On Tuesday 13 April, the fierce battle over abortion rights in the US took a new twist as Nebraska became the first state to restrict abortion to prevent alleged pain to the fetus.
By using this as the rationale for banning almost all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, the new law contradicts the scientific consensus, which holds that fetuses are unlikely to be able to feel pain before 26 weeks. It is also the boldest and most direct challenge yet to the Roe vs Wade ruling of 1973, which gave US women almost unrestricted access to abortions.
So have there been new discoveries in fetal pain research that justify the Nebraska ruling? Or is the law based on a moral judgment?
Read the article for a Q&A on the issues.
This will not stop anything. It will force those needing abortion services to go elsewhere. Perhaps to unregulated and questionable places.
The last time religion ruled the World, history called it “The Dark Ages”.
“An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it” – James A. Michener
It’s too bad you weren’t aborted prior to 20 weeks, Aunt Dave. You wouldn’t have felt any pain and you would have kept us from feeling the pain of your whiny blog posts.
Religion has always been the curse of civilization.
We also have our Ayatollahs.
This did not specifically point to religious belief ruling over science. What piffle – it must be Sunday! It’s scientists making the claim that fetus’ can feel pain. But the article made it sound like the concept was unreasonable. The concept was considered “controversial”. Right, because there’s no way to monitor (thereby prove or deny) such things as yet. Everyone is groping in the dark here.
There are MANY laws that are not based on reason, that have nothing to do with belief, such as our lack of usury laws. It’s destroying our economy, but reason isn’t at play; greed is. I think science and or reason would put these credit controls back in a heartbeat.
The abortion issue is not reasoned either. Millions of abortions done here each year are NOT done because the lives of the mother are at stake; rather because reason doesn’t play into it. If it did, millions of abortions wouldn’t be necessary. If you don’t want children, don’t fuck. C’mon folks, it’s NOT unreasonable.
As far as religion goes, the Vatican recently stated that unborn children are not consigned to limbo or hell, as was previously believed; thereby securing their spiritual afterlife. This should quell the antiabortionists who like to blow up abortion clinics. I think now a gesture from the other side of the argument is in order. Only we won’t see one. Because abortion proponents are basically anarchists; responsible to no one. Which is fundamentally the problem here.
Science used to say that newborn boys didn’t need anesthetics for their circumcisions.
In a sense, I suppose you could say that the fetus or newborn doesn’t have the neural connections to process pain, to experience dread, or possibly to form memory.
What about all the pain associated with parental abuse when someone does not want a child? Where is the church when people cannot afford the doctor bills? Who raises these unwanted kids. Its easy to believe in something when it will not directly affect you.
This is a problem that will not be solved just by passing laws that tell us it is ilegal.
Who says we don’t have a Taliban right here at home? These are clean shaven and wear ties to blend in.
You know this ruling doesn’t upset me. Why? Its a state level ruling on a procedure that should have always been left up to the individual states.
Don’t like the anti-abortion laws in Nebraska? Move to a different state, say California or New York with their much lax laws on the subject. If you want an abortion that badly, get your but into a car, or one of those cheap ass grey hounds and take a trip across states lines to a state that allows such things.
why are we still debating this dead-horse issue?
FRAGaLOT gets it
“… Or is the law based on a moral judgment?”
I like this. 🙂 Show me a law that isn’t. 🙂
So Nebraska didn’t already limit late term abortions like every other state?
#4.
If history serves me right, it’s been those that have abandoned religion that have killed the most people. Nazis didn’t quite embrace religion and attacked it and the biggest murderers of all were the Communists who had a hatred for religion. But I wouldn’t have expected to you know it as many on here are quite ignorant of history.
Hey when you live on the plains the only way we can get you people to see us when you fly over is to do some real crazy shit. Just wait until 2012, you will not belief the wackos that will line up to run against Obama!
Hey if you can’t take a joke don’t get pregnant.
Warden apparently you only follow “recent” history. Look a little further back.
#15: Apparently you ignore the Crusades or the Inquisitions, or our “holy war” in the mid-east right now.
That’s okay, I won’t let reality hinder your ignorance.
