A simple Yes or No with a short explanation.

[Winter Ivy]

I posted the following a little while back. I'm surprised that it hasn't prompted a response, or two.

Probably because it phrases the question in an overly simplistic manner that doesn't address the core debates.

 

[mixedmedia]

The prison system would indeed take care of that lady IF she is convicted.

Well, maybe, but the prison "system" you referred to is not a system at all, but chaos, and if you are going to stand up for the life of anyone at all, I believe you should stand up for them all. No matter what heinous act a person may commit, they are still our brothers and sisters, still a product of our society, still our responsibility. And if you can find compassion in your heart for the worst of us, then the rest is a simple matter.

You took two completly different subjects and fused them.
I said I was Christian, never said I actually attend church. But for the sake of argument; Jesus lept in his womb, Job talked about himself as a child being in the womb. The bible refers as people LIVING in the womb.
The difference here is that you are argueing that unborn children are not living. I do have a question - is an amoeba alive?.

First of all here, I must say, I misspoke here. I do believe that the fetus is alive. I will even go further and say that the sperm and egg are alive. It is the consciousness...the sentient awareness that is an important distinction for me. Thus, I don't believe that partial birth abortion should be given the same tolerance as a first trimester abortion. Truthfully, I don't know alot about partial birth abortion, but I would imagine it is only done under extreme and rare circumstances.
To get back to my original question, I was wondering if there were passages in the Bible that referred to the unborn living as having more of a right to life than the born living. Somehow I suspect not.
My mom is a history buff and she often reminds me, when I am expressing my sorrow at the death & suffering that so many children endure on our planet, that the exalted place of children in Western society is a relatively new phenomena. The Victorian Age & the inception of leisure time for the lower classes was when the romantic notion of the preciousness of our children started (thus it was just a couple of decades later that child labor laws were passed). Outside of the very wealthy & royalty, children were most often seen as working hands for the family and security for old age. Not to say that people didn't love their children, it's just that they weren't seen in the same way as they are now. They were not nurtured and doted upon as they are now. I would imagine that 2000 years ago, in the days of Jesus, children were viewed in the same rather utilitarian way.

Again, you might be right - but this is how I see it. The unborn are LIVING in the womb and growing. Killing for the sake of killing because they do not want that growing child -is indeed greedy. In my opinion.

There are indeed instances where abortion is used in the spirit of indifference and selfishness, I will give you that, and I think we can agree that we both want to end these kinds of abortions. My preference being that the pregnancy doesn't happen in the first place. That all post-adolescent girls and women are equipped with the knowledge and TOOLS to prevent the pregnancies from happening. It seems absolutely insane that the same folks that are most passionate about pro-life issues are also intent on teaching abstinence and only abstinence. Once again, back to this rule-making fetish that the Christian right has. It ain't never gonna work, it never has and it never will. It doesn't even make common sense.
And you should be able to accept that many abortions are not performed in this spirit of selfishness, but for complex, personal and sometimes disturbing reasons - human reasons, and still keep your strong anti-abortion feelings. It doesn't have to be simple. The world is not a black-and-white moral terrain, after all.
And I understand now that you are not a fundamentalist Christian? I'm sorry about that. I guess I got you mixed up with some other posters. It gets a little confusing sometimes, to keep straight who you're "talking" to.

Unconditional love would be to love that living human being before it is birthed.

I would agree that that would be ONE form of unconditional love. But only one, there are many others neglected as well. Forms of unconditional love that are much more of a struggle to fulfill than those of loving a being incapable of words or action.

Thank you. You too have an excellent Christmas.

I did, thank you! And it did snow a little. A very little. Still it was nice.

 

[argexpat]

No, because a choice was made before the event.

What about rape and incest and the health of the mother?

 

[argexpat]

Without adding qualifiers, should abortion be allowed? Why?

The question has already been answered: abortion is allowed. The question should be, should it be criminalized. And the answer would be no.

 

[argexpat]

No,
murder is murder.

Does that include innocent people killed in war?

 

[Fantasea]

Probably because it phrases the question in an overly simplistic manner that doesn't address the core debates.

But that's the beauty of it all. Have you not found that the best way to understand a problem or solve an equation is to first reduce it to its most simple form and then work from there toward a solution?

Here it is again. Why not give it a try?

The abortion issue is not so complicated as some would have us believe. In fact, it's very simple. It takes only two honest, informed, secular answers to two brief questions to lay out the entire issue.

