I still struggle to grasp why we can't at least agree that a beating heart is a pretty good indication of life.

I don't get the problem either. I mean, the logic of it is so obvious when you consider all of the prenatal advice a pregnant woman is given from the time she learns that she is pregnant. All those do's and don'ts to protect the baby on one hand and then the other, completely illogical (and evil) side says it's OK to kill that baby because it may be inconvenient. Makes no sense to me.

It's actually quite simple - the pro-choice crowd wants to complicate it, but it's not complicated.

Using science and logic only:

Is it Living?
Anything that receives nourishment and grows is alive, whether you are talking about a virus, a parasite, a plant, a gall bladder, an animal or a human individual. That thing growing inside a womb is "alive" by every scientific definition.

Is it Human?
It has human DNA. It's certainly not plant, animal or mineral.

The "Human Living" part is unarguable or should be.

The REAL question is "when does personhood begin?" or to put it another way, "When is it an individual deserving of human rights?"

Pro-choicers say "when it is outside the womb" and Pro-Lifers say "When it begins to be it's own individual with it's own unique DNA".

And so Andrew, you are right. We should be able to at LEAST agree about the heartbeat. But for the pro-choicer it is a legal question, and for the pro-lifer it's a moral question. This is why pro-choicers HATE pictures of unborn babies. They aren't deserving of rights, so pictures are an attempt to humanize them.

This goes along with my theory that pro-choicers use the word "fetus" for the same reason that racists use the "N" word. It dehumanizes the person you are talking about into an "it".

Though I think SOME pro-choicers may be on board with you which may explain why some (hypocritically) oppose late term abortion.

Ahh, but she has power, therefore she is. They are powerless, therefore they aren't.

It's an operational definition, that's all.

Let's follow Pelosi's assertion to its logical conclusion. If we can't say for certain when human life begins, then we can't say for certain that unborn babies aren't alive. Therefore, should we not protect them, just in case they are, in fact, alive?

Not all pro choice people hate the pictures of unborn born babies. I know at least one that loved to see his grandchildren. He also loved hearing his grandson’s heart beat before he was born. He also hated the loss of young women when they went to back street doctors.

No I’m not pro choice but I have heard enough in my life to get why. I was raised around young women who didn’t have parents who gave a damn and little girls who had daddies and mom’s boyfriends getting them pregnant. So I get why.

Still I find it ignorant not to understand that life begins at conception when things begin to develop and change, it is life growing into a baby. Not even a detectable heart beat yet. Life begins at the beginning.
Why don’t we spend as much time and energy protecting those little girls and young women? Why aren’t we teaching abstinence and birth control?

Why aren’t we working harder to find safe places for women so that it isn’t so hard to have a baby that they can’t raise?
As parents we need to let our children know that if they make a wrong choice that they will have us to help raise a child. I was told that as a teen and again in college by my parents.

Pelosi's statement isn't irrational at all. We also can't say where a wrist ends and a hand begins, but we can easily tell the difference between a wrist and a hand.

As someone who was raised pro-choice and now isn't, I can say that the "life begins at conception" argument is not one of the pro-life side's winning lines, simply because it's manifestly untrue -- just as the manifest untruth of drawing a hard line at birth makes the reality of fetal development embarrassing for the pro-choice side.

Once in a grad mgmt class the prof had us go thru workshops on conflict resolution. Of course that meant he had to figure a way to generate the conflict to begin with. The prof began assigning tasks to the groups into which the class was divided. I anticipated what was coming, and silently prayed that the 6 person group of which I was part would not get the infanticide issue. God answered my prayer. No.

From lots of prior intense discussion on other topics, I knew the other 5 group members, 3 gals and 2 guys, probably thought it OK to kill the unborn, no questions, no limits. I knew I had not a remote chance of changing one of them even slightly. So I decided instead of confrontation to go for jest.

From the first comments, I argued that we did not know when life began. So far, so good. From that I claimed that since we did not know, the choice of when was arbitrary. Began to get a bit dicey. Then I suggested we had to have a socially defensible reason for the choice of when human life began, and that life began at 17 years 364 days 23 hrs and 59 minutes. Up to that time, as far as anybody could demonstrate, no person existed. However, by that time saner people could determine important attributes that might materialize, such as political persuasion.