Ooo! Ooo! I forgot one! How about all the millions of Native (North and South) Americans slaughtered in the name of god and manifest destiny?
#15, demonstrating an “ignorance of history”:
The Third Reich in Germany didn’t attack religion; quite the opposite. When they took power in 1933, the Nazi regime simply made a deal with the Catholic church. They left the church completely alone and in control of the 95% of Germans who were Catholics; in exchange, the church (Pope Pius XI, followed by Pius XII in 1941) formally agreed to forbid its members from criticizing the new Nazi regime. In other words, the Catholic church became the religious arm of Hitler’s government (Hitler was Catholic, btw). True, the Third Reich killed Jews (and an equal number of Poles, and Latvians, and Estonians, and Lithuanians, and Gypsies, and others they considered sub-human primates), but that was simple racial genocide, serving to galvanize the Catholic Germans by giving them something specific to hate.
This formal alliance between the fascists and the Catholic church lasted until 1945 (and continued informally, long after that). At the same time, the church supported Franco’s fascist regime in Spain, and Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy. They might have been able to support even more genocidal regimes, had they not been too busy buggering choirboys.
So, the Nazis pulled the trigger (and opened the gas canisters), but the Catholic church was with them every step of the way.
#10
In what way is abortion a dead-horse issue? In what way has the question been resolved? Currently it’s the law of the land, but the population is fairly evenly divided into for/against; that’s why the issue won’t go away.
#13 “Show me a law that isn’t.”
Um, OK, the one that makes me register my car. Religions like to take credit for morality, but the law is based on ethics, not morality, and ethics is (or should be) based on reason, evidence, and precedent. Without these things, we just get the Taliban. In the case of abortion, things get very complicated. The religious viewpoint appears clear at first (killing a fetus is “wrong”), but very quickly enters muddy waters, as others here have noted (forbidding it will mean more illegal abortions and consequent deaths; pregnancy resulting from rape; congenitally deformed fetuses; right of the mother over her own body; etc. etc.). The non-religious viewpoint places more emphasis on those latter points and less on the killing of the fetus. But it’s not about science; “science” does not argue for abortion rights. Rather, some people use information gained through scientific observation (reaction to pain, ability to survive outside the womb, etc.) to support their point of view. Science does provide the tools used for abortion (anesthetics, surgical tools, knowledge of anatomy), but they weren’t developed for that purpose in the first place.
Focusing on fetal pain seems a bit desperate (Should we ban spanking the newborn on the butt to make it start breathing? Circumcision?), but those who oppose abortion are just trying every approach possible. And the use of the term “scientific concensus” seriously needs a reference to an actual source of information.
But come on, Uncle Dave, the original ruling, as quoted in the original post, makes no mention of religion whatsoever, so your heading “Religion overrules science…” completely misrepresents the matter. Nice flame bait, I guess, but hardly an intelligent approach to a very difficult issue.
#20 Thank you, excellent post. I had no idea the Catholic church, like Mussolini, made a pact with the Nazi’s.
I need to look under the rug for more details.
>the new law contradicts the scientific >consensus, which holds that fetuses are >unlikely to be able to feel pain before 26 >weeks…
Uh, is this like the ‘scientific consensus’ which is all hot and bothered about global warming? (Sorry, that ‘Pandamonium’ pun a couple topics ago is catching..)
Something tells me that folks who like the fetus ‘consensus’ will also like the GW ‘consensus’.
And vice versa.
All laws, and I mean all laws are based on moral judgment, period.
Why is it unjust to cause someone pain?
Why is it wrong to murder? Or murder an unborn child?
Why is it wrong to steal, in order to improve your lot in life? You know like a Mexican.
It’s absolute BS to try and base laws on science, laws aren’t about science they’re about our morals or if that’s too religious then use values. Anything an individual wants to do can be justified based on science, which is just reason based on selected facts.
Without morals you can provide no reason why such things can’t be done. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Idi Amin all had science/atheist based regimes with death totals well over 300 million people. Why is this wrong, many of the progressives today want to reduce the world population to 500 million, killing 95% of the people in the world. According to science based belief there would nothing wrong with this or any reason to not implement their plans, but then the advocates always plan on being part of the 5% of the people left in the world.
