Just who are they, Vermillion? Care to name names?

Is it possible that the "they" you and others are referring to do donate time and money to organizations pledged to helping, or adopt? If they did publicize it more, they would be considered doing it for self-aggrandizement. And if they don't publicize it, it isn't being done?



And if you get pregnant, you have every right to choose to abort, Vermillion! At this point, it's just as likely for you to get pregnant as it is for me.

You feel it is just a matter of what a woman chooses to do, not a matter of taking responsibility for the growing life inside. Before the technology allowed it, virtually all women carried babies to term. So because the technology changed, it is now a matter of whether the child inside should have a chance to take its first breath or ever see the light of day. Now a developing baby won't get the chance to experience what we call life because it doesn't fit into Mom's plans--too bad, so sad. It is sad when our self-interest trumps the importance of a new life coming into the world.



Some day you might want a child of your own, though, and you might feel differently. My (late) brother-in-law got a woman pregnant and she had an abortion. She did not see the way he grieved. He was quiet about it but there was obviously a change in his behavior. Only once did he say to me that he would have had a child but in his words, "it wasn't worth it to her."

This argument ignores the larger problem of what happens to this child once it is born PE. By forcing a woman to bring this child into the world and "accept responsibility", the child also must accept responsibility as well.

Doesn't forcing people who are financially unstable, irresponsible, unable (by diminished physical or mental capacity or abuse problems) and/or unwilling to take care of a child create a larger problem for society as a whole? By forcing these people to have the child, we force the child to live with the same consequences. History has proven time and time again that most children that grow up this way end up being a drain on society instead of a positive force.

There is currently quite a large amount of children that grow up without parents in orphanages, or children that grow up with bad and irresponsible parents. To not allow abortions (and increase the number of children in this category) would seem to me to be irresponsible regardless of any moral convictions.


Actually, abortion has been around for a very long time and used by women as a form of birth control. However, it has only been in recent history where the procedures for aborting a baby have become mostly risk free and safe for the mother.


The question here is how strong would that marriage have been when the only real bond was the child? If the child had been born and they got married, how long would it be before some other problem caused such differences in opinion that the solution would be to get divorced leaving the child with only one parent?

Now I don't know your brother-in-law, nor do I want to make suppositions about his character, but this happens all too often today and is one reason for the exceptionally high divorce rate in America.

You can't force people to take care of a child. But because the parents are "financially unstable, irresponsible, unable and/or unwilling," does that give the unborn child any less of a right to exist? Again, should only the unborn children of financially stable, responsible, loving parents be permitted to experience life?

We cannot choose our circumstances of birth. But we don't necessarily end up in those circumstances. Neither legislatures, judges nor parents omniscient nor clairvoyant; in many cases all that child needs is one kind person to come forward and improve his/her circumstances. To say that circumstances are too unsuitable for a child to be able to be delivered alive is to place ourselves in the position of a deity.



I think I said virtually all women.



(My brother-in-law died in a fire a couple of years later, so it's moot.)

So what if? Tell me, how many people are living together unmarried with from 1-3 or 4 children anyway? And when you ask them, how many of them will tell you that a marriage certificate is "just a piece of paper anyway"?

Would it be indicative of a better moral character to kill an unborn child and continue in a sexual relationship, knowing that if birth control doesn't work the woman can always get another abortion? Is that responsible behavior? I personally do not think so. I think that it is irresponsible, and I would rather see children alive, whose parents are unmarried to each other. The era of calling the children of unwed parents "little bastards" is over, thankfully. All children have the right to exist, regardless of the "legitimacy" of their parentage.

And as related to this thread, saying an embryo/fetus is more humanlike earlier in pregnancy than first thought is not going to influence a woman bent on destroying the one inside of her. We all know that when a woman gets pregnant, the most logical thing that is going to happen is the birth of a baby. It's not like it might come, as in Santa Claus might come down the chimney on Christmas Eve, it's that the baby will come down the birth canal, in usually 38-40 weeks. After conception, it is not a potential life, but a developing life, receiving sustenance inside the mother, growing by direction of its own DNA, not Mom's. The fact that it has a consciousness limited to its immediate environment and its stage of development should not provide a ready excuse to terminate its life without guilt.

I am going to take my own advice and leave this debate, as I have said in my opinion men trying to legeslate abortion laws is hypocracy at its finest. I will leave with a few comments, one logical and one historical.

Firstly, you keep referring to a foetus as an unborn child. That is an understandable point of view, but it is JUST a point of view. Many more people think the foetus, in particular early in the pregnancy is just that, a foetus. It has the potential to BECOME a child, but so dioes an unfertilised egg. I completely accept and understand your point of view about the foetus, and completely oppose the desire by many 'pro-lifers' (not necessarily including yourself) who feel the need to legeslate their opinion over the opinion of others, damn the consequences to the child or mother.



Secondly, a historical point. Even today miscarriage rates are 1 in 5. In earliet times the rates are FAR higher, rising up to an estimated (we have few actual figures) 2 in 3 in Renaissance Europe. Then once born children had a 30-40% mortality rate in the first week.

That's just miscarriages of course. Abortions ahve been around forever, the earliest recorded abortions were in early Greece, Athenian doctors feeding cominations of herbs to mothers to induce miscarriage. It was actually not at all uncommon, though more often then not done at the behest of the husband/male then at the womans's sole request. These procedures have been done throughout history, and have always been entirely accepted.

Not until the 19th century did the Church step in on the issue, and only in 1869 that the catholic church prohibited abortions.

In fact, the opposite of what you said is true: abortions have been an accepted part of society for human history, not really given much seciond though because of the high miscarriage and infant mortality rate. Only recently, given advances in technology, has abortion become an issue again, at the behest of the catholic church, famous for legeslating its own morality over the morality of others.

History is entirely on the side of 'pro-choice'.

You know, History was entirely on the side of slavery for a long time, but that did not make it right.

Edit to add: I may show bias because I am a loving parent of a son, and just recently learned my wife is pregnant with our second child, even I can understand there is a time and need for abortions.

What sickens me are abortions of convenience. Those who were too lazy or ignorant to consider the consequences of sex without contraceptives.