When the rest of the group realized I would not budge, they did an end run around me and passed a 5 vote resolution commending killing kids. (Part of the exercise we later learned was learning that sometimes the end run is the only way to make progress when some cluck won't change.)

But I confess I have wondered in the decades since then whether one or another of that group has ever reflected on that exercise and realized a different lesson.

"I can say that the "life begins at conception" argument is not one of the pro-life side's winning lines, simply because it's manifestly untrue"

Says who? This seems pretty presumptuous of you to say - it's "manifestly" untrue?

OF course life begins at conception.

Let's follow Pelosi's assertion to its logical conclusion. If we can't say for certain when human life begins, then we can't say for certain that unborn babies aren't alive. Therefore, should we not protect them, just in case they are, in fact, alive?j

This is a common and good pro-life argument. If something "might" be alive should we not err on the side of life? For example, if you were hunting in the woods and heard a sound would you fire your gun in the general direction of the sound? NO WAY!!! Every hunter knows that. Because the sound just might be a person.

Or to put it another way, if you saw someone throw a bag out on the highway and saw something was moving within, would you run it over? It might be a battery operated toy, OR a kitten OR a baby. Since you don't know wouldn't you err on the side of life?

Milly wrote: Not all pro choice people hate the pictures of unborn babies. I'm sure you're right, Milly. That was an over-generalization on my part. I'm guessing that most pro-choice advocates don't like them though, especially the pictures of aborted ones.But maybe I'm wrong?

He also hated the loss of young women when they went to back street doctors.

AAAAAGH! The last half of my comment is lost.

What happened to it? I had a brilliant reply to Milly and Roy and now it's gone forever!

We also can't say where a wrist ends and a hand begins, but we can easily tell the difference between a wrist and a hand.

Within the first trimester, the heart is beating, the lungs have formed, the brain is growing, arms and legs have developed, the face has formed, the liver begins producing red blood cells, the eyelids have formed, and the infant can make a fist with its fingers.

I think I understand what you're saying, and my views on abortion tend to be more nuanced than the generations before me, but if anybody was to take an unbiased look at the above information, I can't fathom how they would come to the conclusion that the thing described is non-life.

So yes, we can tell the difference between a wrist and a hand, without saying definitively when one begins and the other ends, but there comes a point where they are so different that uncertainty only denotes a thick skull, and it happens way before you reach the tip of the middle finger.

I don't understand why that's all in italics...fix it De.

Attempt #2 -
Milly wrote:
He also hated the loss of young women when they went to back street doctors.

Then he chose the wrong position. Why did he not believe in working to prevent the women from going in the first place as you suggest later in your comment? Would he also be for legalizing heroine because of the loss of so many to hepatitis and AIDS?

No I’m not pro choice but I have heard enough in my life to get why.

This is good. It will make you a better pro-life advocate. Truth must also have love.

Why don’t we spend as much time and energy protecting those little girls and young women? Why aren’t we teaching abstinence and birth control? Why aren’t we working harder to find safe places for women so that it isn’t so hard to have a baby that they can’t raise?

I think we are now. I think the pro-life movement has really matured since the 80's. This is why crisis pregnancy centers now outnumber abortion clinics in the U.S. pro-lifers are now more likely to be helping young women to keep their babies than to be protesting.

The people not doing enough on this front is Congress. They need to pass laws making it easier to adopt "unwanted by the mother" babies so that couples don't have to adopt overseas.

As parents we need to let our children know that if they make a wrong choice that they will have us to help raise a child. I was told that as a teen and again in college by my parents.

I love this! Great Suggestion!

DBD wrote:

As someone who was raised pro-choice and now isn't, I can say that the "life begins at conception" argument is not one of the pro-life side's winning lines, simply because it's manifestly untrue

Huh? How is it manifestly untrue? Will you go reread what I wrote in Comment 3 and tell me where my logic breaks down?

Which one of those three premises is untrue about my arguement establishing that the thing inside a mother's womb is a "human living person"?

Is it in-human? (Even with human DNA?)

Is it not "alive"? I though that everything that receives nourishment and grows was alive. Plant or animal. A seed is not "alive" until it recieves nourishment and starts growing. But it seems rather unambiguious to me. My desk is not alive though made of wood. The trees outside my office are alive. The zygote/fetus/baby is recieving nourishment and is growing.

