Supreme Court Claims Eggs for Breakfast Were Actually Chicken

(Updated October, 2024).

The Essence

The issue of fertilized eggs and the stopping of progress of same being an "abortion" needs a serious and systematic inquiry using science & humanities (human sciences, especially to include ethics).  As a result, the issue can also be framed in Humanomics (as Vernon Smith and Deirdre McCloskey prefer to label it), as in Metaeconomics which is a Humanomics with a theory. Dual Interest Theory (DIT) helps making good sense of it all, as it points to the need to balance the joint incentive & ethic in a choice relating to stopping a fertilized egg from further development. DIT also helps make sense of the matter of stopping an implanted egg at some point, that point the only legitimate point to label it an abortion.

On the fertilized egg:  Looking to incentive & ethic, self & other(shared)-interest, stopping the fertilized egg before it is implanted (like that stored in IVF processes), or immediately after a rape, or if it can be caught in time immediately after an incest event, or, any other event that should not have happened, especially non-consensual in any form, well, it seems quite reasonable. The science sees the fertilized egg as nothing more than a fertilized egg for 6-20 days after it is fertilized.  It seems a reasoned choice, what reasoned people can go along with, the ethic, to support a choice to stop said egg at any time in that time frame,

On the implanted (fertilized) egg: And, after said fertilized egg is implanted, whether with an IVF process or after a consensual interaction by a couple, again both incentive & ethic play a role, drawing on science & humanities (again, especially the ethic). Perhaps the well-known Conservative George Will gets it right (see https://blog.oup.com/2023/06/is-a-15-week-limit-on-abortion-an-acceptable-compromise/ ) :  Will has suggested a 15-week (after implanted) time frame as a reasoned compromise, the reason representing both incentive & ethic, self & shared other-interest going every direction.  It especially deals with a science-based sense of just when stopping further development of the implant is reasonable, considering such matters as sentience and first breath.  In the Will Frame, an abortion occurs only if the implant is stopped from further development after week-15.  It seems Will may have it about right, as in good balance in the science & the ethic the reasoned can go along with.

The Details

AZ, in early 2024, repealed an 1864 "abortion" law.. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arizonas-democratic-governor-signs-a-bill-to-repeal-1864-ban-on-most-abortions ... which points to the time-warp in the debate. That is, in 1864, at least the people who pushed through that law apparently believed (keeping in mind we did not have modern science) extracting/stopping a fertilized egg from developing any further was somehow an abortion. Not. Stopping a fertilized egg from further development is not an abortion: The language has just been captured by fundamentalists and extreme right-wing framing, claiming so, without any basis in facts & ethics. A fertilized egg, like in the chicken egg case depicted in the image, well, a fertilized egg does not taste, look, or act like a chicken. Period. It is just a distortion in language to make said kind of claim. The 1864 act repealed in AZ was the repeal of a fertilized egg law, not an abortion law. Use science & ethics, please.

And, the original post is still completely valid, appropriate, pointing to how fundamentalism and radical right framing has distorted the whole matter:

One has to think a bit about the Byline on the image, provided by Bruce Luft. But, yes, it is about the matter of a fertilized egg being a chicken or not. And, having eaten quite a few fertilized chicken eggs when growing-up on a diversified farm back in the early-1950s, well, Luft has a point. The fertilized egg did not look, walk and/or cluck like a chicken, and the fried version of it did not taste like chicken, so, logically --- factually, experientially --- it is not a chicken. As Luft is suggesting, the Alito (2022) take --- and SCOTUS agreeing in a 5-4 vote to overturn Roe v. Wade --- on the matter has in effect implied, without scientific evidence, it is a chicken.

Many states, several with trigger laws already in place, are planning outright bans --- given impetus, obvious encouragement to do so by Alito (2022) and the SCOTUS vote --- based on the extreme view that life begins at conception. So, not even fertilized eggs can be "aborted" which is a misrepresentation of what a fertilized egg actually is, in fact --- even banning abortions supposedly on moral grounds even when arising from extremely immoral acts of incest and rape. So much for a truly moral dimension to the brief.

