Is A Partial Birth Abortion Interstate Commerce?

[publius]

Look up Josef Mengele (Auschwitz) and Shiro Ishii (Unit 731).

Terrible guys, but in terms of actual effects on Americans living today, I would argue that Mr. Justice Jackson is a greater villian.

[richyoung]

We are discussing PARTIAL BIRTH abortions.

We are? I was trying to discuss the roots of overreaching federal power in the commerce clause. I could have made an "interstate commerce clause thread" about homegrown cannabis plants or homegrown machine guns or homegrown wheat or guns carried too near to a school or rape or indigenous California toads or any number of other things. I chose partial birth abortion because of the pending candidacy of Dr. Paul and his prior statements and his vote on the subject, NOT because I wanted to hear about how horrible the procedure is.

Do you have an opinion on the federal authority to ban the procedure under the commerce clause? If you don't, perhaps a click on that "new topic" button would be a good idea, and you can discuss the merits of the procedure, not the authority behind the federal ban, in a different thread. Thanks.

Perhaps you should re-read your original post in this thread, noting the prominence of partial birth abortion in it, and save the sarcasm for an occasion when you aren't wrong.  Thanks.

[richyoung]

I have.  With the one exception of the Japanese surgeon who vivisectioned, without anesthetic, the Chinese girl who was carrying his unborn child at the time, I agree with LAK.

Look up Josef Mengele (Auschwitz) and Shiro Ishii (Unit 731).

No need - I am already quite familiar with them - and rank the abomination known as "partial birth abortion", which should be called "sticking scissors in a baby's brain, sucking its brain out, and ripping its body to pieces before its fully out of the birth canal, for no known medical reason", right up there with them.  Even worse in a way - neither Megele's nor Ishi's activities were common knowledge nor apporved by the polity of their respective countries - technically, what they both did was against their own countries laws.  Such can;t be said about PBA, which makes it worse in my book.

[Perd Hapley]

The original post does indeed seem more concerned with the interstate commerce issue than with abortion.  Yet, unfortunately, when one starts a thread that involves abortion, one can't expect to escape an argument about it.  If marijuana had been the foremost example, we'd probably have an argument about that, too.  Publius, I've tried to start a thread like this and it didn't work for me, either.  Sorry.

[publius]

Perhaps you should re-read your original post in this thread, noting the prominence of partial birth abortion in it, and save the sarcasm for an occasion when you aren't wrong.  Thanks.

I thought I was clear in the first post and subsequent ones that my interest here is in federal authority, but I'll consider your suggestion.

Now, do you have an opinion on the question of whether the authority of the commerce clause should extend to giving the feds power over partial birth abortion? Or any of the other issues I have mentioned which are currently "covered" by the commerce clause?

[richyoung]

My opinion, for what its worth, is that a better case for PBA as 'interstate commerce" can be built than for home-grown canabis or ho-made machine guns, as its highly likely that some of the equipment and products used in the proceedure moved interstate.  That having been said, this presuposes an almost unlimited police power that clearly is not in the Consitution.  Howevere, that is the way the clause is now used.  If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing the bill, you have a (small) point.   Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.

[Matthew Carberry]

My opinion, for what its worth, is that a better case for PBA as 'interstate commerce" can be built than for home-grown canabis or ho-made machine guns, as its highly likely that some of the equipment and products used in the proceedure moved interstate.  That having been said, this presuposes an almost unlimited police power that clearly is not in the Consitution.  Howevere, that is the way the clause is now used.  If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing hte bill, you have a (samll) point.   Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.

And the lesser of two evils in this case is to retain the controls on homicide at the state level as there is not one whit of Constitutional support for anything else.  To allow one's personal feelings to justify one exception to the limitation's on government is necessarily to allow any exception based on any other person's feelings as well, which is the "nose under the tent" that got us this far already.  It's either strict interp or nothing in the end.

Doctor Paul needs to fight this particular battle state by state in the proper venues.

[publius]

However, that is the way the clause is now used.

