[GeneV]

RedRock wrote: [I]The "obviousness illogical" comment I will forego completely, but I WOULD like to ask how you would define life? Is it only a life once it exits out of the womb. Are you a father/mother? Can you deny that it is a life when you feel the child kick? Parents speak of their boy or their girl, give him/her a name, etc. Can you honestly think it is NOT a child the day before birth. Do you define the fetus as a child only when the fetus is viable and can live and develop outside the womb? At what point does a fetus become a child? I do not "fell" that my belief is the only acceptable one. I DO "fell" that it is the one that makes the most scientific sense

The question is when it becomes a living person. A sperm is alive. Is self-gratification murder? A lobe of a liver or a kidney, or even a heart will live for a short time and continue to live when implanted in another. Is a liver a living person? None of these can function as a fully developed human being or live separately from the interior of another human being. That is basically the judgment that the law has made concerning a blastula/embryo/fetus. It is quite logical and consistent.

[clmonk]

GeneV wrote: That is basically the judgment that the law has made concerning a blastula/embryo/fetus. It is quite logical and consistent.

Uhhh, no, not actually. Right now it is legal to abort any "blastula/embryo/fetus"/child at any point in the pregnancy--even the day before birth, when that child IS able to "live separately from the interior of another human being". Yes, a sperm IS alive, but it is not a distinct individual with it's own DNA. But I DO agree with you about the question of "when it becomes a living person". The other point you bring up is, when does one become "fully developed"?That doesn't work very well either in determining when a person exists. Two year olds and 10 year olds are not yet "fully developed" would it be OK to murder them?
Just for grins, why can't we define life in the same manner as we define death? A doctor pulls up to the scene of an automobile accident. The driver of the vehicle is pronounced "dead at the scene". How did the doctor determine the driver's death? Let's use the same standards and criteria to determine life!

[GeneV]

GeneV wrote: That is basically the judgment that the law has made concerning a blastula/embryo/fetus. It is quite logical and consistent.

Uhhh, no, not actually. Right now it is legal to abort any "blastula/embryo/fetus"/child at any point in the pregnancy--even the day before birth, when that child IS able to "live separately from the interior of another human being". !

That is not the holding of Roe v. Wade. Abortions can be and are severely restricted in the last trimester. The entire holding was based upon when the fetus is viable outside the womb. Few, if any states allow and few doctors will perform an abortion, rather than an induced delivery, where there is not a danger to the life of the mother. The law has always allowed the taking of one life to save another.

This focus on these relatively rare situations and highly restricted procedures is a distraction. The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester when we are talking about a blastula or embryo. Around 1.4% of abortions are post 21 days (the halfway point). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg

[Ratmagiclady]

This is about a Republican/Religious Right war on women and women's rights: claiming it's justifiable homicide if you believe a few cells are a human being, putting some pharmacist's opinion or some rapist's sensibilities over the life of free people, ...certainly not the welfare of actual babies or actually reducing abortions.

You sure don't hear them talking about the pollutants and EDCs that mess with 'the unborn,' that the same people keep deregulating, un-enforcing, de-funding when that doesn't work, and even reducing the ability of the people to take legal action against polluters.

It's nonsensical to try and define 'human life' particularly as regards American citizenship at some arbitrarily-decided religious belief/dogma about 'at conception,' ...thus classifying emergency contraception as 'murder' and doctors and women as 'murderers' who can be kiled over that idea. (Funny who's not an 'accuser,' then, eh? Associations of *that* word in Christian religion and all...)

Clearly, not all stages of development *normally* acheive implantation in the womb or are carried to term, and no one has funerals when there are miscarriages, particularly in early pregnancy.

The real question isn't about what seems to be the all-important sperm in some mens' minds, ...it's about when the human experience really begins.

You don't "need" to define that: or "need" to impose some rules about it beyond medical ethics: a mother knows, for one. Not a preacher or politician.

Quickening's a very traditional way people mark when something changes about it all: to my religious point of view, certainly, that's probably about when a particular lifetime starts becoming one where there are different experiences.


This whole political theocratic push against women (And real and actual present living children) isn't about 'respect for life,' ...it's about demands for *control over women,* ...about redefining rape out of existence and then giving the rapists control over the victims.

It's an assault on humanity, and there's nothing 'holy' about it.

[clmonk]

Thanks, GeneV for helping me make my point! When you write: That is not the holding of Roe v. Wade. Abortions can be and are severely restricted in the last trimester. The entire holding was based upon when the fetus is viable outside the womb. Few, if any states allow and few doctors will perform an abortion, rather than an induced delivery, where there is not a danger to the life of the mother.
Roe v. Wade said there are no restriction on the first two trimesters, but allow for restrictions in the third. WHY??? Why are there restrictions in the third trimester? The other finding in Doe (after Roe) allows for third trimester abortions if the life and well-being of the mother is at stake, but they define "well-being" of the mother so loosely that virtually ANY excuse the mother wants to provide is sufficient. This resulted in partial-birth abortions which were totally unheard of previously. The question is WHY the restrictions on third trimester pregnancies? The answer revolves around "viability". But how does medical science define viability? And is viability the best determinant? If we use viability as a defining factor in legal abortions, what happens when viability moves closer and closer to conception as modern medical science improves its abilities? Does the "magical date" of viability change making abortions illegal at earlier and earlier points in a woman's pregnancy?
Try as we might to overcome this dilemma, the argument still reverts back to when does life begin. The only logical, scientific definition is conception.

