"I Wish I'd Had a Late-Term Abortion" first person account.

[iu_a_att]

Dina Zirlott writes about her experience and wishes that she had been able to have a late-term abortion.

I have watched as women raised their voices in the Me Too movement. I have read the vitriol directed at victims of sexual assault, at women who have made the agonizing decision to go through with an abortion. I am watching now as our bodies continue to be commodified, exploited for the sake of ignorant politics. Judgment without context is the worst sort of cowardice. I would invite you to sit across from me and listen to me tell this story with my own voice, every excruciating detail, and tell me to my face how I should feel or what I should have done. Tell me you know my grief better than I do. Tell me it doesn’t matter.​

The line "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" is haunting but worth reflecting on. I think conservative abortion hardliners won't be moved by her story. They will think that whatever agony and regrets Zirlott has now must pale in comparison to the regrets she would and should have had she chosen abortion. I suppose they might even grant that even though many women might justly and humanely choose abortion for themselves, legalizing abortion will make it possible for some woman somewhere to unjustly and inhumanely choose to abort. The law must be harsh to deter such women even at the cost of unjustly and inhumanely denying abortions to many other women.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Dina Zirlott writes about her experience and wishes that she had been able to have a late-term abortion.

I have watched as women raised their voices in the Me Too movement. I have read the vitriol directed at victims of sexual assault, at women who have made the agonizing decision to go through with an abortion. I am watching now as our bodies continue to be commodified, exploited for the sake of ignorant politics. Judgment without context is the worst sort of cowardice. I would invite you to sit across from me and listen to me tell this story with my own voice, every excruciating detail, and tell me to my face how I should feel or what I should have done. Tell me you know my grief better than I do. Tell me it doesn’t matter.​

The line "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" is haunting but worth reflecting on. I think conservative abortion hardliners won't be moved by her story. They will think that whatever agony and regrets Zirlott has now must pale in comparison to the regrets she would and should have had she chosen abortion. I suppose they might even grant that even though many women might justly and humanely choose abortion for themselves, legalizing abortion will make it possible for some woman somewhere to unjustly and inhumanely choose to abort. The law must be harsh to deter such women even at the cost of unjustly and inhumanely denying abortions to many other women.

Just sent some freshly minted thoughts and prayers. That should do it.

Seriously, what a fvcking horrible story. And one that won’t change a single rube’s mind.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Dina Zirlott writes about her experience and wishes that she had been able to have a late-term abortion.

I have watched as women raised their voices in the Me Too movement. I have read the vitriol directed at victims of sexual assault, at women who have made the agonizing decision to go through with an abortion. I am watching now as our bodies continue to be commodified, exploited for the sake of ignorant politics. Judgment without context is the worst sort of cowardice. I would invite you to sit across from me and listen to me tell this story with my own voice, every excruciating detail, and tell me to my face how I should feel or what I should have done. Tell me you know my grief better than I do. Tell me it doesn’t matter.​

The line "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" is haunting but worth reflecting on. I think conservative abortion hardliners won't be moved by her story. They will think that whatever agony and regrets Zirlott has now must pale in comparison to the regrets she would and should have had she chosen abortion. I suppose they might even grant that even though many women might justly and humanely choose abortion for themselves, legalizing abortion will make it possible for some woman somewhere to unjustly and inhumanely choose to abort. The law must be harsh to deter such women even at the cost of unjustly and inhumanely denying abortions to many other women.

This post is just bullshit and I think you know that. The late term abortion debate is not about a baby with no brain and no chance to live like a human being. You can keep your silly buzz phrases like "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" to yourself. That adds nothing of substance to the discussion about late term abortion of a viable healthy baby, or killing the baby if it survives the abortion procedure.

The New York law celebrated by Democrats specifically eliminates the baby's viability as a consideration. So it treats a viable healthy late term baby the same as a late term baby with no brain. This is the kind of law the debate is about.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

This post is just bullshit and I think you know that. The late term abortion debate is not about a baby with no brain and no chance to live like a human being. You can keep your silly buzz phrases like "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" to yourself. That adds nothing of substance to the discussion about late term abortion of a viable healthy baby, or killing the baby if it survives the abortion procedure.