It was not always that way, so change is possible. I think it starts with electing people like Dr. Paul, who can see the need for change in the way we think about federal power. I can't think of another candidate who would say what he did about interstate commerce and partial birth abortions. I wish he had not voted the way he did, because it further entrenches what I view as illegitimate federal power, but I do recognize that sometimes there is no perfect choice in life. I still think Dr. Paul is the best available choice at the moment.

[cordex]

My opinion, for what its worth, is that a better case for PBA as 'interstate commerce" can be built than for home-grown canabis or ho-made machine guns, as its highly likely that some of the equipment and products used in the proceedure moved interstate.  That having been said, this presuposes an almost unlimited police power that clearly is not in the Consitution.  Howevere, that is the way the clause is now used.  If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing hte bill, you have a (samll) point.   Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.

What a country!

In one thread we've got CAnnoneer the Self-Proclaimed Libertarian saying "Use Big Government to support making BabyMade Band-Aids!" and in another we've got RichYoung the Republican saying "Use the Interstate Commerce Clause to ban abortion!"

I guess in some folks minds the ends will always justify the means.

[richyoung]

My opinion, for what its worth, is that a better case for PBA as 'interstate commerce" can be built than for home-grown canabis or ho-made machine guns, as its highly likely that some of the equipment and products used in the proceedure moved interstate.  That having been said, this presuposes an almost unlimited police power that clearly is not in the Consitution.  Howevere, that is the way the clause is now used.  If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing hte bill, you have a (samll) point.   Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.

What a country!

In one thread we've got CAnnoneer the Self-Proclaimed Libertarian saying "Use Big Government to support making BabyMade Band-Aids!" and in another we've got RichYoung the Republican saying "Use the Interstate Commerce Clause to ban abortion!"

I guess in some folks minds the ends will always justify the means.

You confuse my reporting the state of affairs as it is with endorsement.  I in no way favor the extension of the Commerce Clause into an unlimited police and regulatory authority, regardless of the subject of the particular case or my position on it.  I merely understand how someone else could do so, holding their nose. And for the record, I am far more libertarian than republican.

[jnojr]

If "partial birth abortion" is such a horrible evil, then the states can ban it.  If a state chooses not to ban it, then you're free to pack up and move in protest.

IMO, legislating morality is a very, very bad idea.  But it's worse to do so at a Federal level... the Federal government was given very limited powers, and "making exceptions" for "really important issues" wound us up where we are now, with a huge Federal government that consumes more of our wealth and liberty every day.

The question here shouldn't be about abortion, or any other issue... it should be, "How much power do we want the Federal government to have over our lives?"  My answer is, none.

[Perd Hapley]

If "partial birth abortion" is such a horrible evil, then the states can ban it. 

How realistic is that, considering Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, etc?  But as for "legislating morality," we're not talking about dancin' and drinkin' here.  The people working to ban this do so because they believe it is a form of murder.  And you can't really put that in the same category as outlawing smoking or sodomy. 

[richyoung]

If "partial birth abortion" is such a horrible evil, then the states can ban it. 

This would be true, except for a little Supremem Court decision called 'Roe Vs. Wade", which removed the subject of abortion from the state and federal legislative perview, and invented a "right to privacy", and then stretched that right to cover a very non-private act.

If a state chooses not to ban it, then you're free to pack up and move in protest.

Again, the states have been told, "don't touch!"

IMO, legislating morality is a very, very bad idea.

All legislation is "legislating morality"; the question is, who's?

 

[jnojr]

So, then, you're in favor of the Federal government directly interfering in our lives when you agree with them.

That makes it kinda difficult, when they come back and interfere some more, to tell them, "Hey!  I don't agree with you this time!  You have not been delegated the power to do this!"

Beware of what you wish for, you might get it, and all that.

[CAnnoneer]

In one thread we've got CAnnoneer the Self-Proclaimed Libertarian saying "Use Big Government to support making BabyMade Band-Aids!"

We already covered the lack of contradiction in my stance. Also, calling regenerative medicine "band-aid" and a blastocyst "a baby" seriously undermines your credibility.

I guess in some folks minds the ends will always justify the means.

You will need to walk us through as to how what I have said  obtains the above.