Or is it not a person? Is that manifestly untrue? My kidneys, and hair roots are alive yet they are not persons. They are not individuals with human rights because they are a part of me. But what about the zygote/fetus/baby? How is it not an indvidual person since it has it's own DNA?

I know your pro-life too, and a friend, I just REALLY don't understand what you are saying.

"Life begins when I say it begins, neither sooner nor later," said Humpty Dumpty in rather a scornful tone.

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

(With apologies to Lewis Carroll for altering his words just a little to fit the occasion.)

Let's see if we can stop the italics until Bill can fix it earlier in the thread ...

Testing, 1,2,3 ...

Done . . .

There we go.

I think that Pelosi is right, no one can say. but certainly we can narrow it down, right?

OK, everyone would agree that it's somewhere between sex and birth.

On the front end, well, I think that everyone agree that sperm and egg alone aren't it. You need both to make a human, so it's after that.

I think that everyone would also agree that it's a life long before birth. After all, we universally mourn miscarriages and hope for premies to make it. Also, birth is not a fixed moment in time. According to Wikipedia, the earliest was around 22 weeks and 24 weeks is considered 'probably viable' Not sure if that's widely accepted, but let's say that it is.

So that puts the beginning of life somewhere between conception and 24 weeks, a range that most can agree to. We could take it farther and limit it more, but I bet we'll loose folks on each end. This is a range that most everyone can agree to, even Pelosi.

So, if we can all agree that life begins somewhere in that range, Nancy Pelosi, will you stand up and support a ban on any and all abortions after 24 weeks? And, as scientific and medical advances decrease the age of viability, will you support changing the law to match it?

Can't we all agree that taking a life where it's clear and obvious that one exists is wrong?

Shrode,

He also hated the loss of young women when they went to back street doctors.

Then he chose the wrong position. Why did he not believe in working to prevent the women from going in the first place as you suggest later in your comment? Would he also be for legalizing heroine because of the loss of so many to hepatitis and AIDS?

Ahhh But he did and it is a wonderful man who saw the children who needed him and chose to do everything he could to save those young people. I love the stories to this day from those who were blessed to work with him and those he saved. Yes I have been told he saved my life by some. One man can change a lot of the world and teach others to do the same.

The people not doing enough on this front is Congress. They need to pass laws making it easier to adopt "unwanted by the mother" babies so that couples don't have to adopt overseas.

It is getting better ask my brother and sister-in-law. They named her after me :-} I thank God that her birth mother chose to have that wonderful blessing.

Sorry, Salguod, but I just can't track with you on this. Sperm are alive, are they not? They just aren't human individuals. But once an egg is fertilized, you now have a living thing that is receiving nourishment and is growing. It has complete human DNA seperate from it's parents. It IS an a human living individual.

The REAL question is not:
"When does life begin?" Or "when is it human?"

The answer to those two qestions are scientifically indisputable.

the REAL question is "when does this creature deserve human rights?"

the answer ought to be from the moment it becomes a creature.

The pro-choicers answer that question this way: when it means either one of two criteria -
1- It is wanted by the mother
OR
2- It is born and safely outside of an abortion clinic.

The compromise you are suggesting is making potential viability the answer to that question.

You are saying that an acceptable compromise would be for both sides to answer the question "when does the creature deserve human rights?" by saying "When it is viable"

To you, the advantage seems to be movement by both sides toward the center, with both sides giving a little, and neither having to move all the way one way or the other.

I'm sorry to say that this compromise would not be acceptable to them or to us.

Pro-choicers want mothers to be able to kill their babies. However they put it, that's what they want.

Pro-lifers believe that the conceived creature is a precious human living person regardless of "viability".

By the way, I'm not saying that you think this, but viability in and of itself, is not a valid way to decide what/who gets human rights and what does not.

This would mean that humans on life support machines do not have human rights.

Do please visit www.str.org and/or www.abort73.com to see every pro-choice argument absolutely demolished.

Milly wrote:
Ahhh But he did and it is a wonderful man who saw the children who needed him and chose to do everything he could to save those young people. I love the stories to this day from those who were blessed to work with him and those he saved. Yes I have been told he saved my life by some. One man can change a lot of the world and teach others to do the same.

That's awesome. I have no doubt that this man you describe was a good and decent man. (He was just wrong to be pro-choice.) Our founding fathers were wrong to own slaves, and Ghandi was wrong to reject Jesus. And MLK, Jr. was wrong in some of his theology and practice. But all were great men who did a lot of good.