The New York law celebrated by Democrats specifically eliminates the baby's viability as a consideration. So it treats a viable healthy late term baby the same as a late term baby with no brain. This is the kind of law the debate is about.

The article did warn some people could be triggered. Maybe you should have stopped at that point.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

That article actually would serve better as a warning for women on what NOT to do if they are raped.

Didn’t tell anyone.
Didn’t go to the police.
Didn’t go to a doctor.
Didn’t get checked for STD’s or pregnancy.

Otherwise, she did an excellent job refuting what no reasonable people are actually arguing.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

That article actually would serve better as a warning for women on what NOT to do if they are raped.

Didn’t tell anyone.
Didn’t go to the police.
Didn’t go to a doctor.
Didn’t get checked for STD’s or pregnancy.

Otherwise, she did an excellent job refuting what no reasonable people are actually arguing.

LMAO!

 

[iu_a_att]

This post is just bullshit and I think you know that. The late term abortion debate is not about a baby with no brain and no chance to live like a human being. You can keep your silly buzz phrases like "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" to yourself. That adds nothing of substance to the discussion about late term abortion of a viable healthy baby, or killing the baby if it survives the abortion procedure.

The New York law celebrated by Democrats specifically eliminates the baby's viability as a consideration. So it treats a viable healthy late term baby the same as a late term baby with no brain. This is the kind of law the debate is about.

Did you read the article? The baby was "viable" (although clearly not healthy) and lived for more than a year before ultimately dying. Yeah, I think the phrase "judgement without context" is quite accurate. But my post actually goes beyond that and points to a tradeoff the woman misses. I notice you don't engage with my post on that front either. Should we design laws to accommodate the vast majority of women who actually find themselves considering late term abortions or should we design the law to focus on the incentives the law creates for very small set who might behave in a way we think is grotesquely abusive? That is not a trivial question.

 

[zeke4ahs]

That article actually would serve better as a warning for women on what NOT to do if they are raped.

Didn’t tell anyone.
Didn’t go to the police.
Didn’t go to a doctor.
Didn’t get checked for STD’s or pregnancy.

Otherwise, she did an excellent job refuting what no reasonable people are actually arguing.

Oh good. Thanks for advice on what to do and not to do when raped. Only thing better than men constantly sharing their opinion on what they think women should do with an unwanted or unviable pregnancy.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Dina Zirlott writes about her experience and wishes that she had been able to have a late-term abortion.

I have watched as women raised their voices in the Me Too movement. I have read the vitriol directed at victims of sexual assault, at women who have made the agonizing decision to go through with an abortion. I am watching now as our bodies continue to be commodified, exploited for the sake of ignorant politics. Judgment without context is the worst sort of cowardice. I would invite you to sit across from me and listen to me tell this story with my own voice, every excruciating detail, and tell me to my face how I should feel or what I should have done. Tell me you know my grief better than I do. Tell me it doesn’t matter.​

The line "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" is haunting but worth reflecting on. I think conservative abortion hardliners won't be moved by her story. They will think that whatever agony and regrets Zirlott has now must pale in comparison to the regrets she would and should have had she chosen abortion. I suppose they might even grant that even though many women might justly and humanely choose abortion for themselves, legalizing abortion will make it possible for some woman somewhere to unjustly and inhumanely choose to abort. The law must be harsh to deter such women even at the cost of unjustly and inhumanely denying abortions to many other women.

This post is just bullshit and I think you know that. The late term abortion debate is not about a baby with no brain and no chance to live like a human being. You can keep your silly buzz phrases like "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" to yourself. That adds nothing of substance to the discussion about late term abortion of a viable healthy baby, or killing the baby if it survives the abortion procedure.

The New York law celebrated by Democrats specifically eliminates the baby's viability as a consideration. So it treats a viable healthy late term baby the same as a late term baby with no brain. This is the kind of law the debate is about.

Third trimester is only for safety of mother or if fetus is not viable. I’m still just flabbergasted that people think a woman carries a baby for 6 months or more and then just casually decides...hah, never mind.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Oh good. Thanks for advice on what to do and not to do when raped. Only thing better than men constantly sharing their opinion on what they think women should do with an unwanted or unviable pregnancy.

Good grief. Was anything I said wrong?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Third trimester is only for safety of mother or if fetus is not viable.

