies as subadult.

I use this term as I view it less biased than "fetus." Fetus is not biased when used in a medical context however it is biased when it crosses into the ethical context. This because in the ethical context it now sounds like a thing rather than a person. Which of these sounds more acceptable: terminating a homo sapiens or murdering a human? The two are identical but the clinical sounding language used dehumanizes the human being in the first instance.

"What you advocate is a denial of a woman's right over her own body. It's that simple."

Apparently you didn't read my article then. The point of my article was to point out that fetal rights violations were not sufficiently justified. I was advocating for rights not against them.

"You can attempt to "justify" it however you want by saying that it's a "necessary action" to take to preserve the "right to life" but the fact remains that you are supporting the bondage of women through forced pregnancy."

That's not relevant to the debate though. The argument centered around whether or not rights to autonomy outweighed fetal rights. If so called "bondage" which in this case was simply the actualization of a recognized sexual liability happened to be a result of the correct balance of rights then whoop-dee-do.

Also there is no such thing as a "forced pregnancy" unless one get's raped, as the parental responsibility to care for ones children born or otherwise is a recognized sexual liability.

"That's what it comes down to."

Well ultimately it comes down to a question of fetal rights. Should fetal rights violations be permitted or shouldn't they?

Johanan Raatz on Feb 16, 2008 at 08:27 PM:

"IF we go by your assumption that fetuses are "children" or at least "deserve" "equal rights" then what would that make miscarriage? Manslaughter? Do you consider a women that had a miscarriage to be a murderer?"

You're not making any sense here. A murder is an intentional act. A miscarriage is not. You are not morally culpable for something that happens outside of your control. This principle would also hold for a mother and her fetal child.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 16, 2008 at 08:31 PM:

David Felten;

I would agree with you about Obama. He is a demagogue with remarkable talent. The problem is that people are mesmerized by his eloquent speeches and aren't looking at his platform they way they should.

I hope the Pied Piper of Illinois doesn't march of with the youth vote simply by singing an enchanting tune.

FK on Feb 17, 2008 at 08:49 AM:

This is a discussion that I have found myself embroiled in many times. No, a fetus does not have rights, it is a clump of cells until other things begin to develop. According to the law, first trimester abortion is legal, and in my opinion this is the sanest way to go about it, and is about as close to a compromise on the issue that anyone is ever likely to come to. Internal organs do not begin to function until near the end of the second month, therefore before that it is not a child. In fact, I don't think that it is a child until it actually is born, alive and healthy. What I find ironic is that when women were stuck doing this in back alleys and basements with coat hangers no one was saying anything about what a tragedy it was for the mother, it was all about the fetus. The government may have some sort of moral authority, but not when it comes to a woman's body. Your body is your temple, and you will do with it what you see fit. Every weekend people drink themselves stupid on this campus, are we going to crack down on them because they are damaging their livers and brains? I think not. Women have spent years being told that they have to do this or that because of some inflexible morality, and Roe vs. Wade was a good step in ending that pattern. A woman has every right to have an abortion if she so chooses, and as far as I'm concerned the Bible is the worst possible source for a tutorial on the sanctity of human life (I bring that up because 90% of pro-lifers that I have been engaged with have evoked this overblown press kit in their argument). What few pro lifers seem to realize is that the decision to have an abortion is extremely traumatic for a woman. However, there are situations where it is the best decision, and it is their decision. Until the government is willing to arrest people for drinking past a certain point or smoking cigarettes, they have no right to make abortion illegal again. A genocide requires real people in order for it to be a genocide. I do count a bundle of cells that may become a real person as a person. Viva choice!!

Johanan Raatz on Feb 17, 2008 at 04:15 PM:

"No, a fetus does not have rights,"

That's fairly bigoted thing to say.

"it is a clump of cells until other things begin to develop."

No that's an embryo. A fetal child is far more well developed than that. However in any case this doesn't address personhood. You can say its a clump of cells and not a person yet I have yet to see people who say that give a precise and non-arbitrary time at which personhood begins. You may say at birth but that is arbitrary.

"In fact, I don't think that it is a child until it actually is born, alive and healthy."

Why? This is pretty arbitrary. What about a second before birth? There is no real physical distinction directly before or after birth.

"What I find ironic is that when women were stuck doing this in back alleys and basements with coat hangers no one was saying anything about what a tragedy it was for the mother, it was all about the fetus."

That's because the mother was the criminal in those cases and her child was the victim. Besides the mother brought it on herself. It isn't very logical to select risking your health with a coathanger when the alternative is simply to have the child.

"The government may have some sort of moral authority, but not when it comes to a woman's body."

The government has authority wherever it is morally necessary. Preventing murder is morally necessary regardless of whether or not a women's autonomy must be violated. Besides it's the fetal child's body at stack here and not the mothers.

"Every weekend people drink themselves stupid on this campus, are we going to crack down on them because they are damaging their livers and brains? I think not."

Don't be silly. That is a matter exclusively dealing with personal autonomy. Fetal homicide deals with OTHER'S rights as such it is NOT exclusively about personal autonomy.

"Women have spent years being told that they have to do this or that because of some inflexible morality,"

So what? Inflexible morality is a good way of dealing with immoral, inflexible, and/or unreasonable people.

"and Roe vs. Wade was a good step in ending that pattern."

Roe v. Wade merely appeased bad behavior. On purely tactical grounds appeasement is not an appropriate response to bad behavior.

"A woman has every right to have an abortion if she so chooses, and as far as I'm concerned the Bible is the worst possible source for a tutorial on the sanctity of human life"

You didn't read my original article then. I mentioned I was arguing on specifically secular grounds in it. My view wouldn't change at all if I were to become an atheist or agnostic tomorrow.

"Until the government is willing to arrest people for drinking past a certain point or smoking cigarettes, they have no right to make abortion illegal again."

Well women have a right to harm or abort themselves or smoke for that matter if they want to but they don't have a right to impose an abortions on their fetal children.

"A genocide requires real people in order for it to be a genocide."

Biologically speaking fetal children are real people. That's not me saying that either that's cold hard biological fact.

"I do count a bundle of cells that may become a real person as a person."

Once again you obviously know very little about fetal development. Even the earliest abortions are done long after the blastocyst stage.

"Viva choice!!"

Yes choice is good. Bush can choose which wars he wants to have. Someone else can choose which abortionists he wants to shoot.

I on the other hand shouldn't interfere in these choices because they are personal decisions and I have no right to interfere with these choices.

You've got to do better than this if you want to create a sufficient moral grounding for current abortion law.

Daniel V. Bahr on Feb 17, 2008 at 11:12 PM:

Sadly,

I have to agree with Ms. Jesse. The fetus and the Women are not equal. The needs of the Women supersede. Also, most women are NOT pro-life. In fact if you factually look at polling surrounding the abortion issue there is no gender gap. The public is opposed to overturning the current Roe v. Wade law by roughly 10% points. Neither a majority of women OR MEN are pro-life. That is simply not true. Both men and women trend pro choice. You need to look at independent polling. I will cite some numbers below to demonstrate my point. Lets start with Fox news:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?" .

Pro-life Pro-choice Both/Mix (vol.) Unsure

10/23-24/07

37 48 8 7

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 17-23, 2007. N=2,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.5. Aug. 2007 survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas.

  .

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?" Options rotated

  .

Legal in All Cases Legal in Most Cases Illegal in Most Cases Illegal in All Cases Unsure

% % % % %

10/17-23/07 21 32 24 15 8

The Harris Poll. Oct. 16-23, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

        .

"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?"

        .

Favor Oppose Unsure     
% % %     
10/16-23/07
56     40     4