The Alito (2022) brief which SCOTUS acted on is all about tradition, what people believed back in the 1300-1600s period, including scientific beliefs about fertilized eggs, or not, and chickens, but also ethics relating to the gender spectrum. In fact, lacking fact content, it turns into religion, not science: Law based only in religion? Both the facts & ethics (influenced by religion) of the day were embedded into English common law, and, then, into influencing legislative law and court rulings all the way to the present time. Also, as in the current SCOTUS, strict father tradition rules: Ego of strict fathers (and compliant mothers) driving the rules. Nurturant frames are being overruled: Empathy is not a factor.

More specifically, Alito (2022) harkens back to ancient medical science, and lots of religious belief, that went back to the 1000s and still prevailed in the 1300-1600s, the pre-Enlightenment period. Said science and religion caused the Court of the day to reason on grounds of pre-quickening and post-quickening, which roughly coincided with feeling movement in the womb. So, once the chicken is moving around in the shell, that is post-quickening, on the way to being a chicken. Pre-quickening, well, ham and (fertilized) eggs, anyone? At that time, extracting a fertilized egg was often treated as a criminal act. So much for fried eggs on a sunny morning on a diversified farm. Also, the review clearly harkens back to the time when the hierarchy of men (strict father men and the woman who were willing to be commanded by same) over the entire realm of the gender spectrum was the ethic in play.

And, the Alito (2022) brief did not just happen based on some recently completed law review. As Savage (2022) makes clear, Alito (2022) reflects something Justice Alito has been working on and building the argument about, for decades. And, it is important to understand that said attention, passion, and effort to undue Roe v Wade does not make the legal brief factual. It only makes same internally consistent within Justice Alito's frame as a long standing, strong conservative Catholic who obviously is bringing moment of conception theory and strict father (strict and not nurturing God) morality --- theology, not a scientific reality --- into play, putting a twist on the brief which is quite obvious (if not convinced, read it!).

Jumping to the chase, the concluding paragraph of the brief by Alito (2022, p. 67) goes as follows:

“We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey (N: Alito is referring to Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey) arrogated that authority. We now all overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Perhaps so --- a fundamental moral question --- but it seems said moral question must also draw on both modern science and ethics, not just 1300s era, pre-Enlightenment framing. So, while the Law is supposed to be more fundamentally about that which the other can go along with, based in both the latest science and ethics, the SCOTUS is choosing to attach a major ruling to some old religious doctrine going way back to the 1000s, and using 1300s era science, as well as the prevailing (strict father) morality system of said time. The SCOTUS is being responsive to public opinion at the time the US Consitution was enacted, like 1787 or so, and ignoring modern and current public opinion.

Point is: The Alito (2022) brief which the SCOTUS has now used to overrule Roe v Wade has obvious bias with little scientific basis, and, facilitates imposing the strict father morality system (in the main, ego driven) --- which is easily done in strict father driven state legislatures --- into the question of abortion. That is, Roe v Wade was about applying the nuturant morality (as Metaeconomics suggests, Empathy Abortion) system, as the US Constitution intended, across all state lines: Alito (2020) and colleagues are, in effect, ruling against the frame of the Consitution, taking the US in many ways back to the pre-Enlightment period.

Alito (2022), 5 of the 9 SCOTUS members, are declaring war, including war on the very Constitution which the SCOTUS is supposed to defend.

And, for context, just what are the numbers? The NYT recently republished a 2021 article which gives a quick overview, by Sanger-Katz, Miller, and Bui (2021):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html This site claims to have the latest data, well researched, have not been able to confirm same, but, look for yourself and decide Abortion Statistics 2023 - How many abortions per year? +10 Facts (bedbible.com) .

Most strikingly, from the NYT article, 43- percent are in the first six weeks with 92-percent in the first 13 weeks. So, most are dealing with fertilized eggs, not chickens.

Could Empathy Abortion be a Better Way to Nudge the War Toward Resolution?

Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics gives a unique way of framing --- the notion of Empathy Abortion --- the controversy over the chicken and (fertilized) egg problem, i.e., about the start of life itself and abortion. How and why? Well, said questions are very much Metaeconomic questions, having both price P (dollars) and value V (priceless) elements. Metaeconomics points (empirically-based, as it is) to the reality of lots of incommensurable value considerations at play, with the moral dimension coming out of value V working to temper self-interest expressed in price P. Metaeconomics requires data, using the scientific method to collect and analyze same, in both realms of fact & ethic and sees data on value V just as relavant as data on price P.

And, in contrast, if one uses Single Interest Theory in Microeconomics, well, then the question focuses in effect on Ego Abortion (untempered self-interest driven only), which comes down to only price P considerations, as in the supply and demand for infants on the adoption market. In such a frame, empirical evidence is not needed, as it is an ideology, not a science. As part of that ideology, all value V (all moral consideration) is completely subsumed into price P --- no incommensurables, nothing is priceless, including life --- with the market forum presumed inherently moral. As a footnote in Alito (2022, fn. 46, p. 34) points out, quoting a Center for Disease Control report, “[N]early 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent." Also, the work by Levitt and Dubner (2020) in Freakonomics (harkening back to the early-2000s, updated in 2020 with more data on what happens when abortion is allowed) pointed to how slowing the production of unwanted babies (i.e., extracting fertilized eggs, and otherwise facilitating abortions through Roe and Casey) dramatically reduced crime about 16-20 years later. Ego Abortion is about shifting the supply curve up and to the left in the adoption market and in the supply of criminals.

It seems the potential for an error in said framing is dampened a great deal by using dual interest theory in Metaeconomics, instead. Reason? Well, it has a placeholder for the moral dimension, and the ethical system (and science, because Metaeconomics is an empirical science) which produced same. In the case of the SCOTUS ruling, Metaeconomics clarifies it is about imposing a strict father morality system (as applied in Alito 2022) to the question, and overriding the nurturant morality system which guided both Roe and Casey: Empathy played a substantive role in the Roe and Casey rulings. And, as noted, Alito (2022) is also using 1300s’ era science. And, sure, the supply of infants and criminals is affected, but now we think in terms of ego-basesd demand and supply tempered by empathy-based ethics, the moral dimension of abortion.

Moral Frame Used in the Alito (2022) Review of Abortion Law

First, Alito (2022) sees only the strict (father) moral as relevant. As Lakoff (2004/14, pp. 130-131) clarifies, said moral model frames the matter as: “There are two stereotypical cases where women need abortions: unmarried teenagers who have been having “illicit” sex, and older women who want to delay child rearing to pursue a career. Both … fly in the face of the strict father model. Pregnant teenagers have violated the commandments of the strict father. Career women challenge the power and authority of the strict father. Both should be punished by bearing the child; neither should be able to avoid the consequences of their actions, which would violate the strict father model’s idea that morality depends on punishment. Since conservative values in general are versions of strict father values, abortion stands as a threat to conservative values and to one’s identity as a conservative.”

Second, “(said moral system also leads to being) against prenatal care, postnatal care, and health care for children, all of which have major causal effects on the life of a child… (so it is not about being pro-life per se but rather it is about stopping any move toward ) terminating a pregnancy as part of a cultural-war strategy to gain and maintain political power (Lakoff 2004/14, pp. 130-131).” Such nurturant care forms a substantive part of Empathy Abortion. Offering such programs is to help make the unwanted children who can easily become criminals (again, findings based in Levitt and Dubner, 2020) --- wanted. Social programs to support unwanted children become especially essential in order to build an Empathy Abortion.

Third, so, the matter goes well beyond abortion: “On the whole, the right wing is attempting to impose a strict father ideology on America and, ultimately, the rest of the world… (tendency to) underestimate just how radical an ideology this is (Lakoff, 2004/14, p. 127 ).” Alito (2022) is clearly supporting said radical ideology. The ideology is large on ego and small on empathy, quite out of balance. And, the techniques to make it happen, mainly by framing taxes as an affliction, as in “tax relief,” and cutting taxes by any manner possible, ensures the kinds of social programs that would either fund abortion or help the unwanted children who are not aborted, are not available. Such technique ensures high crime rates, ironically, as the strict father system in effect produces more criminals, which strict fathers also claim has to be controlled. So, in the end, and it is ironic in that often strict fathers claim to see what is being done is about liberty and freedom, but the control of the other person is the main feature of the ideology.