“Safety of mother” is not a meaningful standard to abort a viable fetus. I think the New York law says “health” which is even less meaningful.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Good grief. Was anything I said wrong?

I don’t know how I’d handle it But I wouldn’t dream of telling someone else what she should or should not do. Often the aftermath of a rape is more traumatic than the rape itself. So it’s an individual decision the person has to make.

 

[iu_a_att]

“Safety of mother” is not a meaningful standard to abort a viable fetus. I think the New York law says “health” which is even less meaningful.

Seems quite meaningful to me because it makes it really hard for some prosecutor to second guess a woman acting together with her doctor. As a result both mothers and doctors are protected.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

I don’t know how I’d handle it But I wouldn’t dream of telling someone else what she should or should not do. Often the aftermath of a rape is more traumatic than the rape itself. So it’s an individual decision the person has to make.

You suggest to one of your girls that they should go to the police if they came to you?

What would you tell them?

That it's not your place to tell them anything?

 

[wiede]

That article actually would serve better as a warning for women on what NOT to do if they are raped.

Didn’t tell anyone.
Didn’t go to the police.
Didn’t go to a doctor.
Didn’t get checked for STD’s or pregnancy.

Otherwise, she did an excellent job refuting what no reasonable people are actually arguing.

Because trauma makes people act exactly like you think they should.

I really hope no one close to you goes through something like this. Because you’re going to be a b@stard about it. I’m sure of that. Really judgmental and insensitive post. Not shocking, unfortunately.

Jesus F’n Christ. Gaslight much? Go look it up. You just demonstrated it really, really well. Blame the victim, essentially.

This DID trigger me. It’s not your role to evaluate how someone SHOULD act, after they are violated. Emotional trauma/rape really screws with people in different ways. And sometimes they react much differently than ever they think they would.

Mike Tyson once said that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Getting raped is a pretty big punch in the face.

 

[wiede]

You suggest to one of your girls that they should go to the police if they came to you?

What would you tell them?

That it's not your place to tell them anything?

I’m pretty sure she would support them, and encourage them to go to the police if they could handle it.

It ain’t about what YOU think should happen. It’s about helping the victim, and how they process it.

I’m seeing a theme among some of the more clueless conservatives on this thread today. It’s not a good look.

 

[wiede]

Good grief. Was anything I said wrong?

Yes. Almost all of it.

And if you can’t see it, I don’t think you ever will.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Seems quite meaningful to me because it makes it really hard for some prosecutor to second guess a woman acting together with her doctor. As a result both mothers and doctors are protected.

Protecting mother and doctor is much easier, just allow late term abortion on demand. Putting in a “safety” or “health” standard is gaslighting the issue. Neither of those terms are meaningful standards but they sound like it.

 

[iuwclurker]

Did you read the article? The baby was "viable" (although clearly not healthy) and lived for more than a year before ultimately dying. Yeah, I think the phrase "judgement without context" is quite accurate. But my post actually goes beyond that and points to a tradeoff the woman misses. I notice you don't engage with my post on that front either. Should we design laws to accommodate the vast majority of women who actually find themselves considering late term abortions or should we design the law to focus on the incentives the law creates for very small set who might behave in a way we think is grotesquely abusive? That is not a trivial question.

COH has it all wrong anyway, in his lockstep-with-GOP-bullshit manner. His debate is contrived to be about healthy versus whatever babies. The real is issue is women dealing with horrible alternatives. The falsely pious conservatives here and at large caricaturize this into something else so they can anesthetize themselves from the feelings of women. What they miss, in mis-reading this article and in general, is that women don't want to be in these intractable situations, don't want to have to make these decisions, are more horrified at the proposition of ending the life of the human being, than the pathetic pretenses of human beings that make this a simple-minded dichotomy.

And I say all that being firmly against abortion. My position doesn't stop me from realizing how emotionally painful this issue can be for women and how women want to be free to make this personal decision without God striking them dead.

 

[iuwclurker]

Good grief. Was anything I said wrong?

You conveniently omitted the author's feeling utterly shocked, destroyed, wanting to kill herself and so on. How comfortably numb of you.



My question for you is simple: "Hello, is there anybody in there?"