1. Just what is it that resides within the womb?

2. What is the result of an abortion procedure?

To expand a bit further, If it is acceptable to abort a child in the third, sixth, or ninth month [after conception], why is it not acceptable to abort a child in the tenth, eleventh, or thirteenth month [after conception]?

 

[Schweddy]

You're allowed to be greedy with your body. The courts have upheld people's rights to refuse blood transfusions even when they caused the accidents creating the blood spill; in fact, they have even upheld the right of a man who, minutes before a bone marrow donation, decided to withhold his marrow and watch his cousin die from the immunosuppressive radiation and drugs needed to create the transplant. If you're not required to donate your body for someone you know, then why should you be required to donate it for an extended period of time to someone you don't know and who has never had the consciousness that makes a human a person?

Going back to the last page, when I read this - I was in shock. OMG I thought, she has a valid argument. But, I have a question. After a child is born it is NOT self sustaning. It cannot eat on its own, lift its head, or survive without a caretaker. So, using the argument above - caring and "donating" time, energy, and affection after that child is born would be irrelivant and it would be ok to let that child die of starvation - correct?

What about rape and incest and the health of the mother?

Incest should put the responsible parties behind bars. Rape the same. Adoption is an option in both of these cases.

Health of the mother is so inconsquential that it is dern near irrelivant. If the woman would rather live than let an innocent child live then I think she is a sorry individual and worthless. Just stating my opinion - it might be extream, but it's still is what I think.

 

[CSA_TX]

I think I have come up with the final cure for the debate. Abortion should be outlawed. The Baby should be born and then the mother will be provided with a 12 guage shotgun to hold against the babies head and then they can pull the trigger. No more abortion and you will get the same result.

MURDER

 

[WKL815]

Does that include innocent people killed in war?

Dude. War has it's own set of rules. There is Civility and there is War. If you don't understand the difference, I beg you start asking questions and trying to learn about how the world works and has always worked instead of confusing issues and muddling your thoughts. It must be extremely hard to make sense of the world when you can't grasp this point.

 

[argexpat]

Dude. War has it's own set of rules.

Why? You're the one who said "murder is murder."

 

[WKL815]

Wasn't me. Again, I know it's hard to make sense of the world, but at least try to follow the thread.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Winter Ivy
You're allowed to be greedy with your body. The courts have upheld people's rights to refuse blood transfusions even when they caused the accidents creating the blood spill; in fact, they have even upheld the right of a man who, minutes before a bone marrow donation, decided to withhold his marrow and watch his cousin die from the immunosuppressive radiation and drugs needed to create the transplant. If you're not required to donate your body for someone you know, then why should you be required to donate it for an extended period of time to someone you don't know and who has never had the consciousness that makes a human a person?

The anecdotes you relate are relatively rare occurrences.

Are you aware that in its peak year in the US, the ratio of abortions to live births was one in three? This means that out of every three infants growing toward birth, only two would survive. One would be aborted.

All else aside, when the proponents of Roe v Wade were working to advance their cause for safe and rare abortions, could they have ever imagined that in just thirty years, the total number would be nearing fifty million?

 

[Winter Ivy]

But that's the beauty of it all. Have you not found that the best way to understand a problem or solve an equation is to first reduce it to its most simple form and then work from there toward a solution?

No, but maybe that's because I've dated one too many chaos theorists.

Seriously, reductionism tends to prevent problem-solving, simply because it winds up misconstruing the problem, whether it's in weather prediction or the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa.

Here it is again. Why not give it a try?

I will if you can show me -- without resorting to circular reasoning -- why the abortion issue is so simple. From what I've seen in the posts, everyone has already answered those questions, albeit in a detailed and sophisticated manner -- which can still conflicts with your opinion.

Ivy

 

[Winter Ivy]

Going back to the last page, when I read this - I was in shock. OMG I thought, she has a valid argument. But, I have a question. After a child is born it is NOT self sustaning. It cannot eat on its own, lift its head, or survive without a caretaker. So, using the argument above - caring and "donating" time, energy, and affection after that child is born would be irrelivant and it would be ok to let that child die of starvation - correct?

I'm referring to physiologically self-sustaining. Everything needs food, water, care, etc.; however, physiologically self-sustaining people can breathe on their own, circulate blood via their own internal organs, etc. Despite their physiological independence after birth, however, they're still not accorded full legal rights because they're not socially independent as well. The fact that they aren't indicates that rights are awarded in our society based on one's level and type of consciousness and self-sustaining ability, not DNA per se.

Secondly, the fact that adoption is permitted after birth simply supports the notion that the law protects individuals' rights to choose to be free from caring for others if it poses a radical change to their existing lifestyle. I know that we like to idolize our mothers as pinnacles of altruism, but the reality is that we're all human.