And, what is a nurturant model frame on the path to giving content to the notion of Empathy Abortion, regarding the chicken and fertilized ego problem?

First, people “who are genuinely pro-life … that life is the ultimate value, and who therefore support prenatal care, postnatal care, health insurance for poor children, and early childhood education, … also recognize that any woman choosing to end a pregnancy is making a painful decision, and empathize with such women and treat them without a negative judgment. (Lakoff 2004/14, p. 131).” The Roe and Casey rulings have such empathy as the main feature, and, hold content relevant to the notion of Empathy Abortion. It is about helping ensure the unwanted can be wanted.

Second, “Reproduction occurs through women’s bodies and affects those bodies in a great many ways. Women need to be in control of whether or when they reproduce. … access to family planning advice, birth control methods, and abortion are issues of control of a woman over her body (Lakoff 2004/14, p. 66).” Roe and Casey recognize said frame, on the way to Empathy Abortion.

Third, “ … nurturant morality … is a view of ethical behavior that centers on empathy and responsibility (for yourself and others needing your help). Many things follow from these central principles: fairness, minimal violence (for example, justice without vengeance), an ethic of care, protection of those needing it, a recognition of interdependence, cooperation for the common good, the building of community, mutual respect, and so on (Lakoff 2004/14, p. 115).” And, it would seem, it follows that the fertilized egg and chicken problem would also be tempered by substantive empathy-with the person, as demonstrated in Roe and Casey. Dual interest theory identifies the essential need to temper the primal drive of ego-based self-interest (which strict fathers have in abundance) with empathy based other-interest with the person carrying the fertilized egg. It is about that which the other can go along with, as represented in ethics. It is about Empathy Abortion.

Essential Need is to Balance the Moral System

And, overall, as dual interest theory in Metaeconomics makes clear, it really is about balance. Said balance is where the hope lies relating to resolving the contentious fertilized egg and chicken problem, the contentious abortion problem. It seems Roe and Casey both worked to strike a balance, tipping to the nurturant side of the balance scale. Alito (2022) wants to tip the scale back toward the strict side. Perhaps both go too far.

First, to see the possibility for good balance is to recognize biconceptualism as Lakoff (2004/14) refers to it. People generally have the capacity for both strict & nurturant morality. It is especially prominent in people on the political spectrum who identify as being Independent, in contrast to the strict father Conservative and the nurturant Progressive. And, it is likely (Metaeconomics here) that being strict is more primal, no matter to which political point one is predisposed, pointing to the essential need for nurturant frames to temper it. As Lakoff (2004/14, p. 41) says it: “… the major moral divisions in our politics derive from two opposed models of the family: a progressive (nurturant parent) morality and a conservative (strict father) morality. That is no accident, since your family life has a profound effect on how you understand yourself as a person. The effect of family life is complex, and peers have an effect as well. One result of that is biconceptualism. Biconceptuals have both kinds of moral circuitry in their brain, mutually inhibiting each other and applying to different issues…” Dual interest theory sees biconceptual framing as inherent in every human, as represented in ego & empathy.

Second, to see balance is to see that resolving the tension between the strict & nurturant (biconceptual) tendencies is to recognize same as joint and nonseparable, as illustrated in dual interest theory as two sets of overlapping isocurves. The contentiousness is eliminated on some best path 0Z (see What is Dual Interest Theory), which gives the economically efficient level of extracted fertilized eggs and abortion, minimal political economic chaos over the best balance, and, overall happiness for everyone.

Alito (2022) Brief and SCOTUS Ruling is Framed by Strict Morality in Contrast to the Nurturant Morality Underlying Roe and Casey

Alito (2022) has led an attack on the legitimacy of the interpretations represented in Roe and Casey, in effect leading an attack on the legitimacy of nurturant morality using the frame of strict morality to carry-out the attack. Alito (2022) also covers the progression of cited court cases largely skirting the issue of the scientific aspect of the chicken and fertilized egg problem.