 

[CradleofBasketball]

The line "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" is haunting but worth reflecting on. I think conservative abortion hardliners won't be moved by her story. They will think that whatever agony and regrets Zirlott has now must pale in comparison to the regrets she would and should have had she chosen abortion. I suppose they might even grant that even though many women might justly and humanely choose abortion for themselves, legalizing abortion will make it possible for some woman somewhere to unjustly and inhumanely choose to abort. The law must be harsh to deter such women even at the cost of unjustly and inhumanely denying abortions to many other women.

Two thoughts about "...judgement without context..."

1. It's an unfortunate outcome of our human and cultural conditioning, and the fact that she included the statement is a good indicator she didn't tell a soul for eight months to avoid being judged and dismissed.
2. There's a noticeable contextual gap of eight months between the rape and the discovery of pregnancy. '...Getting sick, losing weight, actively suicidal' is all that we're allowed to see. While it's possible that hydranencephaly is a congenital disorder as Dina infers, that's not the only context that can be ascribed:

"Hydranencephaly does not have any definitive identifiable cause factor. As with all cephalic conditions, there is an obvious interruption in normal development of the nervous system. A traumatic occurrence of sorts, resulting in prenatal stroke, is believed to be the primary cause of hydranencephaly. Some possibilities include: intrauterine infection, environmental exposure to toxins, vascular insult of another nature, and twin-to-twin transfusion. Some researchers have also suggested the possibility of a genetic component, though only one case has been documented in which a family has been presented this diagnosis for more than one child."​

It's a moving narrative. She clearly loved Zoe. I imagine that if Zoe was capable of feeling pain, as Dina implies, then there was also a feeling of receiving comfort and love from her mother. In that context I can't imagine that love and comfort being denied to Zoe and instead replaced by a first human interaction consisting of cold steel and death.

If Zoe was not capable of feeling pain, then Dina was and is feeling it for her. In telling her story retrospectively, Dina believes an abortion would have been merciful for Zoe and for herself. Maybe. I'm struck, though, by the name Dina gave her child. Whether intentionally or by mere chance, Dina gave her child a name, Zoe, that means "life" in ancient Greek and, Lily, that means "purity" in English. It seems to me that a life of purity is exactly what Zoe lived. She was born, loved, and grieved unconditionally, despite the manner of her conception.

 

[HillzHoozier]

Dina Zirlott writes about her experience and wishes that she had been able to have a late-term abortion.

I have watched as women raised their voices in the Me Too movement. I have read the vitriol directed at victims of sexual assault, at women who have made the agonizing decision to go through with an abortion. I am watching now as our bodies continue to be commodified, exploited for the sake of ignorant politics. Judgment without context is the worst sort of cowardice. I would invite you to sit across from me and listen to me tell this story with my own voice, every excruciating detail, and tell me to my face how I should feel or what I should have done. Tell me you know my grief better than I do. Tell me it doesn’t matter.​

The line "judgement without context is the worst sort of cowardice" is haunting but worth reflecting on. I think conservative abortion hardliners won't be moved by her story. They will think that whatever agony and regrets Zirlott has now must pale in comparison to the regrets she would and should have had she chosen abortion. I suppose they might even grant that even though many women might justly and humanely choose abortion for themselves, legalizing abortion will make it possible for some woman somewhere to unjustly and inhumanely choose to abort. The law must be harsh to deter such women even at the cost of unjustly and inhumanely denying abortions to many other women.

Just think of all the abortions those poor aborted fetuses are being denied.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Two thoughts about "...judgement without context..."

1. It's an unfortunate outcome of our human and cultural conditioning, and the fact that she included the statement is a good indicator she didn't tell a soul for eight months to avoid being judged and dismissed.
2. There's a noticeable contextual gap of eight months between the rape and the discovery of pregnancy. '...Getting sick, losing weight, actively suicidal' is all that we're allowed to see. While it's possible that hydranencephaly is a congenital disorder as Dina infers, that's not the only context that can be ascribed:

"Hydranencephaly does not have any definitive identifiable cause factor. As with all cephalic conditions, there is an obvious interruption in normal development of the nervous system. A traumatic occurrence of sorts, resulting in prenatal stroke, is believed to be the primary cause of hydranencephaly. Some possibilities include: intrauterine infection, environmental exposure to toxins, vascular insult of another nature, and twin-to-twin transfusion. Some researchers have also suggested the possibility of a genetic component, though only one case has been documented in which a family has been presented this diagnosis for more than one child."​

It's a moving narrative. She clearly loved Zoe. I imagine that if Zoe was capable of feeling pain, as Dina implies, then there was also a feeling of receiving comfort and love from her mother. In that context I can't imagine that love and comfort being denied to Zoe and instead replaced by a first human interaction consisting of cold steel and death.