Just to add, as a personal anecdote, my mother was born and raised in very Catholic Italy during the 1950s and 60s, when not only abortion was illegal, but most forms of birth control were unavailable as well. Virtually every woman in the town she was raised had obtained at least one surgical abortion, and/or gone to the neighborhood witch (my mother's roomate for several years) to obtain herbal abortificants. Back then, an herbal abortificant and birth control were considered synonymous.

It is difficult to imagine a more inappropriate compairason. The laws of the world are pretty much universally moving towards the legalisation of Abortion as the 'proscriptions' of the catholic church are being undone. Only in the US do we see the possibility of a regression of these laws, with a president slowly chipping away at abortion rights.

Think on this: take away for a moment the people who oppose abortion for strictly religious reasons. What proportion of the 'pro-life' movement do they represent? Certainly not all, but likely a majority.



Firstly, these are a less common than many would have us believe. I don't think ANY woman, no matter how pro-choice she is, goes into an abortion lightly and carefree, for something to do on an afternoon. It is a heavy and difficult decision, and far, FAR more difficult than puting on a condom. Though abortions may be used when birth control fails, I am willing to be there are VERY few women who opt out of using birth control by saying, "Well, I can always just have an abortion".

Secondly, for those very few women who might do that, frankly I dislike that as well. But thats not the point. In Canada, a welfare state, there are a few people, a small percentage to be sure, but a few, who are happy to just live on welfare and do nothing else. Thats abominable, but not a reason to abolish welfare which is used properly and in fact vital for the vast majority.

The decision of wheither or not to have an abortion should rest entirely with the woman, and not with the state deciding for the woman.

At the risk of injecting election politics in this debate, John Kerry weighed in over the weekend. His publicists must be fuming. My emphasis added.

Wash Post - may require free registration



Interesting take on the subject. Life begins at conception, but it's OK to end that life in all circumstances, rather than legislate faith on others. That seems so devoid of morality to me. Protestants and Jews think that life begins at conception too, so the only reason is not to legislate morality on the non-religious, or that life isn't as important as 'separation of church and state?'

So, life begins at conception. I killed several bugs in my kitchen this morning. I, therefore, took several lives. That was not against the law. I also ate some turkey. A turkey is more cognizant than an 8 week old fetus. That was also not against the law.

Not at all, here is a man who has a point of view, based on his religion, but who is wise enought to know that his religion, and his opinion, are not shared by all, and he has no right to force others to share in his opinion or his religion when it directly contravenes their own. It takes a canny and brave polititian to say something like that, I didn't think Kerry had it in him.


Its one thing to have an opinion, its another to believe that your opinion is and can only ever be the one right opinion. People like that are, in my opinion the cause of 90% of the problems in the world.

I'm not saying that abortion should or shouldn't be against the law. I was merely pointing out the moral inconsistency. The topic was 'when does life begin' and I shared Mr. Kerry's view, which apparently matches with my own. My point is, if you agree that this is a 'life' then how can it be OK to end that (innocent) life? More importanly, does this type of thing devalue human life? For example, on this thread, a human fetus has been compared to:

a cow
piglets
a turkey
bugs
an aardvark
pet dog or cat
flagellates
a person shaped wind chime
that little blob
a parasite (only in the biological sense)

Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers believe that sperm cells, ovum, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are all forms of human life.

What they disagree on is when that human life becomes a person with rights, specifically the right to not be aborted or killed.

In the article you posted, Mr. Kerry said that he opposes abortion personally, meaning he would not make that choice if he was in such a position. He did not make any assertions, however, that he believes that the legal rights of personhood attach at conception. There is no moral inconsistency to personally choose never to elect for abortion for oneself, but also agreeing that others have a right to make their own choice.

I'm afraid Mr. Kerry's view does not match your own, and that is where the initial confusion has arisen.

To me, this is not a moral inconsistency at all. The reason that different stages of early human gestational development are compared to a cow, piglets, bugs, turkey, ect., is because those things are at least as developed, and in many cases more developed in intellectual capacity, than a human fertilized egg, embryo, or young fetus are. We are then left with the argument that human life, even in its earliest stages of development, must be sacred simply because it is human life (though less cognizant than a cow, turkey, or bug). Well... sperm and egg are also forms of undeveloped human life.

That is why there will never be a consensus on this issue. If you look at this simply pragmatically by the law of diminishing returns, I think it is possible to eliminate abortions with the exception of the very early stages. It would be counterproductive and impossible to eliminate all abortions base merely on the premise that life begins at conception. We kill lives much more complex every day for less compelling reasons, and women will risk death to do so. Some people may believe that this is a justifiable risk to reduce the number of lost embryos, but I will never agree to that line of reasoning.

No, actually Kerry said "Life begins at conception." He didn't comment on sperm etc.


His STATED view is that life begins at conception, but his ACTIONS (supporting abortion rights) endanger that very life. That is morally inconsistent. What's wrong with lawmakers having a moral compass? Here are my views, vote for me and you'll know what I stand for. If I believe that abortion is taking of an innocent human life, why in the world would I support abortion? That is moral inconsistency illustrated. It's not like a question of legalizing pot or something, but human life itself we're talking about here. Why do lawmakers check their morals at the door of Congress? Separate topic I know.


So intelligence determines the value of human life. Should there be an IQ test to determine our right to live?

And I have pointed out there IS no moral inconsistency. There is nothing wrong with saying I have an opinion, and I hold that opinion dear, but I also recognise that it is ONLY an opinion, and I have no right to enforce my opinions on others who have different opinions. That is not only NOT inconsistent, it is in fact creditable.



Many do not, and for those that do, thank God they do. Law should not be based on a person's opinion, in PARTICULAR in a secular state when the person's opinion is stated to come from a religious belief. Law is based on what is right according to principles, precident and fact. People who have the capacity to set aside their own opinions for the greater good make the best lawmakers.

Kerry has an opinion on an issue. But he realises his opinion is just an opinion, and he realises it comes from a religious foundation which is becoming less and less shared as society becomes more secular and less dogmatic. Therefore, he is unwilling to impose in law his particular opinion on others who he recognises do not share that same view.

As i said, I did not think Kerry had this in him, but in this particular aspect I wish far more polititians were like him.



It doesn't devalue human life when the whole point of view of people making these comparaisons is that it is NOT a human life. It has aspects of humanity, but in various ways it has FEWER aspects of humanity than those comparaisons listed above. One cannot devalue what is not there. You feel differently, and I respect that, but your opinion is just an opinion, as is mine. Do not presume otherwise.