Whatever………………………………
Traaxx
Just in case dipshit ‘cheaorax’doesn’t understand, which he doesn’t ethics, morality and values all equate to the same thing.
Whatever………………………………..
Traaxx
Really? Is Nebraska run by churches instead of democracy? Are we all doomed to religious and doctrinal slavery because women can’t get
abortions after 20 weeks (thats 4.5 months!).
This just sounds like anti-religious alarmism to me.
Also most of these doctors are involved in the abortion industry making lots of money doing it, so they can’t really be considered impartial scientists. Mark Rosen doesn’t sound like he is an exception.
There are other forms of birth control out there. I don’t like the fact that most US and Canadian abortions are government funded. Why should I pay for that when a condom only costs a dollar.
20–yea, thanks Cherax==but let me quibble. Nice exercise in what words mean. If I were the Pope and had no military and no effective way to combat the fascits, what “should” I do. Allow the church to be obliterated? A 2000 year history to end because of a transitory 10 year Nazi regime, or keep my head down and wait to re-emerge after the fire has passed?
The pope is one issue. Too many stories all over the place about decent catholic individuals saving jews, doing what they reasonably could. Your formulation also make the USA government complicit as we did nothing to bomb the railways leading to the camps, preferring to concentrate of military targets.
Of course, the Church can and should ALWAYS do more than it does, and stop doing half of what it does do, but unlike the church===lets be reasonable?
I think “the population” is heavily in favor of abortion rights. Don’t confuse making the argument the issue with two sides to every question a 50/50 evaluation. Like any such assessment, poll results mostly measure how the poll question is constructed.
Fetal Pain is BS–just do the abortion under fetal anesthesia. But this “law” (not Ruling) will be struck down immediately both on its facts and the law. Silly to criticize it as “not being Religion” just because the word/concept is not directly raised. “Motivation”–what was the motivation???
I still LOVE THE FACT that anti-abortion advocates never advocate killing the murdering mother to save the infant. They know the unborn are different but keep making the argument because it sticks if you don’t think past the initial idea.
In general, morality is a personal decision having nothing to do with the law. When the law codifies one morality over another, conflict is unavoidable===but it is a balance. Always unworkable to make any morality based law that does not have 80-90% agreement.
FREEDOM==someone else doing something you don’t like.
“bobutt, we stink with words”, yes the mother, the doctor and anyone that assists in murdering an unborn child should be put on trial and judged according to the laws and morals of society.
If we don’t judge an unborn child as human, just because they can’t support themselves, or if we say they can’t fell, then why not start post-birth abortions for anyone without the ability to support themselves or for something/one that we say can’t feel any pain or maybe we should just give them anesthesia. Since I’m sure bobutt would be in favor of population control and can’t support himself he should be first to volunteer for post-birth abortion and start working for that 95% reduction.
Yeah differing values and morals bring about conflict and wars, and laws are the result of a societal agreement on what society values or believes or reflects in general morality. It’s a sad thing to pass a child through the fire just for someone’s own comfort. There are families that want to adopt, there are societies that care for unwanted children. Such people that can not keep their genitals or use protection should be jailed and tried for murder, including the impregnating father assuming he agreed to the abortion.
FREEDOM can not exist without morality and the respect of life, liberty and property that non-pagan morals usually entail.
Whatever………………………………..
Traaxx
No pain… no gain.
Re: #23, Traaxx said, “Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Idi Amin all had science/atheist based regimes with death totals well over 300 million people”
Forming a conclusion based on the actions of millions of people = Science.
Forming a conclusion based on the actions of 4 people = Religion.
Religion pays ZERO taxes. TAX ALL RELIGION NOW – FOREVER. Thank you and have a good day.
The claim that the choice was made based on religion because the public doesn’t trust claims coming from “experts” about pain is pure BS.
I can remember when the experts said animals didn’t feel pain so vivisection was fine. That claim was BS.
What the experts really mean is they aren’t hurting and that’s the only pain they care about.