If Zoe was not capable of feeling pain, then Dina was and is feeling it for her. In telling her story retrospectively, Dina believes an abortion would have been merciful for Zoe and for herself. Maybe. I'm struck, though, by the name Dina gave her child. Whether intentionally or by mere chance, Dina gave her child a name, Zoe, that means "life" in ancient Greek and, Lily, that means "purity" in English. It seems to me that a life of purity is exactly what Zoe lived. She was born, loved, and grieved unconditionally, despite the manner of her conception.

So now we can call rape a “manner of conception”. Wait, let’s call it “alternative conception”. Rape is kind of a harsh word.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

I’m pretty sure she would support them, and encourage them to go to the police if they could handle it.

It ain’t about what YOU think should happen. It’s about helping the victim, and how they process it.

And if what the victim wants to just forget about it and move on with her life. Then what?

Leave the rapist out there in the public for the next victim? Hey at least you were sensitive.

You guys are letting your sensitivity cloud you from doing what's actually right. That or you're just posturing to make it seem like Conservatives dgaf about rape victims.

Which is it?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

”I have more personal experience with victims of rape than you do.”

Gosh, why didn’t you just tell us that to start with? We could have deferred to your infinite wisdom on the subject and saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

 

[iu_a_att]

Two thoughts about "...judgement without context..."

1. It's an unfortunate outcome of our human and cultural conditioning, and the fact that she included the statement is a good indicator she didn't tell a soul for eight months to avoid being judged and dismissed.
2. There's a noticeable contextual gap of eight months between the rape and the discovery of pregnancy. '...Getting sick, losing weight, actively suicidal' is all that we're allowed to see. While it's possible that hydranencephaly is a congenital disorder as Dina infers, that's not the only context that can be ascribed:

"Hydranencephaly does not have any definitive identifiable cause factor. As with all cephalic conditions, there is an obvious interruption in normal development of the nervous system. A traumatic occurrence of sorts, resulting in prenatal stroke, is believed to be the primary cause of hydranencephaly. Some possibilities include: intrauterine infection, environmental exposure to toxins, vascular insult of another nature, and twin-to-twin transfusion. Some researchers have also suggested the possibility of a genetic component, though only one case has been documented in which a family has been presented this diagnosis for more than one child."​

It's a moving narrative. She clearly loved Zoe. I imagine that if Zoe was capable of feeling pain, as Dina implies, then there was also a feeling of receiving comfort and love from her mother. In that context I can't imagine that love and comfort being denied to Zoe and instead replaced by a first human interaction consisting of cold steel and death.

If Zoe was not capable of feeling pain, then Dina was and is feeling it for her. In telling her story retrospectively, Dina believes an abortion would have been merciful for Zoe and for herself. Maybe. I'm struck, though, by the name Dina gave her child. Whether intentionally or by mere chance, Dina gave her child a name, Zoe, that means "life" in ancient Greek and, Lily, that means "purity" in English. It seems to me that a life of purity is exactly what Zoe lived. She was born, loved, and grieved unconditionally, despite the manner of her conception.

I am struck by the discrepancy between your account and Dina's. In your telling Dina and Zoe are ultimately ennobled by the experience of Dina carrying Zoe to term and then Dina having to watch Zoe die for the year after that. But according to Dina she experienced and still experiences all that as akin to a crucifixion of both her and Zoe.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well this is pretty much an "as expected" thread.

 

[iu_a_att]

Well this is pretty much an "as expected" thread.