So, some key points, using Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics, and, coming out of my MetaEcon head after reading Alito (2022):

1. Alito (2022) does not reference any contemporary science relating to when life starts, the real chicken and fertilized egg problem, and what is life. Rather, as noted, Alito (2022) uses science underlying medical characterizations from the 1300-1600s period, where Attorneys and Courts (like the misogynist Sir Matthew Hale, who Alito 2020 obviously holds in high regard for his legal opinions, put to question by legal scholar Hasday 2022) were using framing like pre-quickening and post-quickening, referring to a time when movement was sensed inside the womb. In effect, Alito (2022) favors the quickening ideas, which Kummerow (2022) points out was first proposed in the Catholic church in the 1000s by Thomas Aquinas. Also, people toward the female end of the gender spectrum were framed in a hierarchy, with males at the top as Hasday (2022) makes clear was the frame of 17th century Judge Hale. Alito (2022) never moves beyond said levels of scientific and experiential understanding which is rather amazing in that medical science has come a long-ways since 400-700 years ago. Also, Alito (2022) seems to totally ignore the Enlightenment period starting in the late-1600s, which eventually led to the US Constitution. And, because the Constitution reflects thinking in the Enlightenment, it is more about empathy-with everyone on the gender spectrum, a nurturant frame, rather than hierarchical control by the male end of said spectrum in the strict father frame. So, the Alito (2022) claim that the Constitution has no bearing on abortion is quite misplaced, especially when framed as Empathy Abortion.

2. Strict father framing in law goes back to the origins of English common law, and still dominates, as the hierarchy of God over man, and man over woman has dominated for centuries, with some gains away from it over the years, but it is obviously still in play as demonstrated in Alito (2022). We might say it is systemic. Alito (2022) draws on the body of Law that has the hierarchy systemically built into the structure and rulings of same. Arguably, Roe and Casey were breaks from said long tradition, as empathy-with the person having the fertilized egg within the body was brought into the interpretation of the Constitution and the body of law facilitating a right to choose. Roe and Casey allows the fact that biases in society have influenced abortion law in unproductive ways, e.g., that some historically enforced anti-abortion laws were based in fear (by Protestant men) that Catholic women were having more babies than Protestant women (Alito 2022, p. 28), and, reflecting no empathy-with the latter. It was essential to ban abortion so as to force Protestant women to have more babies. Alito (2022) rejects such reasoning as having any relevance, with such rejection implicitly a clear expression of strict father (men can control abortion without regard to the rights of women, in this case, Protestant women) framing, not even admitting such outrageous claims ever had any influence (as Alito does), but rather it was always about doing the right thing for the fertilized egg presumed to be a human.

3. Alito (2022) tries to lay claim to abortion as a crime, a murder, tracing Legal rulings supporting same. Yet, no scientific evidence is cited that a fertilized egg is a human. Some consistency would be good: It would seem, in said framing, the Court must also turn down any Law that recognizes menstruation and masturbation, too, as criminal acts destroying the life content of eggs and sperm, which are just as much alive (again, a scientific question that needs to be engaged) as is a fertilized egg.

4. And, perhaps most importantly, as alluded to earlier: Alito (2022) misrepresents the Constitution as a strict father morality model framed document. As Lakoff (2004/14, pp 47-48) makes clear, nothing is further from reality:

“changes (over the experiences of the common people well into the late-1600s and 1700s, the Enlightenment) were propelled by empathy, by identification with the problems and plights of ordinary people, feeling what the characters felt, seeing such plight around them, and propelling legal and governmental change. By 1776, human rights became “self-evident” via the development of empathy for one’s fellow citizens. Such empathy formed the basis for a union of states, and American democracy.”