[Ratmagiclady]

Untrue, Clmonk: Viable scientific definitions do not have to agree with your theology or in fact have to be 'definitions' that you can use to call people murderers, ... and you assume you have a right to define what goes on in someone else's body for purposes of calling them murderers or 'accusers' or otherwise imposing theocratic control through state power and money.

In Georgia, not only do they want to redefine 'rape' for purposes of controlling women (in favor of rapists and theocrats, of course,) they want to say that any miscarriage with no documented cause has to be investigated as a possible 'murder.'

This isn't about ' respecting life' and it *sure* isn't about any meaningful scientific or ethical definition. It's about control. And attacking women's rights.

It's about justifying homicide.

[GeneV]

Thanks, GeneV for helping me make my point! When you write: That is not the holding of Roe v. Wade. Abortions can be and are severely restricted in the last trimester. The entire holding was based upon when the fetus is viable outside the womb. Few, if any states allow and few doctors will perform an abortion, rather than an induced delivery, where there is not a danger to the life of the mother.
Roe v. Wade said there are no restriction on the first two trimesters, but allow for restrictions in the third. WHY??? Why are there restrictions in the third trimester? The other finding in Doe (after Roe) allows for third trimester abortions if the life and well-being of the mother is at stake, but they define "well-being" of the mother so loosely that virtually ANY excuse the mother wants to provide is sufficient. This resulted in partial-birth abortions which were totally unheard of previously. The question is WHY the restrictions on third trimester pregnancies? The answer revolves around "viability". But how does medical science define viability? And is viability the best determinant? If we use viability as a defining factor in legal abortions, what happens when viability moves closer and closer to conception as modern medical science improves its abilities? Does the "magical date" of viability change making abortions illegal at earlier and earlier points in a woman's pregnancy?
Try as we might to overcome this dilemma, the argument still reverts back to when does life begin. The only logical, scientific definition is conception.

Roe used trimesters based upon science and viability. Viablitiy is not viability in a test tube. Again, we will be protecting sperm if we go down that road. Yes, the collection of cells inside a woman does change, and at some date it becomes a human that can live outside the mother. In balancing rights, that is a good point of distinction.

Really, you are just quoting an anti-abortion web site I read as well with the Doe argument. Doe was setting the outer limits for states. It is a non-problem because states (even the most liberal, such as CA), doctors and mothers don't define health and well being all that "loosely." If you are out to define the health of the mother more specifically for late term abortions, I could possibly support that. However, allowing vigilante execution of abortion doctors, or banning all abortions is not the answer. Look at the chart I linked. The number of abortions which occur even in the second half of pregnancy is small, and the number in the third trimester are miniscule. Go back and examine the circumstances for those, and then we can talk about whether the standard applied for the health of the mother was too loose.

[Ratmagiclady]

Important stuff you've raised about Roe v Wade, Gene: it's not something wholly dependent on particular scientific conclusions in principle: the important principle about it, often ignored in the arguments assuming that moralism=the right to control others, is in fact that women have the right to choose, and importantly, to privacy about what goes on in her own life and body: just because someone has a religious belief and claims that science supports that belief doesn't actually mean there's a compelling state interests to abridge the rights of Americans to make those decisions, moral, scientific, or otherwise, for themselves, and to receive proper medical care with informed consent and all that other stuff.

Too often the assumption is that the burden of proof in any of these regards is somehow always on the non-conservative Christian, and since no proof is ever enough for them, they can claim to always have the right to use the state to get their way over others: this simply isn't how things work in America.

If you believe that abortion or contraception under any circumstances is against your religion, then you have the right to act accordingly with your own life and your own body.

The simple fact that this is all so 'controversial' in fact the best reason of all to preserve individual choice in this matter. There's no compelling state interest to abridge these sexual, reproductive,, and personal rights, there is clearly no 'one right answer' to impose on everybody, and enforcing one religious belief over others simply isn't allowing people the moral choice: it's removing that choice, and all too often even preventing doctors and mothers from exercising their best judgment.

When there are such differing opinions, particularly about the religious agendas, that should be the *first clue that this is not some absolute for the law to impose.*

Teach what you want, but you don't have the right to withhold information or education or the right or lawful means to make different choices than you claim your religion gives you the right to impose on others.

.

[Parallax]

This is about a Republican/Religious Right war on women and women's rights: .............