I tried in the OP and in reply to CoH to suggest a trade off that might worth discussing...do you have a take? Here is the problem. Maybe it is inescapable that we must take a hardline on some issues and always punish some behaviors independent of context. For example, consider stand your ground laws. They make it okay to kill someone if you perceive yourself to be threatened. But since the perception of threat is subjective, if we allowed such a defense then anyone who wanted to murder could exploit that exception by claiming to perceive themselves as threatened. Even though we acknowledge that the perception of threat is a perfectly good reason for self-defense we might nevertheless not allow mere perception of threat as a rationale for killing someone else because of the incentives it creates for people to lie about feeling threatened.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I tried in the OP and in reply to CoH to suggest a trade off that might worth discussing...do you have a take? Here is the problem. Maybe it is inescapable that we must take a hardline on some issues and always punish some behaviors independent of context. For example, consider stand your ground laws. They make it okay to kill someone if you perceive yourself to be threatened. But since the perception of threat is subjective, if we allowed such a defense then anyone who wanted to murder could exploit that exception by claiming to perceive themselves as threatened. Even though we acknowledge that the perception of threat is a perfectly good reason for self-defense we might nevertheless not allow mere perception of threat as a rationale for killing someone else because of the incentives it creates for people to lie about feeling threatened.

Interesting thoughts. They deserve a thorough response. I will type more when I get home.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

I am struck by the discrepancy between your account and Dina's. In your telling Dina and Zoe are ultimately ennobled by the experience of Dina carrying Zoe to term and then Dina having to watch Zoe die for the year after that. But according to Dina she experienced and still experiences all that as akin to a crucifixion of both her and Zoe.

If by ennobled you're suggesting that I respect the love that Dina and her family gave to Zoe under those circumstances, then, yes I agree. If you're implying that I overlooked the obvious soul-crushing pain in which Dina describes she's living and instead am relishing her personal sacrifice as some twisted silver lining around a greater cause, then, no, I don't agree.

 

[iu_a_att]

If by ennobled you're suggesting that I respect the love that Dina and her family gave to Zoe under those circumstances, then, yes I agree. If you're implying that I overlooked the obvious soul-crushing pain in which Dina describes she's living and instead am relishing her personal sacrifice as some twisted silver lining around a greater cause, then, no, I don't agree.

Dina does not find herself or Zoe to have been ennobled by not having a late term abortion. She is further oppressed by that fact. I read you as suggesting you feel Dina and Zoe are ennobled or ought to feel themselves ennobled by the fact that Dina did not abort. Do I misread you?

 

[CradleofBasketball]

Dina does not find herself or Zoe to have been ennobled by not having a late term abortion. She is further oppressed by that fact. I read you as suggesting you feel Dina and Zoe are ennobled or ought to feel themselves ennobled by the fact that Dina did not abort. Do I misread you?

I think you misread. Dina asserted that she would choose to have a late term abortion as an act of mercy for Zoe and for herself. That was the root for my comment that Dina "...was and is feeling her pain." My comment about life of purity was just a reflection on Zoe's name and a connection to the love she received. That's all. And, again, I'm not trying to insert some newfound dignity into Dina's story.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I tried in the OP and in reply to CoH to suggest a trade off that might worth discussing...do you have a take? Here is the problem. Maybe it is inescapable that we must take a hardline on some issues and always punish some behaviors independent of context. For example, consider stand your ground laws. They make it okay to kill someone if you perceive yourself to be threatened. But since the perception of threat is subjective, if we allowed such a defense then anyone who wanted to murder could exploit that exception by claiming to perceive themselves as threatened. Even though we acknowledge that the perception of threat is a perfectly good reason for self-defense we might nevertheless not allow mere perception of threat as a rationale for killing someone else because of the incentives it creates for people to lie about feeling threatened.

First, a note on reasonable belief. The person claiming self defense has an affirmative duty to show that he had the reasonable belief that he was in danger (or, sometimes in the home, simply the reasonable belief that the invader was going to commit a crime). This has essentially two parts: that the person actually held the belief, and that, in that situation, considering all the circumstances of that individual person, the belief was reasonable. In other words, it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

But, to your main point, I do think people tend to take a hard line on some issues. Some of these hard lines are perfectly reasonable. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that all abortion is sin because all human life is made in the image of God, and only God has the right to end a human life. Even if aborting Zoe would have been a mercy, according to Church teaching, it would be a mercy that only God had the authority to bestow. Because of why the Church is opposed to abortion, there's no way really around it.

However, I do not think the hard line is the only one available. I tend to think the old school Democrats got it right many years ago when they decided their position on abortion was that it should be "safe, legal, and rare." I think it's quite possible to believe that abortions should be prevented and avoided, while still recognizing that certain situations - like the one you linked in your OP - might rightly call for one.