To quote the wise (and pithy) Bird from another thread: "I'm not questioning his orthopraxy."

I am not sure about the "scientific" definition of life. From what I have read, for instance, scientists would tend to say a virus is in-between; part of one "official" definition of "alive" is that there is internal mechanical structure - which a virus does not have. Science would not use the presence of a "soul" in its definition of life, but a Christian probably would.

Also, on the other end of things, science has a hard time specifying "death". Is someone dead when their brain no longer fires electric signals? When the heart stops beating? When the temperature drops below a certain point for a certain amount of time? I'm pretty sure there are "rules" followed by the police, for instance, but they are just using one or two of many signs of death to make their judgment.

Pelosi's comment, to me, seems to be a simple reflection of these facts. We don't have a common agreement about what life or death actually is, in detailed scientific terms. Which, of course, is why there is debate in the first place about abortion.

I'm sorry for seeming to start a debate. The intention of my comment was to promote talking about abortion in a way that wouldn't lead to polarized argument. But having with my terseness (which I now see does read as presumptuous) raised the questions, I'll give my answers to them.

Lots of things are living human tissue in a medical sense without having life in any morally important sense -- in this context, I think it's reasonable to use only the moral sense of "a human life."

And no, I don't think an embryo's having its own DNA is a morally important characteristic -- we can easily imagine altering a living DNA sample to its own unique pattern, and this would in no way grant it the status of a person. DNA is also an arbitrary, history-bound standard -- it was discovered in the mid-twentieth century, but this was not the beginning of the knowledge of the moral importance of life.

So, what is a useful sign of life? Late in pregnancy we have some very strong ones: to give just one, unborn children react to familiar voices and form attachments to them -- babies are born already emotionally bonded with their mothers.

This common knowledge causes almost everyone to view developed fetuses as alive in every context except the context of abortion. People will talk happily about a pregnant friend's "baby" -- but raise the question of abortion and their moral thinking will immediately jump the tracks to avoid colliding with their fixed political ideas. Making people conscious of their double-mindedness on this point is, I think, the best way of beginning to change minds on the issue.

So, that's late pregnancy. Before the child can be seen to act and react, the signs are much less clear. But, you all are of course right -- the absence of definite signs of life is not a sign of the absence of life. We simply don't know. Once you are talking to someone who has admitted that an unborn life can have moral importance, the cautionary principle -- the "what's in the paper bag?" argument -- becomes a strong one.

A previous position of mine was the traditional one of considering the point of "quickening" (mentioned in the Bible as a mark of life) as a moral bright line. I still think that to some extent, but Andrew is right -- the first trimester of pregnancy shows enough development that it's perfectly reasonable to suppose life may begin before a child can show that life by measurable reactions. Of course, if any such possibility exists, there had better be a pretty compelling reason for doing something that may or may not involve killing a tiny baby.

How far back should this cautionary principle extend in practice? I would say, as far back as abortions are performed. It's vanishingly unlikely that an embryo could harbor life at the stage when it hasn't even got a spinal cord. But, since the same procedures are used for abortion throughout early pregnancy, it makes sense to regulate the use of each procedure with consistent ethical and legal standards.

The point at which I shrug and part company with a conventional pro-life position is in regard to the procedures centered around the fertilized egg and blastula. There's not the slightest reason for viewing the DNA of a united sperm and egg as any more "person-y" than they were just previous to conception in their separate cellular packages. Choosing conception as the beginning of life is a purely rhetorical choice, and it's ineffective rhetoric that harms the argument against abortion.

The arbitrary designation of a fertilized egg as a person plays into a false depiction of the whole pro-life position as based on counter-empirical mysticism. It is not a winning point!

Okay. The negative structure of my first comment has led to this second one being mostly negative in content, but that's not really what I want to say. Stay tuned for what I think are pro-life strategies that will work.

Hobo,
Long time no see! :)

Your using death as an example was a fascinating one. I hadn't thought of that before. good stuff. Thanks for that.

Here's what strikes me about that example: in the case of not being sure where life ends, we err on the side of life. Even after the heart stops, we try to restart it. Even after the brain stops firing, we keep the person alive for a while to see if it restarts. Only after we are certain that life is gone, is a person declared dead.

