Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览安德鲁·纳波利塔诺(Andrew Napolitano)档案
堕胎和生存权
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

最近在纽约州颁布的一项法规中,已经做出了很多关于语言的规定,该法规允许为了保持母亲的生命或健康而在必要时允许堕胎直至分娩。 新泽西州根据医务审查委员会的规定,在两代人中都有相同的规定。

可悲的是,当纽约州州长安德鲁·库莫(Andrew Cuomo)两周前签署了这项新法律成为法律时,他在充满欢乐和欢庆的气氛中签署了这项法律。 哪个有道德的人可以从中找到快乐?

当弗吉尼亚大会上周准备就几乎与纽约的立法相同的立法进行投票时,关于怀孕多晚在道德上或法律上为堕胎为时太晚的问题的无聊辩论就变得清晰起来,只是使该立法被一个人无意中破坏了。儿科神经病学专家拉尔夫·诺瑟姆(Ralph Northam)是其最热心的支持者。

当诺瑟姆州长在里士满广播电台被问到节目时,法律将如何解决婴儿在怀孕第XNUMX个月幸存的流产手术,而他的冷漠和震惊的回答是,拟议的立法将允许母亲和医生让不受欢迎的人接受婴儿被动地死了,随之而来的是愤怒,该法案以一票之差被否决。

那种愤怒很快转移到了州长诺瑟姆(Northam)的适合办公室工作上,而不是因为他对堕胎的评论,而是因为他在医学院的年鉴页面上显示了一张有黑脸的人和另一个在库克卢克斯·科兰(Ku Klux Klan)装束中的照片-共同描绘出令人恐惧的恐怖,可恨,伤害性的图像。在美国历史上可怕的白人至上主义者统治的时期中,流血被抹去了。 这一令人震惊的启示和拟议的弗吉尼亚州立法的失败改变了公众的辩论,从让堕胎程序幸存下来的婴儿死亡到使弗吉尼亚政府失去了潜在的,可能的或曾经的白人至上主义者。

诺瑟姆州长起初道歉,不是因为他支持立法允许被动生育婴儿的死亡,而是因为他年轻的黑脸照片。 然后,经过深思熟虑,他否认照片是他的。 然后,希望他离开办公室的民主党人陷入政治地狱。

但是问题仍然存在,并且不能被州长35岁的年鉴页面上的大火掩埋:幸存了晚期流产手术的婴儿的法律地位是什么? 这是背景故事。

1973年XNUMX月,最高法院在同一天发布了两项堕胎决定。 自从废奴运动在国与国之间的战争之前的时代对奴隶制提出挑战以来,这两个国家都曾发生过激烈的辩论,这在这两个国家中最为人所知的是Roe v。Wade,是政治,法律,道德和宗教辩论的支点。

立即订购

罗伊(Roe)证实,尽管人类为人父母,而且拥有发育为完整的出生后人类所需的所有基因组材料,但子宫内的胎儿在法律上都不是一个人。 这呼应了最高法院的另一项判决,即处于废奴主义时代的Dred Scott诉Sandford案,有效地否认了非裔美国人的人格。

人类胎儿的个性不仅仅是一个学术问题。 如果胎儿是一个人,那么宪法第14和XNUMX号修正案就保护了胎儿免于堕胎,该修正案命令政府平等地保护所有人的生命。 但是,罗伊(Roe)并未因人格问题而停下来。 该法令还规定,各州不得在妇女怀孕的前三个月中进行流产,只能在母亲的健康中在后三个月中进行管理,并可能在第三三个月中禁止或允许堕胎。

然而,这里的踢球者一直在Roe雷达屏幕的下方,而在过去55年中,有46万婴儿的生命被扼杀了。 罗伊(Roe)颁布法令,为挽救生命或维护母亲的健康,所有州都必须在怀孕期间的任何时候允许堕胎。 多亏了现代医学,威胁母亲生命的怀孕极少发生。 但是,由于Roe鲜为人知的同案Doe v。Bolton,“母亲的健康”一词可以表示母亲的身体,心理,心理或情感健康,以及(莫名其妙地)母亲的年龄。

在Roe诉Wade诉Doe诉Bolton诉的情况下,换句话说,在工会的所有州中,如果一位母亲满足医生的意见,则如果她要生孩子或太老而不能成为母亲,她会在情感上遭受痛苦,她可以在怀孕的任何时候进行流产-即使在第XNUMX个月末。

现在,回到Northam州长提出的问题。 假设婴儿不是在子宫内被宰杀,而是存活下来并且活着被分娩。 费城堕胎主义者柯米特·戈斯内尔(Kermit Gosnell)面对这一问题时,便用手术刀将婴儿刺死。 在他被判有罪的谋杀案审判中,控方提供证据表明,如果他被动地允许活产婴儿窒息或饿死,他将不会犯罪。

从第一天开始就教医师:“首先,不要伤害。” 哪位医生可以让婴儿死亡?