The reason some people take issue with the phrase "judgment without context" is, I think, because those people are like the Catholic Church on this issue - context is irrelevant. Those who think context is very relevant - as I do - are really having an entirely different conversation than the people who don't.

 

[iu_a_att]

I think you misread. Dina asserted that she would choose to have a late term abortion as an act of mercy for Zoe and for herself. That was the root for my comment that Dina "...was and is feeling her pain." My comment about life of purity was just a reflection on Zoe's name and a connection to the love she received. That's all. And, again, I'm not trying to insert some newfound dignity into Dina's story.

Dina says that had she been allowed to choose late term abortion she would, “a hundred times over.” You say “maybe”. Dina says “her heart could have been stopped when she was warm and safe within me”. You say “I cant imagine that love and comfort being denied Zoe and instead replaced ...by an interaction of cold steel and death.”

The differences between your imagination and Dina’s reality impress me.

 

[iu_a_att]

First, a note on reasonable belief. The person claiming self defense has an affirmative duty to show that he had the reasonable belief that he was in danger (or, sometimes in the home, simply the reasonable belief that the invader was going to commit a crime). This has essentially two parts: that the person actually held the belief, and that, in that situation, considering all the circumstances of that individual person, the belief was reasonable. In other words, it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

But, to your main point, I do think people tend to take a hard line on some issues. Some of these hard lines are perfectly reasonable. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that all abortion is sin because all human life is made in the image of God, and only God has the right to end a human life. Even if aborting Zoe would have been a mercy, according to Church teaching, it would be a mercy that only God had the authority to bestow. Because of why the Church is opposed to abortion, there's no way really around it.

However, I do not think the hard line is the only one available. I tend to think the old school Democrats got it right many years ago when they decided their position on abortion was that it should be "safe, legal, and rare." I think it's quite possible to believe that abortions should be prevented and avoided, while still recognizing that certain situations - like the one you linked in your OP - might rightly call for one.

The reason some people take issue with the phrase "judgment without context" is, I think, because those people are like the Catholic Church on this issue - context is irrelevant. Those who think context is very relevant - as I do - are really having an entirely different conversation than the people who don't.

I am suggesting a different reason for judgement without context that is consequential rather than deontological. If context is exculpatory then people will seek to manipulate the context. I think this was essentially the point CoH makes.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I am suggesting a different reason for judgement without context that is consequential rather than deontological. If context is exculpatory then people will seek to manipulate the context. I think this was essentially the point CoH makes.

I tend to dislike policies that are based primarily on the assumption that American citizens as a whole can't be trusted to distinguish between two things that are different.

 

[iu_a_att]

I tend to dislike policies that are based primarily on the assumption that American citizens as a whole can't be trusted to distinguish between two things that are different.

The truth is different from a lie but distinguishing between the two is often impossible.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The truth is different from a lie but distinguishing between the two is often impossible.

I don't believe that, but even if I did, I don't believe it's a very good idea to let the government decide when we are incapable of doing so.

 

[iu_a_att]

I don't believe that, but even if I did, I don't believe it's a very good idea to let the government decide when we are incapable of doing so.

My point is that the inability to objectively establish context or to establish that the context was not itself chosen is an argument for ignoring context when reaching judgement about behavior. I think the law sometimes ignores context for exactly these reasons. Consider for example strict liability standards that dispense with the need of proving negligence and instead assign liability in order to create proper incentives for care. Maybe you can think of other instances.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Did you read the article? The baby was "viable" (although clearly not healthy) and lived for more than a year before ultimately dying. Yeah, I think the phrase "judgement without context" is quite accurate. But my post actually goes beyond that and points to a tradeoff the woman misses. I notice you don't engage with my post on that front either. Should we design laws to accommodate the vast majority of women who actually find themselves considering late term abortions or should we design the law to focus on the incentives the law creates for very small set who might behave in a way we think is grotesquely abusive? That is not a trivial question.

It’s not a trivial question. Only a handful of countries allow elective late term abortions. For all practical purposes, the standards in the NY law and the proposed VA law were so loose that they were nonexistent. FWIW, I have no objection to allowing a termination of a pregnancy when the baby has no brain.