Incest should put the responsible parties behind bars. Rape the same. Adoption is an option in both of these cases.

I'm not doubting that adoption is an option, and I'm not doubting that sexual offenders should be put in jail. I'm simply pointing out that, if a pro-lifer wants to make exceptions for these two cases, it demonstrates that the true reason for his or her opinion isn't a fetus's "inalienable right to life," but instead, issues regarding their views on sex and women's roles in society.

Health of the mother is so inconsquential that it is dern near irrelivant. If the woman would rather live than let an innocent child live then I think she is a sorry individual and worthless. Just stating my opinion - it might be extream, but it's still is what I think.

Honesty is a good start. Now the question is, can you live up to your own unrealistic altruistic moral standard?

Ivy

 

[Winter Ivy]

The anecdotes you relate are relatively rare occurrences.

Yes and no. The blood issue is more common than people think; it's just not in the media very frequently because it occurs in rural areas where blood distribution is scarce.

Secondly, I'm not saying that they're common. More importantly, their frequency has no impact on my argument. Their existence -- and their consistent existence in every circuit in the nation, including the Supreme Court -- demonstrates that the theory underpinning the decisions is stable and applicable to a wide number of situations. It's only a matter of time before it's argued in abortion. (It's not so far simply because doctors' rights to treat patients and privacy has 200 more years worth of case law than individuals' transplant rights..)

Are you aware that in its peak year in the US, the ratio of abortions to live births was one in three? This means that out of every three infants growing toward birth, only two would survive. One would be aborted.

Where are you getting this? My numbers from the CDC indicate a 246 abortions per 1,000 live births, which is closer to one in four.

Secondly, I don't see what this has to do with my argument.

All else aside, when the proponents of Roe v Wade were working to advance their cause for safe and rare abortions, could they have ever imagined that in just thirty years, the total number would be nearing fifty million?

And how many would there be if they didn't provide inexpensive contraception at their clinics? I've yet to see a pro-life clinic that offers the same contraceptive choices.

Ivy

 

[Kevin Johnson]

No.

Women have every right to choose whether or not to have a baby, as they should. The time to make that choice is before they perform the act that creates a baby. After conception, they are ending a human life that has done nothing to warrant a death sentence.

 

[argexpat]

I have a solution to this "debate" that was settled once and for all by the
Supreme Court in 1973 but is used by the Republican party to distract working-class Christians from their ruinous economic policies: Hold a national referendum on abortion where every woman in the U.S. votes to either ban abortion or keep it legal and safe. The men can go have a beer while they wait for the returns.

 

[Fantasea]

I will if you can show me
Ivy

Sure. Life begins at conception.

Don't take my word for it, read the words of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, who is regarded by many, as the father of modern genetics. If your mind is closed on this subject, then further reading would be a waste of valuable time. However, if you regard yourself as having an open mind, you may learn some things that will help you understand my position on abortion.


When Does Human Life Begin?
by Dr. Jerome Lejeune

The late Dr. Jerome Lejeune was an internationally known geneticist and a professor of genetics at the University of Rene Descartes in Paris. Dr. Lejeune received the Kennedy Award from the late President for his discovery that Down's syndrome (Trisomy 21) was due to an extra chromosome. Dr. Lejeune contributed greatly to genetic research to prevent and treat Trisomy 21. The following testimony was given by Dr. Lejeune before a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee.


When does a person begin? I will try to give the most precise answer to that question actually available to science. Modern biology teaches us that ancestors are united to their progeny by a continuous material link, for it is from the fertilization of the female cell (the ovum) by the male cell (the spermatozoa) that a new member of the species will emerge. Life has a very, very long history but each individual has a very neat beginning: the moment of its conception.

The material link is the molecular thread of DNA. In each reproductive cell, this ribbon, roughly one meter long, is cut into pieces (23 in our species). Each segment is carefully coiled and packaged (like a magnetic tape in a minicassette) so that under the microscope it appears like a little rod, a chromosome.

As soon as the 23 paternally derived chromosomes are united, through fertilization, to the 23 maternal ones, the full genetic information necessary and sufficient to express all the inborn qualities of the new individual is gathered. Exactly as the introduction of a minicassette inside a tape recorder will allow the restitution of the symphony, the new being begins to express himself as soon as he has been conceived.

Natural sciences and the sciences of law speak the same language. Of an individual enjoying a robust health - a biologist would say that he has a good constitution -of a society developing itself harmoniously to the benefit of all its members, a legislator would state that it has an equitable constitution.