By 1787, it was even more “self-evident” that the founders of the US needed to frame the Constitution with the nurturant morality model, one that sees everyone on the same ground, meaning everyone on every point along the gender spectrum has the same rights. A strict father has no inherent right to force a person carrying a fertilized egg to grow it into a human, especially lacking scientific evidence it is a human from the time of conception. And, in general, it is not at all self-evident that the strict father model is the best moral system, that which had caused all manner of human suffering in the centuries leading up to the Enlightenment. It seems the drive in the extreme right wing of US politics to force the strict father morality system on everyone is a drive to return the US system to the 1600s. The spoof on Saturday Night Live, May 7, 2022, about pointy shoes and other strange ideas of that era, and how the SCOTUS plans to go back to that time, well, the spoof is on-target.

Overall, Alito (2022) is not providing sufficient reason to claim the Constitution does not address empathy-based consideration of the people dealing with the fertilized egg problem, and, in effect, rejecting the nurturant morality model undergirding of the Constitution. In contrast, as noted, Roe and Casey recognize the empathy-based frame of the Constitution. Alito (2022) is not providing sufficient reason to bring the strict father morality model back into full force, and, not even the US Constitution supports such a move.

Morality in the Womb

Kummerow (2022) in Morality in the Womb: More than Meets the Mass’s Eye gives a quick overview of the facts of the matter about when the fertilized egg becomes the chicken (human), which then points to the morality, the ethical frame of it all, in four different notions. Kummerow (2022) also points to the fact that without access to abortion the population of the Spaceship on which we Travel together around the Sun, well, there will be an extra 50 million mouths to feed every year, without it, which also gives pause in thinking about the matter.

First, the Moment of Conception is argued by the extreme anti-abortion frame of reference. Yet, little to no scientific evidence supports the notion that a fertilized egg is in any sense a chicken or a human at that time. The move to life is far more complex than just fertilizing an egg; Kummerow (2022) does a quick overview of said complexity, from the perspective of looking through a modern telescope to make sense of what is really going on, and, well, it is complex.

Second, some use the 1300-1600s (actually it starts in the 1000s) framing about Pre-Quickening and Post-Quickening, as does Alito (2022). The turning point from pre- to post- comes with the person carrying the fertilized egg first sensing movement. Using said framing, extracting or otherwise stopping the progression of the fertilized egg toward being a chicken or a human in pre-quickening is not an abortion. As noted, Kummerow (2022) points to the Catholic church using the notion of quickening, perhaps going back as far as the 1000s, although it seems the conservative Catholic branch prefers the Moment of Conception. And, well, Alito (2022) is a quite conservative Catholic, so, perhaps the frame is affected.

Third, Viability is a frequently used claim. Said framing is perhaps the most medical science based frame. Viability is about when the lungs and other organs are actually developed enough to support life.

Fourth, and, the most intriguing to me, personally, having grown-up on a farm with a diverse variety of livestock giving birth regularly (and livestock also regularly dying, including butchering our own chickens): Breath of life. Death comes with the last breath. It seems, then, that life starts with the first breath. So, a chicken, a human, becomes that creature with the first breath.

And, how is all said framing applied now? As Kummerow (2022) describes it: “In Roe v. Wade, the Court divided pregnancies into trimesters. During the first trimester, the woman has sole discretion to terminate the pregnancy. During the second trimester, states can regulate—but not outlaw—voluntary terminations for the sake of the mother’s health. The fetus becomes viable at the start of the third trimester, at which time states can regulate or outlaw terminations in the interest of the potential life, except when termination is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.”

And, how does the Roe, as further confirmed in Casey, trimesters idea relate to the science & moral frames? Moment of Conception framing, well, Roe and Casey are clearly open to extracting the fertilized egg and otherwise stopping progression in a time close to the Moment of Conception, any time in the 1st trimester. Quickening is generally found to occur 16-20 weeks after fertilization, and 1st trimester removal is up to 12-weeks, so pre-quickening is well within bounds. Viability, especially lungs, associated with the first breath frame is generally around 24-weeks, which is toward the end of the 2nd trimester. So, it is only the 3rd trimester that seems at all contentious, unless on moral and ethical grounds one can only live with the Moment of Conception frame of reference.