Lastly, let us remember that the issue here is not wheither the foetus has any rights at all, it does. An assault which causes miscarriage, in particular late in pregnancy can result in a higher charge. The foetus clearly does have SOME rights under the law.

The question here is wheither this thing which IS NOT A PERSON (regardless of its potential) should have rights that outweigh the rights of the mother over her own body and her own future.

That isn't what he says.

What Kerry is saying here is that his faith considers abortion to be wrong and he personally would not choose that alternative, but he will not preclude other Americans from making that choice by forcing his faith upon them.

The government should not legislate morality, especially in this area. Kerry basically acknowledges here that the only arguments against abortion are primarily religious in nature.

Kerry is still "pro-choice" regardless of his personal feelings. In fact I can respect him that much more knowing that he personally would not condone abortion, but he won't deny others the ability to make that decision on their own.

Carlitoswhey, both pro-lifers and pro-choicers believe that a fertilized egg is a form of human life. Someone saying that they believe that life begins at conception does not mean that they must believe that the life in question has the rights of a person to not be aborted. Mr. Kerry's STATED view on the issue is "pro-choice." You can logically believe that life begins at conception and also believe that abortion should be legal. If you believe Mr. Kerry is morally inconsistent, you're entitled to your opinion, but I submit that you might do well to consider that it is because you choose to frame the issue that way. At the very least as a starting point, accept the fact that Mr. Kerry's views and your views are not the same.

Aren't all basic laws based on morality, religion-based or otherwise? Murder, prostitution, theft, copyright law, everything seems pretty much based on what's right and wrong - morals.

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The right to life is a self-evident truth, endowed by our Creator. Not a piglet, not a bug, not an opinion. In my opinion

Here is an extreme example: Say that some federal court found that illegal immigrants weren't legally people, and could therefore be bought, sold or killed. Could a candidate campaign with anti-immigration advocates but say that he's 'personally' opposed tobuying/selling/killing people. But hey, you can't force your personal beliefs on the nation, as the courts have spoken? Or, should that candidate say "This court decision is wrong, my moral compass tells me that life is sacred."

That is a way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that these kinds of laws are in the best interest of society to promote stability and prosperity.

If murder was not against the law you would have quite a bit of anarchy in society and people would be so concerned with protecting themselves, they would not be productive. It has nothing to do with morality. Even if killing someone was morally ok, it still would not be in the best interest of society.

I disagree. All of these things are illegal because they harm someone, not because of any antiquated religious or moral codes. This is not morality, this is just common sense. No one has the right to harm someone else.
With, of course, the exception of victimless crimes - i.e. drugs and prostitution. These things are illegal only because of antiquated religious codes. If it's the government's job to protect us from ourselves, then why isn't alcohol outlawed? Or tobacco?

Yes, most laws are based on morality. They are also based on the cost-to-benefit aspect for the enforcement or elimination of those laws. Offering the status of personhood to an embryo would be more trouble than it's worth.

And excessive number of abortions in this country is in the best interests of society, how?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over one million abortions a year are performed here in the states. We, as a society should be doing everything in our power to prevent abortion. We have become so desensitized to it that we are debating whether it's human or not. Call it a zygote, a dividing mass of cells, when you don't want it. Call it a baby when you do.

I too, am against abortion personally, but wouldn't deny anyone their right to have one. But we as a society need to set some limits. We need to decide at what point abortion is unacceptable. We need to teach sex education in our schools and sell it to the religious right under the guise of preventing abortions. We need to provide birth control free of charge to those who can't afford it and sell it under the guise of preventing abortions. We have to stop the excessive number of abortions in this country.

I look at this picture and I do not understand how anyone can look at this foetus, eight weeks in gestation, and say it's not human or a human being.

As I posted previously:


Society does not have the infrastructure in place to handle a bunch of unwanted pregnancies. We barely have a handle on the babies now that are given up for adoption and then basically become wards of the state.

Does anyone honestly believe that if an extra million babies were born a year it would be a good thing? Who is going to take care of these babies? How many more tax dollars are going to be dedicated to supporting them instead of spending them on the larger concerns of society?

Abortion should remain a personal choice, the morality of it is irrelevant because the impact to society of the resulting population explosion would be very detrimental.

Let's examine this. You mentioned an extra million babies, that assumes a million deaths per year. A million deaths of what is being assumed will be a newborn that will live whatever a full life constitutes these days, grow, go to school, have relationships, etc.

Let's remember what Vermillion said in his post. Many of these pregnancies are not carried to term for whatever reason. Many of these do not make it to the finish line of birth, or they make it to that finish line too soon on their own to survive.

Why do we assume that if these pregancies weren't terminated from the outside, they would produce a million children? There will always be miscarriages and stillbirths, although science is making strides to prevent the latter.

And as far as putting a strain on society, live births do indeed place a strain on tax dollars, especially where poverty exists. So make abortion cheap! Put clinics on every street corner! Have the politicians drop every pretense of valuing the unborn--no more sermons, no more seeking to appoint pro-life Supreme Court Justices! That'll cost everybody less money, right? Wrong.

There will still be the poor, the drug addicts, the prostitutes, the victims of abuse who find themselves pregnant, because the cause of the misery is not pregnancy, and until the causes are addressed, the misery will remain. There will be more monies spent on abortion services, until somebody in Congress and/or the Presidency feels budget constraints require that funding for abortion clinics be cut back, staff laid off. Priorities --and tax dollars-- will shift to the latest issue du jour. With our luck, it'll probably be the continuing War on Terror, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The work force will be smaller because of a declining birth rate. The draft will most likely be reinstated if the population is shrinking and proportionately the numbers of volunteers. But the children of the rich and powerful will still find a way out of serving in harm's way. In our "classless" society, the dichotomy of the privileged and un- or underprivileged will endure.

The argument for abortion in this thread is yes, the embryo/fetus is much more humanlike in the womb than previously thought, but too bad, not human enough, DNA notwithstanding. Treating the ills of society by giving the go-ahead to the wholesale killing of beings guilty of nothing but trying to grow and develop all their fingers, toes, and faculties inside the womb is wrong. Reducing the argument to the high cost to society of the very event that ensures the continuation of society is crass as well as wrong.