堕胎法的肮脏秘诀是,母亲和堕胎医生可以合法地让活着的无用婴儿遭受痛苦并死于有罪不罚。 那人格呢? 活着的婴儿难道不是有权受到法律同等保护的人吗? 根据自然法则,是的。 根据宪法,是的。 在Roe诉Wade和Doe诉Bolton案中,没有。

没有一个社会可以允许人们因为不受欢迎而主动或被动地杀害他们,因此它们无法长期生存。 没有定义人格的社会没有任何主张对与错的认识。 政府接下来将定义谁的身份?

版权所有2019 Andrew P.Napolitano。 由Creators.com分发。

 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 流产 
隐藏22条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. anonymous[340]• 免责声明 说:

    ” … photo with a person in blackface and another in Ku Klux Klan garb — together depicting horrid, hateful, hurtful imagery reminiscent of an awful white supremacist-dominated time in American history that took bloodshed to erase. This shocking revelation …”

    How many times did Mr. Napolitano faint before he could bring himself to describe such a thing? And didn’t the Klan come about after 1865?

    Clutching pearls with both hands to protect his Establishment perch.

    • 回复: @Reg Cæsar
  2. Reg Cæsar 说:
    @anonymous

    Sounds more like Janet than Andrew Napolitano.

    But then, a Neapolitan is black, white, and red all under.

  3. “This shocking revelation and the defeat of the proposed Virginia legislation changed the public debate from letting babies who survive abortion procedures die to ridding the Virginia government of a potential, likely or former white supremacist.”

    Kind of a rush to Judgment there, Mr. Napolitano; how can you infer he is a racist much less a white supremacist merely by the wearing of blackface or a KKK hood in what is clearly a humorous albeit tasteless context?

    • 回复: @Liberty Mike
  4. When the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was confronted with this, he used his scalpel to stab babies to death

    Black and Asian abortions were conducted by Gosnell’s staff but Gosnell reserved for himself the pleasure of killing white babies:

    ‘Like if a girl—the black population was—African population was big here. So he didn’t mind you medicating your African American girls, your Indian girl, but if you had a white girl from the suburbs, oh, you better not medicate her. You better wait until he go in and talk to her first. And one day I said something to him and he was like, that’s the way of the world.’

    • 回复: @anonymous
  5. spoonful 说:

    I used to be “pro choice,” but as an attorney, it struck me as so clear that the “choice” is made by only one party to the situation, leaving the less powerful – the voiceless baby – without any “choice” whatsoever. “I choose to live” I remember my dear brother telling me before he died of cancer. I suspect the voiceless baby would say the same if given the opportunity

  6. Kevin 说:

    所有基督徒,尤其是福音派人士都需要听到的:
    没有什么比堕胎更犹太化的了。
    犹太医生提供堕胎的可能性是最大的(福音派)宗教游说者的 35 倍,为 40%,而仅为 1.2%。
    此外,美国最大的支持堕胎的游说团体 NARAL 的 5 位总统中只有一位是犹太人,包括现任总统 Ilyse Hogue。
    当然,像 Betty Friedan 和 Gloria Steinem 这样的早期犹太女权主义者在推动堕胎合法化方面发挥了重要作用。
    最后,在现代犹太教的宗教书籍《塔木德》中,未出生的孩子被认为是“纯粹的液体”,而不是与女性身体分离的实体,直到羊膜囊中的水被打破很久之后。 犹太经文声称,在孩子出生之前,孩子体内没有“nephesh”或灵魂(尽管史蒂夫金在他提出的“心跳法案”中指出,孩子在出生几周后就有明显的心跳)概念。
    这一事实的最好例子之一是伯纳德·内森森博士的故事,他是一位强烈倡导堕胎的犹太医生,实际上是 NARAL 的创始人!
    然而,最终在看到超声波图像并意识到堕胎实际上是多么可怕之后,他改变了主意。
    后来,他执导了电影《无声的呐喊》,这是有史以来最强大的亲生命电影之一,并实际上皈依了基督教。
    内森森博士有句名言:“没有任何宗教能比得上天主教会在宽恕方面所扮演的特殊角色。”

  7. Anonymous [AKA "NaturalLaw"] 说:

    法官
    Please give your source for this assertion:
    Isn’t a living baby a person entitled to the equal protection of the laws? Under the natural law, yes.

  8. “What moral person could find joy in this?”

    Apparently white people who have been advocating killing children in the womb since the 1960’s with wild abandon. White women who apparently would engage in all manner of tryst like behavior to keep the murder of children in the womb.