Looking for the Best Path Forward: Toward Science based Empathy Abortion

As noted, dual interest theory points to the need for seeing the jointness in a balanced strict & nurturant framed approach to the abortion question. The following flows from it: Lots of empirical questions here, and, that is in the nature of Metaeconomics. It points to collecting the real data (not 1300s science or ethics), test, collect more data, test again, and again, until the answer has a substantive empirical foundation. Dual interest theory in Metaeconomics is not an ideology:

1. Do the science, find the point at which a fertilized egg turns into a human. It seems the notion of being able to take the first breath needs more attention, which relates very directly to the medical science understanding of viability. And, keep in mind while reviewing, reading, and doing said science, that finding a fertilized egg is an infant is to in effect deny Darwin's Theory of Evolution (see Carroll 2022).

2. Apply the empathy-based shared other-interest frame from dual interest theory (see What is Dual Interest Theory) to the matter of such cases as incest and rape, especially, but also other matters of shared other-interest with the person carrying a fertilized egg. It seems empathy-with said person legitimately needs to override the self-interest of strict father (and compliant mothers) enforcers of abortion rules.

3. Acknowledge the best balance in the joint strict & nurturant framing, which may have to be adjusted at the margin as facts & ethics evolve through time. Relying so heavily on 1300-1600s, the pre-Enlightenment when literally strict (and, again, compliant women most of whom had no choice) fathers controlled the system, has little to no basis in fact & ethic, and, thus, little to no basis for a good abortion law. Tradition that stops progress (even going back to the 1300s in this case) is bad tradition.

4. And, overall: As dual interest theory clarifies, the Law must arise out of a process sensitized by the empathy-based other (shared with the other)-interest. Empathy is the first step in the direction of an ethics-based shared other-interest, shared across the entire gender spectrum, and not forced by the strict father. It is about that which the other can go along with --- Empathy Abortion --- including every other person at every point on the gender spectrum, as the US Constitution guarantees. Alito (2022) fails the (empirical) test, including a failure to represent that which the founders who wrote the US Constitution had in mind. Empathy Abortion, in good balance, anyone?

What think? Please read Alito (2022) and post thoughts here, in the Blog, including whether the MetaEcon (me!) is making sense? Let’s start a conversation, using some economics to help make sense of what would be best in the sense of the content of the sufficient reason built into an abortion law that works for everyone.

References

Alito, Samuel. 2022. Brief on “Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer Of The Mississippi Department Of Health, Et Al., Petitioners U. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Et Al. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit.” Supreme Court of the United States, February 10 (with comments added by a MetaEcon, see https://971b831c-a8d9-4115-9686-7303d610774a.usrfiles.com/ugd/971b83_a54059ebfc204bcdafeb4c183d59cc55.pdf )

Bromley, D. W. 2006. Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions. Kindle ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Bromley, Daniel W. 2019. Possessive Individualism: A Crisis of Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, Kindle ed.

Carroll, James. "The Sins of the High Court's Supreme Catholics." The New Yorker, August 19, 2022

Hasday, Jill Elaine. 2022. "On Roe, Alito Cites a Judge Who Treated Women as Witches and Property." The Washington Post, May 9.

Kummerow, Max. 2022. Morality in the Womb. Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, May 12 https://steadystate.org/morality-in-the-womb-more-than-meets-the-masss-eye/

Lakoff, George. 2004/2014. Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing (and, for the Blog going deeper into what morality systems mean in politics, see https://www.metaeconomics.info/post/do-progressives-and-democrats-have-moral-values )

Levitt, Steven D. and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explains the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: HarperCollins, 2020.

Lynne, Gary D. 2007. "Review of Bromley, D.W. Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006, 244 pp." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89, 4: 1120-1122.

Lynne, Gary D. 2009. "Review of Bromley, D.W. Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006, 244 pp." Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 1, 1: 118-120.

Lynne, Gary D. 2021. "Review of Bromley, D. W. Possessive Individualism: A Crisis of Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019." Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 95.

Sanger-Katz, Margot, Claire Cain Miller, and Quoctrung Bui. 2021. Who Gets Abortions in America? New York Times, December 14.

Savage, Charlie. 2022. Decades Ago, Alito Laid Out Methodical Strategy to Eventually Overrule Roe. New York Times, June 25 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/samuel-alito-abortion.html