That is taking it a little far don't you think PE? You are usually very rational, but that was completely over the top. I don't think anyone has suggested that abortion should supplant birth control methods such as condoms, birth control pills, etc. People are suggesting that it should remain a personal choice, an option presented and weighed amongst other options.


I was just using a number provided by Beladonna, I honestly do not know how many abortions there are a year, I believe she suggested there were about a million. I believe that it is safe to say that with pediatric care in the state it is today a large majority of those pregnancies would result in a baby (lets say 90% and it is probably even higher than that)

Let's take a look at some statistics here. First, if you take a read of this article (the charts are helpful), the number of adoptions in the US is down from previous decades. Also, UNICEF statistics show that the infant mortality rate has decreased, life expectancy has increased.

So, keeping those two things in mind, as an opponent of abortion, what would you propose to do if abortions were stopped today and all women were forced to carry their babies to term? Should we just force these babies to grow up in a bad environment, live as wards of the state, etc? I would submit that would create a huge problem for society as a whole. In looking through your responses to my questions I don't think you have directly answered that question yet.

I personally doubt the population would rise much at all. Women would take the risks and obtain expensive and dangerous abortions from quacks, or attempt it themselves. Some would be sterile (or dead) after that, and have no subsequent children. The abortion rates would probably decline, though.

Of course, none of that actually addresses 'when we become human'. If we are determined to make the life a protected person from the minute the sperm fertilizes that egg, we should get rid of the pill and IUD, which are potential abortificants. If we aren't willing to give the fertilized egg personhood status, then it's all an argument of when we should determine that the fertilized egg is complex enough to be legally protected. I personally don't think an embryo should be protected like a newborn baby. I think the risks outweigh the gains. Would we seriously try these women for murder? What would that do to our society and legal system?

CJ, I want to be clear that I am not calling for disallowing abortion. What I would like is for abortion to become rare. I read somewhere that one in four pregnancies are lost to abortion. Some of that could be spontaneous as I don't think it's identified differently. My bottom line is that I don't think the solution is abortion. I think the solution is prevention.

But is the unborn child (fetus) human?

One of the problems is that our laws are confusing. We allow abortion which kills a fetus, but charge those who commit a violent crime that kills a mother and her unborn child with two charges of murder under federal law.

In South Carolina, a woman was convicted of homicide by child abuse based on her behavior during pregnancy.

If that unborn child is not human, why do we, as a society demand the person who committed the crime to be charged with its murder? How can we say it is human and subject to protection in one circumstance, then say it's OK to terminate in another?

If we had a million deaths from flooding, we would call that a terrible tragedy, or if that many people died from tornadic activity. If the terrorists had managed to kill a million people in New York City instead of the 3,000 or so in the WTC Twin Towers attack, imagine the additional anguish. But so many of us have purposed to not value the little ones, our yet-to-be-born, the future generation, enough to ensure that they at least make it to birth.

Try as one might to use a sterile, exclusively scientific argument to justify the termination of a pregnancy, it still boils down to the deliberate, premeditated taking of a life.

I would favor distribution of birth control implements to high schoolers before I would favor abortion. One is preventing pregnancy; the other is the taking of a life.

Naomi Judd had sex only once, on the night of her high school prom, and she became pregnant. Had she aborted, Wynonna would not have existed. Too many teenagers think that just once isn't going to get them pregnant, and in the heat of the moment they aren't thinking about using protection. They are playing the odds with their bodies. And the "good" girls who have pledged to wait until they are married find themselves in similar situations, and they are too afraid of being found out if they tried to get some birth control for themselves, so oftentimes they find themselves pregnant after a night of passion.

Rationality has gotten us the deaths of (what was it?) approximately a million unborn per year, right? Doesn't sound rational to me. Too many people think that freedom is the same as license to do whatever they please regardless of the consequences to anyone else.

But again, I find the argument of how much it's going to cost to take care of the babies that are born crass. I am a product of the "baby boom," a time when the soldiers came home and were all for mating again in civilian life. I came a little earlier than Mom and Dad wanted, but I was born. When did we come to the conclusion that we should have so much control over when pregnancies occur? Are we all that omniscient that we know exactly the right time?

If abortions are so much the answer to broken homes and poverty, and abortions are safe and legal, why do we still have such a high divorce rate and people who can't manage to make it financially? Maybe our problem is something else--maybe selfishness, or unrealistic expectations, or a lack of commitment.

Babies can be given up for adoption if the mom knows that she is going to have trouble raising her child in a sufficiently good environment. But affluence and a good address do not guarantee a good home environment, either. There is a man who was recently released from prison, a Joel Steinberg who served 12 years. He was an attorney convicted of beating his adopted daughter to death. He regularly beat his wife and had brainwashed her into thinking that it was right to beat the little girl.

There are no guarantees that a child will be raised in a good environment. Would that be a good excuse to commit widespread genocide in the newborn nursery of a hospital, for their own good? Of course not. But newborns cannot focus well with their eyes, and they don't have a concept of being separate from the blurry world around them--could it be they are not human enough to live yet? A ridiculous notion, but that is the type of reasoning taking place regarding unborn children.

You enter life. You have a chance of having good parents, terrible parents, mediocre parents, one parent, a nice, bad, mediocre grandparent, whatever. But at least you get a chance to live. That is what I am talking about. Doesn't everyone deserve a chance at life?

Edited: Yes, I realize that what I wrote was over the top. However, I really take issue with the idea that taking the life of the unborn is some kind of great way to solve women's problems and make life better. I also resent the idea that is held by some that morality and passion have no place in these arguments, that it is merely a medical procedure that is not worthy of our examination on the grounds of ethics.

I used to be pro-choice. At a rally I came across a couple of people yelling the slogan, Abortion on demand and without apology! I was there for choice. One of the demonstrators was pushy and thrust a button in my hand and some leaflets. I got to thinking about what they were saying. It wasn't the same as "Silicone breast implants or nose jobs on demand and without apology." Their strident, in-your-face rhetoric was both off-putting and troubling. Years later, I concluded that I was not on the same side they were. There was a reason for which an apology was appropriate.

Woman's body?? A fetus has half of the mothers DNA and half of the fathers DNA. Fetus not a human?? The fetus is the offspring of two humans so it is human. Not a person?? The slaves that were in North America were called not human. The Jews in Nazi Germany were called less than human, and they exterminated them by the thousands, and it was considered a WAR CRIME (maybe part of the reason the terrorist don't like us)! What about Life and Liberty?