    I would that we could blame the current state of affairs on blacks — that would just make it all ease and peas. But repeatedly it’s the dominant populations battering down the door of decency and making the same legal to the chill of champagne.

    feeling a tad bit fiesty today . . .

  9. @The Alarmist

    Even characterizing it as “tasteless” is virtue signaling. As the judge is wont to write, “stated alternatively,” don’t be a cuck.

  10. buckwheat 说:

    This one issue shows what degenerates we have in the current Congress, in the current Supreme Court and the Presidency before Trump. We no longer and haven’t for some time held the moral high ground. Forget the God Bless America bullshit, if God is alive then its Goddamn America and it shows because it’ll be hard for our politicians to sink any lower. In today’s world putting on blackface is tantamount to a death sentence for a politician, but the fools cheer for a tool that promotes more abortions.

    • 回复: @Liberty Mike
  11. @buckwheat

    Trump included.

    He has surrounded himself with swamp creatures, particularly creepy swamp creatures, and, most alarmingly, the ((( worst ))) kind of swamp creatures.

    Check. and. Mate.

  12. obwandiyag 说:

    This is the issue on which I can definitively prove that left and right are both idiots.

    I can do it by asking you a question?

    Would you rather make abortion illegal or stop it?

    “Same thing” you say?

    Nope. They are opposites. Neither left nor right believes they are. But they are opposites.

    为什么?
    A. Make abortion illegal and it still goes on. At about the same rate as when it was legal. There is much evidence for this fact from countries where abortion is illegal.

    B. If making abortion illegal doesn’t stop it, then the situation must be hopeless, right?

    Wrong. The answer, as is the answer to everything, is money.

    Fact: the number one reason, by far, women give for having abortions is “money.” Just having a baby costs what is an astronomical fee to most people. Raising one is beyond astronomical.

    So, if you want to stop, I said stop, I mean stop abortions–then PAY women to have children.

    But of course, this solution, the only real solution, a solution promulgated by Jimmy Carter, an anti-abortion Baptist deacon, basing his solution on real, replicable evidence, this solution is unacceptable to both sides. To liberals because they want abortions to happen. To conservatives because they are so stupid, they refuse to “throw money at” a problem, even if throwing money at it is the exact, effective, and only solution.

  13. SafeNow 说:

    Regarding the mental health exception, I disagree with the standard that “a” physician be able to make that determination. It should not be the obgyn. A psychiatrist spends much of his four-year residency being trained in, and practicing, how to conduct a psychiatric interview. An obgyn cannot possibly make the mental assessment. An obgyn can perform what is sometimes called a “structured” psychiatric interview, which follows a template. But he or she cannot competently perform the necessary semi-structured or unstructured interview. It would be absurd to have a psychiatrist perform deliveries or abortions; it is equally preposterous for an obgyn to practice psychiatry. Where a psychiatrist is not physically available, technology could of course be utilized.

  14. @obwandiyag

    好,

    it’s peculiar advance.

    In my view murdering should children at any stage after conception should be against the law. There is but one exception and that is contentious — risk to a mother’s life — physical life not her existentialist quality of life.

    The argument about stopping such murder isn’t predicated on reality. Sure it would be great to stop murder. But as humans engage in such deeds regardless of the law — we establish a set of rules so that people are aware that breaking them is a no no.

    When murdering children in the womb was illegal, there were certainly those that violated that rule. But more than anything women and men engaged in practices to avoid conceiving a child. The illegality served as a deterrent. However, the largest deterrent was the prospect of being pregnant, if one did not desire to have a child. And the case was that such dynamics were demonstrably burdensome lessons that served as warnings – object lessons. So people as a matter of choice avoided conception. Given the advances in prevention, assuming one is incapable of self control (celibacy/abstinence) and the like there’s no reason why any woman who wants to prevent pregnancy shouldn’t by preventing conception. Illegality of murder helps create that downward pressure.

    And then there is this — something liberals have no clue about. Murdering the innocent as matter of human decency should be outlawed as a matter of conscience regardless of the law — but as part of human value placed on human life itself. And any black who whines about slavery who supports murdering children in the womb has no clue to the moral and intellectual implications used to support slavery by a country which embraced “life, liberty, justice, and equality”. Because the same rationale used to turn blacks into property is the exact same rationale used to children into property akin to skin tissue. And to do so for thirty pieces of silver all but undermines any complaint about slavery.

    That is how you get white liberals pushing the envelope even further to murdering children after birth itself. Speaking of having no clue.

    Murdering children at any stage is an absolute wrong – regardless of the law.