Nature works the same way. The chromosomes are the tables of the law of life, and when they have been gathered in the new being (the voting process is the fertilization), they fully spell-out his personal constitution.

What is bewildering is the minuteness of the scripture. It is hard to believe, although beyond any possible doubt, that the whole genetic information necessary and sufficient to build our body and even our brain, the most powerful problem-solving device, even able to analyze the laws of the universe, could be epitomized so that its material substratum could fit neatly on the point of a needle!

Even more impressive, during the maturation of the reproductive cells, the genetic information is reshuffled in so many ways that each conceptus receives an entirely original combination that has never occurred before and will never again. Each conceptus is unique, and thus irreplaceable. Identical twins and true hermaphrodites (abnormal individuals having both male and female reproductive organs) are exceptions to the rule: one man, one genetic make-up; but interestingly enough, these exceptions have to take place at the time of conception. Later accidents could not lead to harmonious development.

All these facts were known long ago and everybody was agreeing that test-tube babies, if produced, would demonstrate the autonomy of the conceptus, over which the test tube has no title of property. Test-tube babies now do exist.

If the ovum of a cow is fertilized by a bull's sperm, the conceptus, floating freely in liquid, starts its cattle's career. Normally it would travel for a week, through the Fallopian tube, and reach the uterus. But thanks to technology it can travel much farther, even across the ocean!

The best shipping equipment for such a two-milligram cattle being is to introduce it inside the Fallopian tube of a female rabbit. (Air freight is much less than for a pregnant cow.) At destination, the minuscule animal is carefully removed and delicately settled inside the uterus of a recipient cow. Months after, the calf exhibits all the genetic endowment it received from its true parents (the donors of the ovum and of the sperm) and none of the qualities of its temporary container (the rabbit) nor of its uterine foster mother.

How many cells are needed to build an individual? Recent experiments spell out the answer. If very early conceptuses of mice are artificially disassembled (by a peculiar enzymatic treatment), their cells come apart. By mixing such suspensions of cells, coming from different embryos, one sees them reassembling again. If the tiny mass is then implanted in a recipient female, some little mice (very few indeed) manage to develop to term, completely normal. As theoretically expected and demonstrated, a chimeric mouse can derive from two or even three embryos, but no more. The maximum number of cells cooperating to the elaboration of an individual is three.

In full accordance with this empirical demonstration, the fertilized egg normally cleaves itself in two cells, one of them dividing again, thus forming the surprising odd number of three, encapsulated inside their protective bag, the zone pellucida.

To the best of our actual knowledge, the prerequisite for individuation (a stage containing three fundamental cells) is the next step following conception, minutes after it. All this explains why (British) Drs. (Robert) Edwards and (Patrick) Steptoe could witness in vitro (outside the living body, in a test tube) the fertilization of a ripe ovum from Mrs. (Lesley) Brown by a spermatozoa from Mr. (Gilbert) Brown. The tiny conceptus they were implanting days later in the womb of Mrs. Brown could not be a tumor or an animal. It was in fact the incredibly young Louise Brown, now three years old.

The viability of a conceptus is extraordinary. Experimentally, a mouse conceptus can be deep frozen (even to -269c) and, after careful thawing, implanted successfully. For further growth, only a recipient uterine mucosa can supply the embryonic placenta with appropriate nutriments. In his lifecapsule, the amniotic bag, the early being is just as viable as an astronaut on the moon in his space-suit: refueling with vital fluids is required from the mother-ship. This nurture is indispensable for survival, but it does not "make" the baby, no more than the most sophisticated space shuttle can produce an astronaut. Such a comparison becomes even more cogent when the fetus moves.

Thanks to a refined sonar-like imagery, Dr. Ian Donald, from England, a year ago succeeded in producing a movie featuring the youngest star in the world, an 11-week-old baby dancing in utero (in the uterus). The baby plays, so to speak, on a trampoline! He bends his knees, pushes on the wall, soars up and falls down again. Because his body has the same buoyancy as the amniotic fluid, he does not feel gravity and performs his dance in a very slow, graceful, and elegant way, impossible in any other place on the Earth. Only astronauts in their gravity-free state can achieve such gentleness of motion. (By the way, for the first walk in space, technologists had to decide where to attach the tubes carrying the fluids. They finally chose the belt buckle of the suit, reinventing the umbilical cord.)