As a republican, I would be offended by that................................ if it weren't true.

[clmonk]

Sorry GeneV but I am not sure where you think I am quoting from. I am just giving my opinion and NOT looking for someone else to supply it from elsewhere. I am also purposely NOT getting into theological issues, nor political issues, but rather trying to keep it in the realm of science. I DID notice how assiduously you avoided answering the questions posed. I have already addressed the issue of sperm protection--yes it is living; no it is not a distinct and separate individual. If you would, please define the "some date" statement in your comment above. How would YOU define when that "collection of cells" becomes a "human"? I have looked at the chart you linked to, but I am unable to "examine the circumstances" as you suggest. But just as a throw-down topic, how many late term abortions would have to occur before it would be wrong? What percentage would cause you concern? What percentage would cause you alarm? Is it OK if only 5% are late term? Why? If the collection of cells is still not a human, why does the trimester even make a difference?

[GeneV]

What percentage would cause you concern? What percentage would cause you alarm? Is it OK if only 5% are late term? Why? If the collection of cells is still not a human, why does the trimester even make a difference?

Only 1.4% of abortions are post 12 weeks, and that really isn't Late Term. Probably less than half that are really "late term." Without knowing the danger to the mother, I can't tell whether any of them is cause for alarm.

Take a look at photos of embryos at various stages and you will see why the trimester makes a difference.

[clmonk]

So just using your numbers that is more than 300,000 late term abortions since Roe v. Wade!!! Everyone is concerned about the danger to the mother but no one seems the least concerned about the danger to all of these potentially viable children. OH WAIT!!! Are they really children??? Why is it that those who like to comment on this discussion never want to offer an opinion on THAT issue. I have asked several times. I have taken the flak for my position. You seem to want to avoid answering the most pertinent question of the debate. I have looked at the photos, but they do not "make a difference" to me. My definition remains the same...or are you telling me it is not human until it LOOKS human? If that is the case, how "human" does it have to look before you consider it "human"? Are you beginning to see how all other definitions are not viable solutions to this debate???

[shooz]

So, then it's OK to shoot the doctor?

[GeneV]

So just using your numbers that is more than 300,000 late term abortions since Roe v. Wade!!! Everyone is concerned about the danger to the mother but no one seems the least concerned about the danger to all of these potentially viable children. OH WAIT!!! Are they really children??? Why is it that those who like to comment on this discussion never want to offer an opinion on THAT issue. I have asked several times. I have taken the flak for my position. You seem to want to avoid answering the most pertinent question of the debate. I have looked at the photos, but they do not "make a difference" to me. My definition remains the same...or are you telling me it is not human until it LOOKS human? If that is the case, how "human" does it have to look before you consider it "human"? Are you beginning to see how all other definitions are not viable solutions to this debate???

Law is all about definitions, and these are about as good as definitions get. Law makes decisions every day as to who or what will live and die, and balances those rights. As to appearance, yes, a creature, for example, with a tail and gills that can't live outside of another human being can reasonably and legitimately deemed not to have the same rights as the human that hosts it. Viability seems to me to be a better place to draw the line than conception. That is the point at which the fetus becomes an individual, and no longer requires the blood and body of another human being to live. As I stated from the beginning, which you have ignored, we do not, under any other circumstance, require that one individual give her blood and body to another.

Perhaps you have taken flack for your positions because they and your questions often do not make sense. The math is questionable as well. It appears to be off by at least a factor of ten under the most reliable estimates (about 1,000 per year) for late term abortions since Roe v. Wade.

[clmonk]

You are right, Gene. Law is all about definitions. (Chuckling here because I work in a law firm! Please do not hold that against me!!!) That's what I thought we were working on too. The problem with making appearance a determinant is that it is so subjective. And really, in our world do we really want to make these legal decisions on someone's opinion of looks? The problem with viability is that it is a constantly changing point of time. And HOW viable does it need to be? 20-35% of all babies born at 23 weeks are able to survive. Is 20% sufficient to claim viability? How about 35%? Or should we make it 50%? How about in the not-too-distant-future when we narrow that down to 15 weeks or even less? As far as requiring an individual to give blood and body to another...even if we choose the "viability" option aren't we going to do EXACTLY that for the final X number of weeks of a pregnancy??
If you will point out when my questions do not make sense I will try to explain them better. I apologize if I have not made my questions clear. Math was never my strong point, so it is definitely possible that it is off. Let me tell you how I came by my numbers. Estimates that I have read indicate about 45M abortions have occured in the US since 1973. Many states (California being one) have not reported abortion statistics as they are not required to do so--or so I have been told. I then used your numbers "Only 1.4% of abortions are post 12 weeks, and that really isn't Late Term. Probably less than half that are really "late term." So I took 45M and multiplied by .7% to get my numbers. Did I do something wrong to arrive at my conclusion? But even if I AM wrong by a factor of 10...is the loss of 30,000 viable human beings acceptable?