If one is going to aply that standard--be consitant. A double minded person (or nation) is unstable in all is ways.

Good point. Ain't premeditation one of the prerequisites for conviction of a first degree murder??


I would say this is EXACTLY what is happening today. I blame this on society (all of us), and the school system in particular.

Valid point; and how many jews the Nazis killed? How many the Soviets killed? Use freedom as a licence--may it never be!!

I just want to say I agree with the sentiment that extremists in the abortion debate really distort the issue and heap a lot of additional heartache into the whole mess.

If you are pro-choice, recognize that it is a sensitive issue that others find heart rending and are agonized by what they feel is the murder of millions of innocent children; choose your arguments carefully and do not trivialize their concerns.

If you are pro-life, recognize that others have come to their own decisions on what they believe is the dividing line between a child with rights and a developing embryo that is not yet a person; and that all people will fight for the rights they believe in.

Whichever way a person goes, they should try to resist the urge to become militant or extremist when the other side seems to be doing so. It only escalates the philosophical conflict and pushes the two sides further apart.

Not that many would want to wade through another six pages of posts on the subject, but some of us have covered this issue in the past (now closed). Thought I would provide that in case anyone might want to see what had been discussed at an earlier time.

As to recent posts, I'm in agreement with Azure in saying that many of us recognize different stages of human development as possessing life. And being distinctly of our species they are at the same time human. But as many have labored to explain over the course of this debate, there are differences between merely being alive, being human and then being a person.

When it comes to the rights we have, and which some would ascribe to embryos and fetuses, they exist for the benefit and protection of persons. As noted earlier eggs and sperm are both living and human, yet I doubt if many would seriously suggest we provide them with legal protections. Like these gender specific gametes an embryo or fetus is both human and alive... but are they persons?

Earlier there seeemed some dispute between whether embryos and fetuses represented "potential life" or whether they represented simply "life" -- an issue that I believe was brought up between Paladin Elspeth (taking the latter) and another poster I regretfully forget. I would say that yes it is a life, but again, this does not inherently mean it is also a person. And if not a person, not eligible for consideration of rights bestowed upon living persons.

Individually a sperm or egg cell is alive and represents the potential not for life but for personhood. Combined the potential for personhood increases exponentially. Even an exponential increase, however, does not mean that an ensuing embryo or fetus qualifies for the full deal. We're much closer to a person protected by the rights we ourselves enjoy as persons, but the union of a sperm and egg by no means guarantees that a resulting zygote, embryo or fetus will ever experience a live birth or develop into a functioning person.

The statistics I've seen suggest most pregnancies end in miscarriage whether it is always known to the mother or not. Reproduction is a perlious journey not made any easier simply by the combination of a sperm and egg cell. They have taken the next step but face still a rocky road ahead.

As laid out by Carl Sagan earlier, and by other posters in this thread, the essence of our character -- what makes us not simply human or alive, but persons -- is in our mental capabilities. We don't have to be the smartest, but we do have to have the capacity to think and feel like a person. And as Sagan and medical studies show, that capacity is not developed until considerably later in the development of a fetus. Even prior to that and still late in the development of a fetus is the capability to simply survive outside the womb, to have vital organs function at a level capable of sustaining life independent of another particular organisms continued biological function.

Being human and alive are not the only criteria for being a person, lest we should be forced to seriously consider the act of male masturbation mentioned earlier to actually be genocide. I believe the ability to sustain life as described in the above paragraph coupled with having the capacity for human thought is an excellent point at which to acknowledge the step from simply being human and alive, from being a potential person, to actually being a person.

This is not to say we can't make personal choices to view any stage or human reproductive development as a person, but for the population as a whole we should know why we should legally recognize any earlier stage of human development as a defining moment of being a person and whether it prevents such ridiculous charges as previously mentioned being levied against the hormonal American male.

I would venture to say the viability and capacity for human thinking are the best, if not only point(s) to make the distinction. I would also venture to say that "walking" in the womb, smiling, or any other form of reflexive or unconscious activity does not alter the issue in the slightest.

Actually, many of your fellow Democrats or any of those saying 'anybody but Bush' could with good reason say that they have a specific reason for the 40 million babies (amount legally aborted since Roe v. Wade) to be born. There is a really interesting Wall St. Journal study that takes into account birth rates among different groups, how people vote based on their parents, etc. The conclusion is that Al Gore would have won the Florida election if Roe v. Wade were not passed. So, I guess, to answer your question - Terry McAuliffe, Al Gore, Bill Clinton - because they would have won the 2000 presidential election!
The Roe Effect

So, Gore would have won the 2000 presidential election if abortion were not legal. And, conservatives will increase their share of voters in the forseeable future because their birth rates will be inflated by not aborting their children. Pretty interesting observation.

Do those statistics include those who would never live to voting age, and those who would but not vote? Or those who would grow up in abusive homes because of the burden on their parents, those who would turn to a life of crime, those who would be imprisoned, etc.?

I highly doubt you can conclude those kind of statistics with any accuracy, considering the vast number of circumstances that affect how a person votes.

And, of course, those are just legal abortions. You can't really think that if abortion had been illegal, that "18,336,576 in the Voting Age Population missing because of abortions between 1972 and 1986" wouldn't have been aborted anyway, albeit in dangerous and illegal circumstances (which could lead to the death of the mother)? Or maybe borne and then dumped in the trash, or the toilet?

Come on, carlitos. You know and I know that even if abortion were illegal, abortions would still take place.

Oh RIGHT! So THAT'S how the American electoral system works - it's all based on inheritance! Babies born to Republicans grow up to be Republicans, and Democrat parents raise Democrats exclusively. Now it all makes sense....

Please, not only is this arrant nonsense, it isn't remotely relevant to the debate topic - which is "When do we become human?".

I'm with the people using the Sagan definition, i.e. about the end of the second trimester, so abortions before then are acceptable. Not that I, being a man, have more than a passing concern in what happens to women's bodies. Even if I have fathered the potential baby, it is solely a woman's concern up until the end of the second trimester. After that, I reckon men should get a say in what goes on.

And I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I view abortion as usually the worst available option, but I also take the view that it may sometimes be the only practical option. It is always a matter for regret, so I think that the "no apologies" attitude is wrong-headed.