Yet we don't offer in utero persons the same rights. Shouldn't we give a "possible living human person" the benefit of doubt?

Even on Star Trek, when little robots might be "alive", every effort is made to protect them. Yet we can't do that with creatures that share our DNA?

Pelosi's comment, to me, seems to be a simple reflection of these facts. We don't have a common agreement about what life or death actually is, in detailed scientific terms. Which, of course, is why there is debate in the first place about abortion.

I disagree. I think the real reason there is a debate about abortion is because of what people see.

People seem to think that personhood is based on:
Size - you have to be big enough for me to see with my own two eyes.
Level of development - you have to look human like me
Place - you have to exist out here in the real world with me
Dependency - you have to be independent of another like me.

Shrode: the standard I'm using is interior, mental life, not necessarily including present consciousness or organized intellectual functioning, but the possession of (I am struggling here to find language that is brief without being so abstract as to be meaningless) a personal psychological center.

This is something very difficult to measure -- heck, I only half-succeeded in defining it -- but that very fact is what gives the precautionary argument strong force in this case.

dbd,
If we use that standard then a dolphin or a dog deserves more rights than a 4 week old embryo or a comatose person.

right?

And I'm not even sure a 1 day old BORN baby has a "personal psychological center". They certainly don't seem to be self-aware. It's just stimulus-response. Even Venus Flytraps have that.

The point I'm trying to make is: "Is "level of development" really a valid standard for personhood?"

No, newborn babies -- and late-term fetuses -- have demonstrably rich psychological lives. I mentioned the example of voice recognition and emotional bonding with familiar voices that begins late in pregnancy. There are many others.

And I did say "not necessarily including present consciousness or organized intellectual functioning." Awake people do not have any greater right to life than asleep people!

Choosing conception as the beginning of life is a purely rhetorical choice, and it's ineffective rhetoric that harms the argument against abortion.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe I really believe that? Begone with rhetoric, political talking points and what works best "strategically" (and I disagree with your assessment anyway)

Life begins at conception. It's a human being at that point. I believe that. But, evidently, saying it hurts the pro-life cause.

No offense DBD - I like you, dude, but I think that's just silly.

"The point I'm trying to make is: "Is "level of development" really a valid standard for personhood?"

I know DBD doesn't believe this, but it's the very line of argument that leads people like Peter Singer to advocate for infanticide.

Chilling.

"We don't have a common agreement about what life or death actually is, in detailed scientific terms. Which, of course, is why there is debate in the first place about abortion."

Hi Hobo! It's been a while, welcome back.

I think the debate about abortion has little to do with the definition of when life begins. Pelosi herself stated that it might begin at the end of the first trimester. But she also said that didn't have anything to do with a woman's "right to choose".

The debate is about convenience and sexual freedom (and sexual irresponsibility).

Peter Singer's big moral problem is not any factual belief but his simplistic utilitarianism -- which is adequate as a framework for deciding questions within an existing value system, but totally fails to provide core values on its own, leading to a weird intellectual un-groundedness and bizarre conclusions when it's used, as Singer uses it, separate from any conception of fixed moral good.

This conversation is drifting further and further afield! I guess my response to Bill is ... well, why do you think life begins at conception?

I don't see any empirical reason to believe that, and there also isn't any Biblical authority behind the idea. Is there a third source of truth that you consider important, and if so, what is it?

Bill,

Hi :)

Fair enough. I imagine most people would have their own reasons and methods for defining the debate. And most of them would be right (truth is relative, right? ;) Just pulling your leg).

Seems to me the "life beings at conception" is using the "has a soul" as a definitive argument - which is impossible (at this time) to measure with science. Which is why the argument "hurts" the pro-life cause... Because a lot of pro-lifers want to keep the discussion on a common platform with non-Christians.

Having a soul isn't something that will win over the other side once you leave the Church parking lot. The only way to share the pro-life position with non-Christians is to present an argument that is based on measurable facts. Can't do that with the soul argument.

This is all probably obvious pontification. Fun, but just taking up space.

And I'm not even sure a 1 day old BORN baby has a "personal psychological center". They certainly don't seem to be self-aware. It's just stimulus-response. Even Venus Flytraps have that.

Shrode, my son was born at 32 weeks gestation. Throughout the pregnancy my husband had talked to my tummy; read books, sang and just talked.