[publius]

So, then, you're in favor of the Federal government directly interfering in our lives when you agree with them.

Before any real bickering starts, I'd like to point out that this mischaracterizes what richyoung said:

I in no way favor the extension of the Commerce Clause into an unlimited police and regulatory authority, regardless of the subject of the particular case or my position on it.  I merely understand how someone else could do so, holding their nose.

[richyoung]

So, then, you're in favor of the Federal government directly interfering in our lives when you agree with them.

That makes it kinda difficult, when they come back and interfere some more, to tell them, "Hey!  I don't agree with you this time!  You have not been delegated the power to do this!"

Beware of what you wish for, you might get it, and all that.

No - and nowhere have I said so - in fact, I've said the exact opposite.  I'm in favor of a FEDERAL government exercising ONLY its limited, delegated powers under the Constitution, and NO MORE. That having been said, even the exercise of those powers will be legislating someone's morality: as will be the zealousness of the enforcement of the same.  If youthink there isn't a "morality" involved in things like the Civil Rights Act, Americans With Disabilities Act, Clean Air and Water Acts, Endangered Species Act, etc, etc, etc, then you are quite naive.

[publius]

If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing the bill, you have a (small) point.   Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.

I wasn't making that case, it's just obviously the case, as Dr. Paul said himself. He doesn't like how the commerce clause is being used, but was willing to use it in that case. I disapprove, but I also recognize that he is the ONLY candidate who  has expressed that kind of dislike for how the commerce clause is being used. That makes him the least of the evils to me.

By the way, if you read the original article I linked, the use of the commerce clause is really the less-glaring hypocrisy of the two mentioned by Dr. Paul. But that other one has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and doesn't interest me much.

[tyme]

How realistic is that, considering Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, etc?  But as for "legislating morality," we're not talking about dancin' and drinkin' here.  The people working to ban this do so because they believe it is a form of murder.  And you can't really put that in the same category as outlawing smoking or sodomy.

And the people who stage destructive but non-violent (well, they try for the most part, and harm to humans is rare) protest against animal experimentation and gas guzzlers (ALF, ELF, etc.) are also concerned with preventing murder -- they see themselves as protecting the life of research animals, on one hand, and the life of the ecosystem (or substantial parts of it) on the other.

It's all a matter of perspective.  We all understand the concept of murder, and we pretty much all agree it's bad.  We just don't agree how far the concept of "murder" should extend.  A human foetus is genetically human and alive, but cannot sustain itself biologically until way past 6 months, notwithstanding the recent 23-week delivery that made headlines.  Delivery doesn't mean squat.  Babies that premature have to stay hooked up to machines for a long time.

Just because something is "human" and also "alive" doesn't necessarily mean it's person with rights.  You can take many types of cells out of a human and grow them in a lab, at least for a while.  They're alive and they're human, but toss the petri dish in the garbage and you haven't committed murder, hopefully.

If (I think it's more "when") certain cells from an adult body can be stuck in a suitable environment with the right nutrients and hormones and manage to grow into something resembling a human, will killing one of those cells qualify as murder?

The gruesome description of PB abortion is just an appeal to emotion.  If someone doesn't believe the foetus qualifies as a human being with rights, PB abortion is yet another in a long list of medical procedures that's not for the squeamish.

[cordex]

A human foetus is genetically human and alive, but cannot sustain itself biologically until way past 6 months, notwithstanding the recent 23-week delivery that made headlines.  Delivery doesn't mean squat.  Babies that premature have to stay hooked up to machines for a long time.

I'd also note that patients with terminal diseases by definition cannot continue to sustain themselves biologically which does not (and I would say should not) remove them from qualifications for civil rights.  Similarly, lack of dependency on machines is not currently a requirement for the application of civil rights.  Or is that one of those "once human, always human" things at that point?

Are you suggesting by "Delivery doesn't mean squat," that a premature baby which doctors are capable of saving (but would require machine support) could be ethically "aborted" after delivery?