And yes, I would rather that there were better child-care facilities available, and less unspoken prejudice against women with children in the workplace, so that career-minded young women didn't feel that they had to get abortions to get on in their lives. But until such magical societal changes happen, I can't see that women in this situation are suddenly going to decide that having the baby at term is the best option for them, whether they keep it themselves or give it up for adoption.

This is one of the oldest debates going. Roman women used to leave unwanted babies out in the wilds to die of exposure of be eaten by animals. Unwanted children were used as little more than indentured slaves in the early 19th century (Remember Oliver Twist and the workhouse? Dickens was a social realist, even a satirist, not a fantasist - more Moore or Grisham than Rowling). It seems to me that the PRACTICAL options are not happy abortion or happy childhoods, but unhappy and miserable abortion or unhappy, miserable and cruel childhoods. For Pete's sake, much of the current child abuse scandal in Catholicism centres on abondoned or orphaned children being raised in church-run institutions!

If these really are the real options, not the extreme positions set imagined by extremists on both sides, then surely miserable abortions are preferable to miserable childhoods, not leat for the simple utilitarian reason that there is one less person to be miserable after abortion?

Well, this has been an interesting and informative read for the last six pages. Here's what I've learned:

1. The abortion debate is highly nuanced. Extreme examples on either side are not illustrative.

2. Slippery slope arguments on either side are logically invalid as well as demonstratively unlikely.

3. "Life" is not a good criterion for restricting abortion. Many things are considered alive which we kill.

4. "Personhood" is an insufficient criterion for restricting abortion. Afterall, a murderer is still considered a person who is put to death.

5. Potential happiness or <insert positive value> while emotionally appealing is a poor criterion as potential non-happiness or <insert negative value> is also a possible outcome. Similarly, a potential Einstein also allows for a potential Hitler.

6. Everyone on this debate forum believes that the State has the right to determine at what stage of development abortion should be allowed. The argument is about timing and context.

"I terminated my pregnancy; I feel so much better now," right? I did what I wanted to do, so everything is all right. There has always been cruelty in society. To use that as an excuse to terminate a life when your average human being does not possess godlike omniscience is hubristic. You're going to have a miserable life, kid, so I'm going to kill you because you might suffer; is that humanitarian? I'm glad it wasn't my mother's reasoning.

Should not personhood be a basic right? Is it not ironic that those who were allowed to be born feel it is their right to deny birth to another?

If women feel the most expedient way to prevent being denied a promotion because of pregnancy is abortion, then abortions will continue to take place. As long as elective abortion is around, no one feels compelled to find an alternative solution, magical or otherwise; and there are employers in tacit agreement with the aspiring female professional about "problem" pregnancies and the obvious "solution." How much do you want your promotion?

logophage: Did you read this thread thinking that someone here was going to convince you to think otherwise about aborting a developing life that appears more human at a younger stage than previously thought? If I disappointed you, I am sorry. We generally get out of an endeavor what we put into it; that also holds true with preconceived notions and attitudes.

Some of us hold forth that maximum freedom from societal constraints is the goal to aspire to. Some of us feel that our freedom must be tempered by a sense of obligation, in this case to unborn children who by their nature cannot speak for themselves. What we value more is what we argue for.

First of all, of the three women I have known that have had abortions - none of whom have engaged in sexual relations with me, so I was taken into confidence as a friend or family member rather than as a potential father - none expressed anything remotely like the sentiments you have characterised. On the contrary, their mood was depressed and anxious for some time - something more akin to mourning than the celebration you seem to think exists. They all expressed this in their own way, but they all went through the same sense of sadness, depression, loss, call-it-what-you-will.
None did it because there was a promotion in the offing - though one did take the view that her position in life and career was not settled enough to support a baby, so she came to the view that abortion was the best available option. She chose this above birth and adoption because she calculated that she would face more emotional distress at giving away a baby than terminating a pregnancy.
Oh, and as a footnote to this point, I was not involved at all in the decision making process, either not being aware of the abortion at the time, or not knowing the person in question at all until after it had taken place.


I wasn't talking about cruelty at all, though it seems that I wasn't precise enough to preclude that interpretation.


The whole point of this debate is to attempt to establish when personhood begins. I've already stated that I support the Sagan interpretation that the development of the capacity for thought, around the end of the second trimester/beginning of the third.

So, by definition, I do not believe that the fetus before this point is a kid, therefore I wouldn't have a problem weighing a likely miserable life against a unlikely happy one for a non-person, any more than I would mind killing an animal to serve what I considered to be a higher purpose (I'm not vegetarian, btw).

As soon as the fetus passes the point at which I might be able to think of it as a "kid" and address it in the way you describe, killing it would be unconscionable, which is why I don't support late term abortions (except in the odd case of uterine death or monstrous abnormalities like anencephaly), or infanticide, or murder. (Or the death penalty.)


Clearly, had your mother used that reasoning, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you would not be in a position to be glad or sad or anything else about it.

I don't believe that some essential essence of Paladin Elspeth would have hung around in the ether to have regetted its non-birth. If you do, it goes some way to explaining why you believe as you do on abortion, but it's a whole other debate that we probably couldn't have here as it most likely comes under "religion".


Well, I think personhood is a basic right of those that already have it. We shouldn't be able to take it from someone once they have it, I agree. We have the right to keep our personhood, but even that is within certain prescriptions where it becomes waivable by others as defined by the society we live in (war, criminal punishment etc.).

There are still far too many real tangible beings with full and obvious personhood who have it taken away from them now, today, because of our societies' actions or inactions. I think that these situations require more urgent and pressing attention from society as a whole, and its legislative and executive arms in government, than admittedly real tangible beings that only have questionable and obscure personhood.


This would be a useful line of reasoning for your position, had not abortion been, until relatively recently, illegal. (It certainly was in the UK before 1967, and as far as I am aware it was in the USA before Roe vs Wade?)
Elective abortion was not then around as anything other than an illegal, stigmatised and often dangerous option - plenty of incentive to make the societal changes you identify, yet it did not happen.

Believe it or not, I too would like to get society to a place where abortions are not required. But I think that would entail a huge, society-wide reassessment of attitudes to contraception and contraceptive research, of the treatment of women in the workplace (particularly pregnant women, and mothers), of the whole importance society places on work and life outside it, of the treatment of men and women by each other, and of the treatment of children by everyone.