In all of the fuss in the delivery room, Tom was on a triage table and Art said something. Out of all the noise, this 3 1/2 pound little person picked out that voice and turned his head toward it. So he could (even if not self aware) recognize voices and react to them.

Yup. A young baby is a heck of a lot more than a tabula rasa or a stimulus-response machine.

And, as the age at which premature babies can be saved creeps closer and closer to the age at which abortions are frequently performed, I think a lot of people -- if they are honest with themselves at all -- are having to confront the incongruity of their granting humanity to wanted babies and denying it to unwanted ones.

"why do you think life begins at conception?"

Because it is the start of the growth of a new human creature. Separate human DNA, coded and ready to (if not snuffed out) grow into a person.

This seems a lot more straightforward than trying to figure out when something has a personal, psychological center.

I know Singer is utilitarian, but he uses similar arguments to yours, just takes them out further in time, and outside the womb.

And, Hobo - I haven't said a word about ensoulment. :-) That's not my argument, at all. I agree with you that if it was, it's pretty hard to sell that to non-believers.

I wrote a post right before this one that quotes Peggy Noonan. She pretty much nails my stance on this.

"And, as the age at which premature babies can be saved creeps closer and closer to the age at which abortions are frequently performed, I think a lot of people -- if they are honest with themselves at all -- are having to confront the incongruity of their granting humanity to wanted babies and denying it to unwanted ones."

Agreed.

Hey, hey, hey folks. (especially MzEllen) I am the one arguing FOR unborn babies, remember! Yes, babies respond to stimulus, as did mine. Yes they are precious human persons. And yes, they are more than stimulus-response machines. My point was not to belittle the babies, it was to point out the problem with the term or concept "personal psychological center". I was concerned with the floating nature of such a definition.

I still don't really know what that means, or if I've got one. :) That it can be defined so many different ways was exactly my point.


"And, as the age at which premature babies can be saved creeps closer and closer to the age at which abortions are frequently performed, I think a lot of people -- if they are honest with themselves at all -- are having to confront the incongruity of their granting humanity to wanted babies and denying it to unwanted ones."

Maybe. I hope you are right. But the pro-choice crowd isn't honest. I won't be surprised if that becomes the determining factor - "do you want your baby or not?" - of human rights. In fact, I would argue that it already is.

This should frighten all of us. Have you all read the stories about babies born in spite of abortions allowed to lie alone until they die? Even the womb itself isn't the deciding factor. It's the "all-important" "all-deciding" choice of the mother. If a mom wants her baby dead, she goes to a doctor and it's legal. If an outsider attacks a pregnant woman and the unborn baby dies, the attacker is prosecuted for murder. Why the difference? The choice of the mother. Wanted or unwanted.

Chilling stuff.

Unwanted children have no place to hide if their own mother doesn't want them. Born children murdered by their mothers are mourned by whole communities. Unborn children murdered by their mothers are ... not even celebrated. They have been sacrificed on the altar of "choice" - the god of liberals.

I lost a little life very early on. It was my baby. It starts at conception.

Shrode,
He just can’t get past the losses to those back street horrors. It was a different time back then. Young women didn’t have options like they do now. We have school systems set up to help those women finish high school and raise a baby. We have it set so that they can give a baby to a nice family. We don’t whisper as much and we don’t toss them out of the church. Women were treated differently back then. Parents aren’t shunned over a stupid mistake in the back seat of a car.

I hear you Milly. I think you (and me) understanding someone else's position, especially if it's morally wrong, is helpful.

The times don't justify wrong beliefs, though they can help explain them. I also understand that he came to his position out of compassion, not hatred or ignorance. But he was still wrong. :) (I realize that we are probably talking about someone near and dear to you. I certainly don't mean any of this as a personal insult.)

Can we both end this discussion agreeing that your friend is a great man, and hope that (if he's still alive) that he comes around to a pro-life view? We're probably talking about your Dad or someone similar aren't we?

Hey, hey, hey folks. (especially MzEllen) I am the one arguing FOR unborn babies, remember!

I know...I'm hoping to give you a little more ammo. If "partial birth abortion" is done at 32 weeks gestation (it is), then the child is aware. The child feels pain.

Maybe. I hope you are right. But the pro-choice crowd isn't honest.