    • 回复: @obwandiyag
  15. @obwandiyag

    这条评论,

    “Speaking of having no clue.”

    was over the top

    —- excuse me.

  16. T. Weed 说:

    Something never mentioned in this debate: if a woman is so determined not to bear the child in her womb that she is willing to abort it–what happens to this unwanted baby born against the mother’s wishes? Who will take care of it? Aren’t chances good that it will grow up to be a burden to society? Many women who want to abort are pregnant by accident or force, victims of drugs or alcohol. If such a woman is forced to give birth, who will take care of the damaged child? Isn’t our country now burdened with millions of unwanted or neglected children? Many cultures around the world have practiced infanticide. In some American Indian tribes a defective or unwanted birth was left outside to die, not considered murder because the newborn didn’t “know” that it was alive, therefore could not suffer fear. Some Polynesian islanders practiced infanticide to keep population in control. Maybe that’s what the Easter Islanders should have done.

    • 回复: @EliteCommInc.
  17. anonymous[348]• 免责声明 说:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    Gosnell will never emerge from that jail cell, he will be carried out as a corpse in a box.

    I am fully in support of the death penalty but I do appreciate the fact , in our amoral anti-death-penalty society, that evil people like Gosnell don’t get to be dramatically executed these days, those sick bastards have to live out every sick day of their boring ugly lives, complete with all the sicknesses and illnesses of old age, in cold jail cells, surrounded by the ugliness of humanity.

    and Cuomo and Ocasio-Cortez and Soetero and all those haters – it is hard to know who is worse, Soetero the Kenyan-AMerican who supported dispoportianate culling of African-American fetuses, or one of the other two, will one day understand that Gosnell was their creature

  18. obwandiyag 说:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Sounds like you are in favor of murdering children. You just want to make it illegal to increase the suffering.

    • 回复: @EliteCommInc.
  19. @obwandiyag

    I am unclear what your comment means. I stand by position that murdering children at any state should be prohibited.

    you have a very peculiar understanding of defending the lives of children.

  20. Issac 说:

    Greaseball pundit loves mass immigration, just like from the old country. New majority, formed by immigrants, loves infanticide and socialism. Many such cases!

  21. @T. Weed

    1. This country has managed to care for such children quite well, at least to most the biological needs. I have no clue how many adopted children end up as burdens. Matters not every human being should have the opportunity in be a citizen all their own and make said choices. Life can be tough. But that is in fact life. No one should be arbitrarily prevented from it. As to who will a burden or the next Mother Teresa or Dr. Livingstone is an unknown. But what we do know is that millions of people overcome their past and neither their DNA nor their lineage by definition need be anything other than part of the fabric of living. By your reckoning, it appears that many well bred, and provided for children should be done away — for they managed to upend what they had for a mess.

    2. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport25.pdf (Note: Not all of these children are from unwanted pregnancies.

    3. Murdering a child as the result of any of these circumstances is excessive and unwarranted. I want to be careful to avoid appearing obtuse about any woman’s circumstance. But it’s a strange society that punishes a child for the choices and mistakes of adults.

    a. accidents are preventable
    b. very few rapes result in pregnancy but we should certainly support mother and child in those circumstances.
    c. as drugs and alcohol impair judgement, it’s probably a good idea to avoid both when dating, intimacy need not lead to carelessness
    d. assuming a child is damaged based on circumstance is hardly cause for killing the same
    e. and our society has yet to disregard the children that are disabled
    http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/acs.cfm?statistic=1 (unknown how many are the result of unwanted pregnancies)

    ** you realize if burden is your standard, your suggestion here is to killing anyone who is damaged or in any manner disabled — a burden is a burden after all.
    ____________________

    I have absolutely no response to anyone using infanticide as a solution to this issue. Even if one wanted to included all the disabled and the 400,000 or so orphaned, that is a burden of 1.2%, I think we can manage. And most of them (the disabled) are with parents or already supported by family. Why stop there, based on your suggested rationale, we could round up all of the troubled teens and adults and terminate them all — a burden is a burden – “decrease the surplus population”.

    Here’s an idea don’t have relations that lead to children unless you desire to have children and intend to care for them as nurturing parents. And if unable to engage in celibate and abstinate behavior. If lacking the discipline by all means prevent conception.

    ——- adopting out children to those who chosen a same relational dynamic is the least effective option.

  22. T. Weed 说:

    “round up all the troubled teens and adults”..of course not. That would be murder. But a defective newborn, that doesn’t know it’s alive, left to die, is not “murder”. Infanticide is a practice as old as mankind.
    I have noticed, by the way, that those Americans most vehemently opposed to aborting a fetus in the womb, seem to be untroubled by their country bombing and killing millions of foreign men, women, and children.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Andrew Napolitano评论