When I had the honor of testifying previously before the Senate, I took the liberty of referring to the universal fairy-tale of the man smaller than the thumb. At two months of age, the human being is less than one thumb's length from the head to the rump. He would fit at ease in a nutshell, but everything is there: hands, feet, head, organs, brain, all are in place. His heart has been beating for a month already. Looking closely, you would see the palm creases and a fortune teller would read the good adventure of that tiny person. With a good magnifier the fingerprints could be detected. Every document is available for a national identity card.

With the extreme sophistication of our technology, we have invaded his privacy. Special hydrophones reveal the most primitive music: a deep, profound, reassuring hammering at some 60-70 per minute (the maternal heart) and a rapid, high-pitched cadence at some 150-170 (the heart of the fetus). These, mixed, mimic those of the counterbass and of the maracas, which are the basic rhythms of any pop music.

We now know what he feels, we have listened to what he hears, smelled what he tastes and we have really seen him dancing full of grace and youth. Science has turned the fairytale of Tom Thumb into a true story, the one each of us has lived in the womb of his mother.

And to let you measure how precise the detection can be: if at the beginning, just after conception, days before implantation, a single cell was removed from the little berry-looking individual, we could cultivate that cell and examine its chromosomes. If a student, looking at it under the microscope, could not recognize the number, the shape and the banding pattern of these chromosomes, if he was not able to tell safely whether it comes from a chimpanzee being or from a human being, he would fail in his examination.

To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.

 

[argexpat]

Sure. Life begins at conception.

Don't take my word for it

There is no question that life begins at conception. The question is does the state have the right to deny women access to safe abortions. The Supreme Court ruled that it does not because it violates a woman's right to privacy.

 

[Kevin Johnson]

There is no question that life begins at conception. The question is does the state have the right to deny women access to safe abortions. The Supreme Court ruled that it does not because it violates a woman's right to privacy.

I don't think that's the question at all. MY question is why should a woman have the right to end the life of another human when the human in question has done nothing wrong to warrant capital punishment?

 

[Fantasea]

There is no question that life begins at conception. The question is does the state have the right to deny women access to safe abortions. The Supreme Court ruled that it does not because it violates a woman's right to privacy.

Are you familiar with the content of the Roe v Wade decision?

Let me quote a passage from section IX-B

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

When Associate Justice Harry Blackmun wrote those words some thirty years ago, he did not have the benefit of the DNA research by Dr. Jerome Lejeune and other geneticists. He was unable to view a real time color sonogram showing a completely formed several month old infant twisting, turning, yawning, and cavorting in the womb. He couldn't know that 'preemies' weighing less than a can of Coke would grow to catch up with their peers. Nor could he know that advances in obstetrics would enable doctors to open a woman's belly, perform corrective surgery on the child, and sew her up again.

What Blackmun referred to as speculation, then, is not speculation, now, is it?

The question no longer hinges on when human life begins, but on the medical and social ethics of terminating a human life simply because the pregnancy occurred at an inopportune time.

 

[argexpat]

The question no longer hinges on when human life begins, but on the medical and social ethics of terminating a human life simply because the pregnancy occurred at an inopportune time.

Exactly, and that question was answered by the Supreme Court 31 years ago.

 

[mixedmedia]

I'm not doubting that adoption is an option, and I'm not doubting that sexual offenders should be put in jail. I'm simply pointing out that, if a pro-lifer wants to make exceptions for these two cases, it demonstrates that the true reason for his or her opinion isn't a fetus's "inalienable right to life," but instead, issues regarding their views on sex and women's roles in society.

I have been hesitant to go there but....you go, girl? You must be.

Honesty is a good start. Now the question is, can you live up to your own unrealistic altruistic moral standard?

Ivy

ehem.....can't wait to read the next posts

 

[mixedmedia]

No.

Women have every right to choose whether or not to have a baby, as they should. The time to make that choice is before they perform the act that creates a baby. After conception, they are ending a human life that has done nothing to warrant a death sentence.

Before they perform the act that creates a baby?
So in this radiant future utopia where abortion is illegal and women who break the abortion law are imprisoned (or worse) for their crime, perhaps the other tango partner, co-performer of "the act," ought to locked up with her...in seperate cells of course.

 

[mixedmedia]

What a let down, no one had the courage to touch either of them...figures.

In ancient times, some cultures revered woman as mystical and mysterious creatures because they had the gift to create life. In many instances women ruled over their ancient tribes and communities. But when the realization dawned of the role men played in conception, things changed. Women were dominated and made subservient to men.

And we are still fighting this gender battle when it comes to one issue concerning women: motherhood.

I think argexpat proposes a valid solution to the issue of abortion. Put it up the popular female vote. Then watch the knees start knocking in the men's room.