The most honest ones will say that yes...the woman is carrying a living baby...but that does not mean that she does not have the choice to kill it.

Roe v. Wade takes precedence over all other considerations.

I certainly don't mean any of this as a personal insult

I never thought it.

Yes he is, thank God, still alive. I've almost lost him twice this year.

Yes he is very near and dear to my heart.

I doubt at his age his position will ever change on this earth. When you spend most of your adult professional life taking care of young people you see the dark side of the world. He recanted some of what he heard and saw from his high school days about the girls who had gone to those back street doctors.

He also told me that young women were sent to doctors to be repaired because they were using back street doctors when he worked with them.
The harsh fact is that even in Christian homes the girls are sent away. Parents turn their backs on them and their peers shun them. Thank God schools are making it easier for the girls to finish.

I doubt that this issue will ever be taken away on this earth. It’s sad but true. As long as we put pressure on our kids to be perfect and not tell them that they can come to us they will have babies and toss them in the trash and they will seek out a doctor to remove it. we have to work harder at taking care of our young people. Both Reps and Dems need to bond together to teach and open our arms to those kids.

"The most honest ones will say that yes...the woman is carrying a living baby...but that does not mean that she does not have the choice to kill it.

Roe v. Wade takes precedence over all other considerations."

Exactly. That's one reason I think the debate over when life begins, though important, is ultimately not the answer. Because many on the pro-choice side know that what's dying is a living being. Anyone who's ever seen a sonogram at 10 weeks knows that.

I think it's going to come down to changing hearts. And, in many ways, it's already happening. Abortion is by no means the winning issue it was 20 years ago for the democrats.

. Because many on the pro-choice side know that what's dying is a living being. Anyone who's ever seen a sonogram at 10 weeks knows that.

I worked for a woman who dealt with infertility (she was a hard-core liberal) and suffered a "missed abortion" (the baby died in the womb at around 14 weeks and she did not miscarry - have a spontaneous abortion). She knew that the living child inside of her was "life", but also believed that a woman has the right to end that life. It boggled my mind. Still does.

Press release from the Archdiocese of NY regarding Pelosi's comments:

http://www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=8803

Oops - meant to include the text of the press release:

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.







We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.




Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York

Late to repy, Shrode, but here you go.

Sorry, Salguod, but I just can't track with you on this. Sperm are alive, are they not? They just aren't human individuals. But once an egg is fertilized, you now have a living thing that is receiving nourishment and is growing.

Actually, it's not receiving nourishment and growing until after it attaches to the mother's uterus. Unless it attaches, I think it suffers the same fate as sperm and egg that never get joined. It's been a long time since HS health class, so I may wrong.

The REAL question is not:
"When does life begin?" Or "when is it human?"

The answer to those two questions are scientifically indisputable.

I'm not sure it's indisputable, that was sort of my point.

the REAL question is "when does this creature deserve human rights?"

Yep, that is the question.

The compromise you are suggesting is making potential viability the answer to that question.

You are saying that an acceptable compromise would be for both sides to answer the question "when does the creature deserve human rights?" by saying "When it is viable"

I wasn't suggesting it as a final answer, more to say that we aren't going to come to a complete agreement, what can be agreed on? More so, it to point out what has been illustrated here. The pro choice isn't at all concerned with those babies, they are nothing more than a problem to be solved and it's the Mom's choice on how to solve that problem. Anything that protects those babies, even the ones that everyone would agree are obviously human life, at the expense of the mom's right to do what she wants is unacceptable. That's just ridiculous, scary and evil.

Sure, I want to see us ban all abortions, but that's not going to happen. And if we were honest, that comes with it's own challenges in shady, illegal clinics doing scary and dangerous procedures on desperate women, but it's the morally right thing.

By the way, I'm not saying that you think this ...

Thanks. :-D

... but viability in and of itself, is not a valid way to decide what/who gets human rights and what does not.

Agreed.

Actually, it's not receiving nourishment and growing until after it attaches to the mother's uterus. Unless it attaches, I think it suffers the same fate as sperm and egg that never get joined. It's been a long time since HS health class, so I may wrong.

There are two events that happen very close together.

Fertilization and implantation. Between those two events, you have a fertilized egg that is growing (dividing) but not receiving nourishment.

Is there a point between those two events when it would be considered "not an abortion" to make sure the egg is not implanted?