I simply do not think that we will ever get to a position where abortion is unneccessary by confining ourselves to the rights and wrongs of abortion itself, or the possession or non-possession of personhood by this embryo, that fetus, or that baby. To this extent, debating abortions themselves is irrelevant to the wider debate on abortion. We're arguing over what type of guttering we should put on the house when it rains, when we haven't got a roof yet.

That is the crux of my argument. Centuries ago theologians and other "learned" sorts debated the intriguing concept of whether women had souls or not--was that not about personhood as well? So the group in control has and exercises the rights; the group not in control is at the mercy of their prejudices and whims. The group in which the possession of souls was in question did not have rights.

Not too long ago it was discovered that asexual reproduction in some species of animal life on this planet is achieved by way of the mother's mitochondrial DNA--no male required, thank you very much. So much in our current scientific knowledge base has just been learned relatively recently. Yet we can be perfectly comfortable in our supposition that a human embryo could not possibly have awareness and feelings the way we do; therefore it is not human yet.

In a century or maybe less, it may be found that indeed, there is a chemical awareness that this little life in the womb possesses, sophisticated but not previously detected because we as humans lose the awareness after birth somewhat as the human species itself lost touch with heightened sense of smell, or hearing in our rudimentary evolutionary predecessors. And the argument will be made that after all, our consciousness is known to be a result of chemical processes, and these chemical processes are taking place between the mother and embryo shortly after conception.

Would that then be proof that the embryo was "human enough" that the figure of one million abortions per year would be looked upon by those future scientists as genocide many times over any holocaust of the already-born?

I wonder, do you actually believe that?

Do you actually think women just skip joyfully into the abortion clinic, have the proceedure done with no moe thought than given to a pedicure, and then move on with their lives having unprotected sex, safe in the knowledge that they can return to the clinic next week?

I have known of only one woman who had an abortion, and it was a decision she took very seriously, and it had a serious emotional impact. You present it as if women have abortions like buying gum, which astonishes me.



Please do not project your personal opinion as if it were fact. Personhood is denied to a foetus because it is not a person. You happen to hold the opinion that personhood starts earlier, at conception I assume when the zygote first splits cells, but that is JUST your opinion, and holds NO MORE validity at all then the opinion that personhood begins at birth. In fact, given that in first world countries all legal systems support the personhood at birth argument, one might claim with some justification that this opinion hold somewhat more validity.



It seems to me that this 'pregnancy of convinience' argument is a staple of so called 'pro-life' groups, as though a woman would choose to have an abortion simply because she cannot reach the potatoes at the dinner table any more.

This is the epitome of arguing in extremes, it is undenyable that the vast majority of abortions are NOT like this, rather they are women who cannot support, afford or are too young to cope with the advent of children in their lives. However, in order to allow for the rights of women to their own bodies, we have to accept that in rare cases, pregnancies of convenience are allowed by the system, however rare they may be. I also do not like the concept, but I find it FAR better then the system telling women that as soon as they conceive, intentionally or not, they lose rights over their own body.

As I have said before, if you oppose abortion, then do not have one. Its very simple. But do not try and impose your personal opinion on others. Worse still, as I have already mentioned, the 'opinions' of many anti-abortionists (not all to be sure, but likely a majority) come from religion, all the more reason not to seek to impose your beliefs on others.

A foetus or a zygote is not a person. It has the potential to become a person, with a bit of luck, but that is all. Then again, so do sperm cells and eggs which women lose in their menstrual cycle every month. If you, as an anti-abortionist feel comfortable drawing your line at conception and imagining that as SOON as that first cell divides there is a person there, then that is entirely up to you. But PLEASE try and remember that this is nothing more than an opinion, NOT a fact in any measurable sense.


EDIT to add:


The rhetoric is getting a bit out of control here.



I remind you again that abortion has only been illegal in the western world since the 1860s, at the behest of the Catholic Church (That paragon of human rights throughout history, I might add). It was a SECULAR state that finally broke away from those dictates and decided that abortions were not illegal, that the rights of the woman were more important that the rights of the non-existent. In the absence of a 'soul' in legal terms, determination of life was linked to biological factors, and the reality is a zygote has no more 'life' in it then any other clump of cells.



You do realise the difficulty in arguing in baseless hypotheticals like that right? Yes, Science COULD suddenly prove that a zygote has intelligence, it could even prove that a zygote has the equivalent of a Masters degree. Or, it might not. Basing law on the premis that "We never know what science might discoiver in the future!" is a touch silly.

The 'chemical awareness' you speak of is a nervous reaction to limited forms of external stimuli. It is 'awareness' only insomuch as a sunflower is 'aware' because it turns to face the sun.

Please try and avoid referring to abortions as 'the holocaust' and other similar emotion laden terms, they are inaccurate and inflammatory, and in my personal opinion, lower the tone of the debate.

You read this in another post, Vermillion. This is what I was responding to. What the hell--the woman is ending someone's misery. Whose?

Perhaps now you see why I responded the way I did.

Women probably do not skip lightheartedly into abortion clinics. Abortion is not the panacea that will make a woman's life come together. But whatever it does to or for the woman, it has a final implication for the life that was growing within her.

Women should grieve after such a procedure. It is appropriate. Abortions should not be "on demand and without apology." There should be careful consideration given to all options available to a woman before she enters the clinic for the procedure. But if it is just the removal of non-viable tissue, why, pray tell, does a woman grieve?

Quite frankly, I tire of being virtually the only voice in this thread to affirm the importance of developing life in the womb and oppose abortion. Someone else will take up the torch here if it suits them. Apparently it is seen as so much superstition or religious mumbo jumbo to consider that maybe there is a higher purpose to pregnancies and when they occur in the grand scheme of things. Some of us are reminded of it every Christmas; to others it means very little if anything.

I encourage you to seek out someone else whose skill in debating actually meets with your approval, and with whom you can demonstrate your brilliant debating skills, and work on reducing their arguments to so much superstitious drivel, if you can find someone willing to do it. I think there is good reason other pro-lifers are avoiding this thread like the plague.

I'll echo what others have said, I have known several women that have had an abortion and their attitude was anything but "I feel so much better now".

So, lets put a real world example in here of a potentially valid reason.