[Perd Hapley]

tyme,

In all sincerity, if you won't read my posts more carefully and take the time to understand what I'm saying, then don't respond.  The whole point was that laws against abortion would not be in the category of prohibiting prostitution or other petty vice crimes.  This doesn't mean that abortion is wrong, it simply means that the "right to privacy" argument is nonsense. 

The rest of your post is the typical imposition of pro-abortion beliefs on others.  You're welcome to believe that some humans don't have rights because of your fuzzy, arbitrary beliefs about personhood or "viability," but such beliefs are not acceptable justification to kill them. 

[tyme]

The whole point was that laws against abortion would not be in the category of prohibiting prostitution or other petty vice crimes.

And my whole point was that, depending on your perspective, abortion can be as petty as the lesser crimes of vandalism, or the non-crime of killing an animal for research.  There's no medical purpose to most abortions, that's true, but there's certainly a sociological purpose.  These are hardly whimsical decisions, particularly at the stage where a D&E abortion is one of the options.

You're welcome to believe that some humans don't have rights because of your fuzzy, arbitrary beliefs about personhood or "viability," but such beliefs are not acceptable justification to kill them.

No more fuzzy and arbitrary than declaring a 1-day-old embryo a human being with rights.  You think some of these issues don't make me uncomfortable?  They do.  I'd just rather try to work through them than fall back on some arbitrary religion that gives me a pre-made paradigm through which to view the world.

I'd also note that patients with terminal diseases by definition cannot continue to sustain themselves biologically which does not (and I would say should not) remove them from qualifications for civil rights.  Similarly, lack of dependency on machines is not currently a requirement for the application of civil rights.

Terminally ill patients can usually express their wishes.  Patients who cannot express themselves, including premature babies, have next of kin make medical decisions.  In the case of an extremely premature birth, the obvious medical decision-makers are the parents.

Does an incommunicable patient who might recover have a right to every medical treatment he can afford, even if that supersedes his own previously-expressed wishes or the wishes of his next of kin?

[Perd Hapley]

No more fuzzy and arbitrary than declaring a 1-day-old embryo a human being with rights.  You think some of these issues don't make me uncomfortable?  They do.  I'd just rather try to work through them than fall back on some arbitrary religion that gives me a pre-made paradigm through which to view the world.

Again, you're reading things that I didn't write.  I haven't argued on the basis of religion.  You are much closer to doing that than I am, with your philosophical distinctions about "personhood."  I'm simply asking that the rights of children be applied to all of them, across the board, rather than fall back on your abitrary paradigm.

Nor did I say anything about the age of the embryo.  I'm drawing the line at conception because it is the only one available.  Unlike the random group of human cells you're growing in the lab over there, the zygote is a complete human individual that can grow into an adult with all the same faculties you have.  You may now feel free to explain why it should be legal to kill this individual, but not other young children.   

[tyme]

Unlike the random group of human cells you're growing in the lab over there, the zygote is a complete human individual that can grow into an adult with all the same faculties you have.

I'm not going to play your semantic game.  A zygote is not an individual.  An ovum with the implanted nucleus of a skin cell is effectively the same thing, and I don't consider it to be a human individual either.  Do you?

Let's consider artificial insemination so that the events are clearly delineated.  The moment someone decides to fertilize an egg, do the egg and sperm become protected just like an embryo is?  I don't know the actual protocol for artificial insemination, but suppose WLOG that it's in a petri dish, and the egg is not quite through the process of fertilization.  Am I a murderer if I hurl the petri dish out a window?  What if the nuclei fuse while it's still 2 stories up?  Am I a murder then?  What if the embryo survives but is killed when an overworked nurse spills a cup of hot coffee from starbucks on the sidewalk where the dish landed?  Who's the murderer now... am I, is the nurse, or is Starbuck's corporate?  Perhaps the barrista who served that particular cup of coffee 3 degrees hotter than standard?

You may now feel free to explain why it should be legal to kill this individual, but not other young children.   

What individual?

As long as you're on a mission to ensure that society produces as many babies as possible, even when the parents don't want them, why limit the crusade to already-fertilized embryos?  Why not turn women into baby factories?

My apologies for assuming your argument was based on religion.  What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single cell?

[Perd Hapley]

What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single cell?

What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single human?