You have a girl going to high school, let's say she is a sophomore and she is a straight A student, she has a bright future. She has been dating a senior this year because that is the "cool" thing to do. Eventually the relationship becomes sexual. Now the girl is smart so she uses a condom with her guy, but apparently something went wrong, the condom must not have been put on properly or it must have broken because she finds herself pregnant.

Now, taking a baby to term and caring for it at her age is going to radically alter the trajectory of her life. Forget college, you can't study for midterms when you are taking care of a two year old, heck she might even drop out of school. The guy, if he chooses to do the "right thing" is going to have to marry her and get a job to support them.

Note: I'm purposely ignoring adoption here even though that is definitely an option, but I'm sure a lot of women find that to be just as hard of a choice as abortion once they see the baby.

Now, you have two people who will never reach their full potential in life because of a mistake. They were not even being overly risky, they had protected sex. Additionally, that means reduced opportunities for the child and a marriage more likely to fail since it is not based on a good bond.

Alternatively, this girl could have gotten an abortion, and I'm sure that with the emotional baggage that carried she would have learned her lesson. So she goes about her life in high school, goes to college and gets a good white collar job. She marries a man she loves also with a good job and they make a choice to have a child.

Now I will agree it is regretable she got an abortion, but if you remove yourself from that for just a second and look at the bigger picture you would see that it is better for everyone involved. The two parents go on to be more productive members of society than they otherwise would have been and therefore they are better able to care for a child and provide it with opportunities to succeed.

I can already hear the reply coming that not every situation is like this and there is no guarantee that the parents will go on to be better people. And you are right, each situation is unique. I would say that it doesn't matter, because if even 2 out of 10 people go on to have better lives that is in the best interest of society.

Finally, is that ok that people don't always reach their full potential if something like this comes up? Sure it is. But you or I or the government or anyone else does not have the right to make that choice for them. If they choose to have the child they must accept the consequences of that. If they choose to have an abortion they have to live with themselves for doing that and hope that it was worth it. However, it is each person's choice -- no one should be allowed to sit in some high moral tower and tell them what decision they must make. That is the crux of pro-choice.

Returning to the question posed here for debate......

What light does this (new type of ultrasound) shed on when we consider our life human?



I think this is a most significant development in the abortion debate. If one actually reads Roe v. Wade, and it's a long decision, one will discover that the court agonized over the concept of what defined "a person". The court recognized that at some point in the pregancy the fetus did indeed attain some status and thus had rights of protection from the state. From Roe v. Wade...... (emphasis mine)



Roe v Wade was decided 30 years ago at a time when scientific knowledge of the development of the human life form was far less than what it is today. Roe v Wade was also not a final decision and left the door open for future court consideration as our scientific understanding progressed. Perhaps such new discoveries as detailed in the article cited to start this thread should lead us to revisit the issue.

Once again I am forced to repeat myself... There is nothing wrong with a belief that there may be a higher purpose to pregnancy, or that you think a zygote is a person because of your religion. I have no problem with that, and I applaud it, thats why in North America we have freedom of religion, you can believe this if you choose to, and in this belief there are many who agree with you. I am not of your religion, so do not draw my beliefs and moral values from the same source, but I have no problem with what you believe. If you ar opposed to abortion, do not have one.

What I DO have a problem with is when people take their own opinions, in particular opinions drawn from religions, and try and impose them on others who's opinions have equal if not more validity. I have no problem with so called 'pro-life' people not liking abortions and not choosing to have them, I ahve a HUGE problem with 'pro-lifers' trying to tell everyone that their opinion is lesser, and that EVERYBODY should conform. Laws should be changed, policies should be enacted, and everyone should be prohibited from certain actions because they have an opinion.

Let me put it another way. If you or your daughter or someone you knew was pregnant at an early age, I would try to see that they were aware of their options and of the impact of their options, both keeping and terminating. If you or your daughter or this girl then told me that their religion forbade them to have abortions, I would walk away, respectful of your decisions, and hoping you were aware of all the implications.

I expect exactly the same respect of my opinions from everyone else. Someone who is pro-life I have respect for. Someone who tries to prevent people from entering abortion clinics, or even worse, vandalises or damages clinics or attacks doctors, gets what they deserve, my unlimited contempt. I know thats NOT what you are advoctaing here by the way, I just posit it as an extreme example.



Now I ask you, was thet really necessary? Since when is disagreeing considered 'reducing your arguments to superstisious drivel'?

The article cited in the opening post of this thread doesn't reference religion or religious beliefs at all. From that article.....



This is scientific evidence that certain forms of human development in the womb occur earlier than previously thought. This is important in the abortion debate because it may indeed define "personhood" sooner than the 1973 Supreme Court thought. As that court wrote in their decision, the state does indeed have a compelling interest, indeed a duty and responsibility to protect the rights of the unborn at some point during a baby's development. That's not a religious argument anymore than saying murdering another person is wrong even though most religions also have that tenet.

No, personhood is not a right and nor should we seek to make it one. Personhood should be something decided objectively and recognized as a natural state of being. We're not going to simply "declare" persons but rather understand when it is that we become persons and acknowledge it. And as far as I have read regarding the science the best place to recognize that point is with viability and the capacity for human thought.

Many, if not most, women probably do give a great deal of consideration to the issue. I know the women in my life who have gone through the experience gave it considerable thought before making their decision. As to the issue of grieving, that is established more by the individual's perception of the embryo or fetus than any objective standard. If tribal people grieve for having a photo, believing part of their soul has been stolen for them, is their grief evidence of the camera's ability to rob persons of their souls? Of course not, and the same applies to this scenario.

Personhood may be changed sooner than some think or it may not. In any case I don't think the article introduced at the beginning of this debate says anything about the recognition of personhood. Movement within the womb is something with modern science we can recognize in multiple (if not all) species, most times without there being any conscious motivation behind it.

Knowing that a species developing in the womb moves around without conscious thought offers us greater insight into the reproductive development of said species -- whatever species we may be referring to -- but that doesn't mean those observations are landmark moments set to redefine for us when a living organism is more than just a living organism, and is a person.

Yes, the onset of "personhood" is an interesting criterion for when abortion should be disallowed. If "personhood" were the only criterion, then it seems to me that it is legally likely that Roe v. Wade will be revisited where the demarcation of where "personhood" begins will be pushed to an earlier developmental stage. Nevertheless, I do not believe personhood is a sufficient criterion. Using other "premature" death issues as a gui