Passing Through

Commemorating Roe's 35th Anniversary

posted by Jessica Valenti on 01/22/2008 @ 10:29am

For the past two years, I've blogged for choice on the anniversary Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal. Today, on the 35th anniversary, NARAL Pro-Choice America is calling on bloggers to answer this question: Why do you vote pro-choice? I'll be featuring links to blog posts throughout the day, but to kick things off - here's why I vote pro-choice.

I vote pro-choice because I believe in bodily integrity;

I vote pro-choice because I want the Hyde Amendment to be repealed;

I vote pro-choice because I support healthy choices for women;

I vote pro-choice because anti-choice laws disproportionately affect young women, women of color, low-income women and women who live in rural areas;

I vote pro-choice because I don't want women to die;

I vote pro-choice because I think the Global Gag Rule is harming and killing women worldwide;

But perhaps most importantly, I vote pro-choice because I trust women to make the decision about what's best for them and their families.

Why do you vote pro-choice?

Comments (326)

  1. The only reason I'm amenable to abortion in the First Trimester is to reduce the number of unplanned for children who may disproportionally end up w/UNloving mothers and/or fathers! Yet, that's not among Feminists'--like Jessica--top reasons! Amazing!

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 11:48am

  2. well happy, because we have both extremes here. Valenti cares only for women, and you only care for the cute little babies. Luckily for us all, the majority of America loves its mothers and children equally and roe v wade still stands for everyones benefit.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 11:57am

  3. check out the map of abortion laws worldwide and see what kind of company a reversal of roe/wade would put the u.s. in.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 12:06pm

  4. "...I believe in bodily integrity;"

    Ok, where did this one come from? What's the implication here?

    Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:17pm

  5. "...roe v wade still stands for everyones benefit."

    Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 11:57am

    Really?!

    Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:18pm

  6. "...roe v wade still stands for everyones benefit."

    Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 11:57am

    Really?!

    Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:18pm

    Let me help to clarify for JR......she meant "everyone" who wasn't aborted!

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 12:24pm

  7. Really?!

    Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:18pm

    think of the alternative. you work in the ER. do you want to deal with the complications of botched butchery?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 12:31pm

  8. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 12:06pm

    FZ, I don't think the US will reverse itself. However, I do believe we need a more universal policy on how the procedure is administered.

    For example, if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, let it be within the first trimester and she should receive comprehensive consuling on reproductive healthcare and what options are available.

    Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:31pm

  9. she should receive comprehensive consuling on reproductive healthcare and what options are available."---Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:31

    You mean to prevent future unplanned pregnancies?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:36pm

  10. BTW, I'm pro-choice because of two reasons. One philosophical, the other realistic.

    1. Because I believe in individual freedom.

    2. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct a functional and non-destructive governmental policy to stop it or ban it, so why try?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm

  11. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 12:31pm

    FZ, I work in the ICU. I see more cases of GSW, Occupational and MVAs, and head trauma (some due to domestic violence).

    As I stated before, I don't think there will be a total reversal of the current Roe v Wade opinion. However, I do believe the law was not soundly implemented and has caused more harm than good.

    Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm

  12. Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:31pm

    of course. seems like you guys could use codification of many things on a national level.

    seems the "founding fathers (no mothers allowed!) never foresaw such a big, diverse country.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm

  13. 2. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct a functional and non-destructive governmental policy to stop it or ban it, so why try?

    Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm

    you mean like with ganja?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 12:40pm

  14. I vote pro-choice because only I know when/if I am capable of having a child.

    I vote pro-choice because many girls and women aren't given the choice to not get pregnant in the first place.

    I vote pro-choice to ensure that girls and women learn that they have options and that even in their fear, there is somewhere to go.

    I vote pro-choice in the hope that no girl or woman will ever repeat the desperate actions of Katie McCoy, in the hope that no other family will simultaneously lose a daughter and a baby.

    I vote pro-choice because I believe that women's health is important.

    I, too, vote pro-choice because anti-choice policy causes the greatest harm to the most vulnerable members of society both in the U.S. and abroad.

    Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 12:49pm

  15. "You mean to prevent future unplanned pregnancies?"

    Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 12:36pm

    For the most part, yes. Women have got to understand that if they are not able or willing to be responsible for baby, then they need to do all that they can to make sure it doesn't happened. If she is in a relationship that is not favorable to her well being and she is not able to leave right away (for whatever reason), I would suggest inserting the Norplant device or receiving depo injections every 3 months. This way she is able to ward off an unplanned pregancy and shift her focus on protecting herself from STDs.

    Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:50pm

  16. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 12:40pm |

    I mean EXACTLY that. Not a "pro-lifer" here can explain how we will keep RU-486 out of this country and out of the hands of women who want it....when we can't keep Mary Jane, blow, X, and lots of other stuff that most think is bad for you, out of their hands.

    And when they DO try to explain, they basically admit that it's about FEELING good or IMAGE...not substantive reductions in abortions!

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:52pm

  17. Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:50pm

    My point was you're not referring to that kind of "consuling" as we see in the "Crises Pregnancy Centers", to try to talk, scare, or intimidate them OUT of having the abortion....right?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:53pm

  18. Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm

    Mask, you need to come work with me at the hospital. I'll see to it that you're paid well, however, you'll have to promise me you won't throw up in the process... :-)

    Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:58pm

  19. what i don't understand about abortion is how it doesn't violate the hippocratic oath that the ob/gyn took to "do no harm". it certainly does harm to the life of the unborn child (at the behest of her parent's no less).

    Posted by katamantulo at 01/22/2008 @ 12:59pm

  20. Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 12:53pm

    No. Like the doctors, we nurses take the Nightingale pledge (modified version of the Hippocratic Oath) very seriously.

    But, I do want women to understand that abortions should be a last resort and not a first response. Use your head and stay on what ever birth control you are comfortable with.

    Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 1:06pm

  21. Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:50pm

    Not a bad idea, in theory. Here is the issue. How do girls/women without health insurance and/or low incomes afford either depo or the Norplant device? Will the government cover it? Does someone work with them to provide services at reduced cost?

    The clinic in my city provides a three month prescription for Ortho-tricyclen with a one month prescription free coupon. If you don't have health insurance, you're on your own to figure out how to pay for the additional two months, and you're on your own to figure out what to do after that prescription runs out. Seeing as some women can't even afford to get the post-abortion antibiotic prescription filled, I doubt they will be able to afford depo or the Norplant device.

    Again, I like the idea of providing women with education and providing them with contraceptive options. Figuring out how to provide such options to every patient, though, will take a great deal of planning and some serious funding.

    Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 1:18pm

  22. "...roe v wade still stands for everyones benefit." Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 11:57am

    Really?! Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:18pm

    Acook: do you think forcing a pregnancy on an unwilling and resentful woman helps anyone? it hurts everyone in the equation- the woman, the potential child, society as a whole.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:20pm

  23. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:12pm

    yeah, abortion sure is icky.

    has your house ever been robbed? it sure is a horrible feeling. you feel uneasy every time you enter it. and for a long time.

    imagine how a woman feels who has been raped and is now pregnant.

    you can sell a house.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 1:39pm

  24. Again, I like the idea of providing women with education and providing them with contraceptive options. Figuring out how to provide such options to every patient, though, will take a great deal of planning and some serious funding.

    Posted by LDN 01/22/2008 @ 1:18pm

    How effortlessly we come from "It's a private decision between a woman and her doctor" to .."It's the taxpayers responsibility to fund my privacy".

    Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 1:41pm

  25. I vote pro-choice because I love and live in my body.

    I vote pro-choice because no one should have jurisdiction over my body. I will not have my humanity stripped and become a vessel, an incubator for any man,state, or religion.

    I vote pro-choice because already there are too many unloved and unwanted kids in this nation, waiting for a loving family that all too often never comes.

    I vote pro-choice because every woman deserves the right to chose for themselves: forced pregnancy is just as harsh and cruel as forced abortion.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:42pm

  26. Posted by KATAMANTULO 01/22/2008 @ 12:59pm

    There are those that would argue unborn child is an oxymoron. We don't put conception dates on birth certificates, and you are not legally a person until you are born. Now, feel free to make the moral case that the law should be different, but you don't get to assume it.

    Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:50pm

    Unfortunately, Norplant doesn't cut it among the personhood begins at fertilization crowd. Also, do you support free Norplants to anyone that wants one? Because the cost of a couple of hundred dollars is prohibitive for many.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:12pm

    You are assuming the question. There is a reason we call things embryo and fetus - rather than baby. I believe you start calling an embryo a person once the embryo attaches to the uterus.

    Some people define it as preventing conception using a condom - because you circumvented a "natural" process. Others define it as fertilization, which makes hormonal forms of birth control problematic. Others define it as viability or birth.

    To assume wherever you draw the line, is the correct place, and everyone that draws the line later is a "murderer" is a bit problematic - particularly since most people with your perspective go with fertilization and not attachment to the uterine wall. In their eyes, you too are supporting murder.

    So, please tone down the self-righteousness. You can strongly believe you are right - but you don't know that you are and calling people murderers is a bit much.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 1:42pm

  27. you'll have to promise me you won't throw up in the process... :-)---Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:58pm

    Not a problem, I can eat cotton candy ice cream and Pop Rocks while watching CSI and the Forensic Files.

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 1:45pm

  28. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:12pm

    LVLIB, is a human female's ovum one micro-second after contact with a human male's sperm cell...a "human being"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 1:46pm

  29. I support a woman's right to chose, but not necessarily because of the usual reasons.

    I was adopted during at a time when abortion was still illegal. And from what I know about the circumstances of my birth, it involved a young teenage mother who may well have aborted me if she could have done so safely and without legal consequence.

    Some people say..."you should be pro-life because you would not have existed if Roe v. Wade was decided a few years earlier." And although this may be appealing in a selfish kind of way, it is difficult to imagine what my natural mother was going through and what circumstances that would have been "forced" upon me had she not decided to give me up for adoption.

    As it turned out, I was adopted by a great family and received probably the best education and upbringing any kid could have had in their wildest dreams. And as a Buddhist, it is difficult to know whether an aborted life would have made any difference in the eventual birth (rebirth) of my karmic-life-force-energy, and perhaps would have only delayed my eventual "birth" by a few months to a different body by another mother under better circumstances.

    We know so little about life outside of the body, it is hard to stomach the black and white self-righteousness of the pro-life movement. Do they really know for certain what happens to our energy when our body dies, and should their "theory" on what happens be forced on everyone else?

    What if they are wrong, and the Buddha is right - that our karmic-life-force-energy persists after the death of the body and is re-born into another body unless karma is extinguished through complete enlightenment? If this is true, then reversing Roe v Wade is A LOT more than taking away "choice" about what a woman does with their body, it takes away one's choice about what they can believe about the very nature of life.

    It is this anti-choice that I find most troubling about the pro-life movement - its certainty that its religious interpretation is superior to all others. In a free society that America purports to be, in which "all" religious expressions are respected and protected, how can we tolerate the elevation of one religious interpretation over another?

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm

  30. I also want to thank Jessica Valenti for providing a thoughtful post. It's nice to have an issue brought up for discussion without it being framed in a way that leaves no room for fairness.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm

  31. Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm :: an extremely insightful post...thank you for sharing.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:52pm

  32. Frosty....

    Another misconception about pregnancy resulting from rape is that it is a common occurrence. However, there are many sound medical reasons and statistical data that refute this presumption. A 1988 study conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (formerly affiliated with Planned Parenthood) concluded that of 1,900 U.S. women surveyed who had undergone abortions only 1% listed rape or incest as their reason for choosing abortion.

    It's not as common as one might think. Also, even most pro-lifers wouldn't have object to an abortion due to pregnancy caused by a rape.

    Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 1:54pm

  33. Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm :: an extremely insightful post...thank you for sharing.

    Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 1:52pm

    I have to agree. Nicely put, Mett, and an example of the kind of discussions about any issue that are sorely lacking in the 'great debate' these days.

    Posted by Rintrah at 01/22/2008 @ 2:02pm

  34. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:57pm

    I don't have children, LVL because I can afford and have learned how to use contraceptives.

    Most people I know that have children, refer to it as "it" during the pregnancy because even with ultra-sound, it takes several months to determine gender. English doesn't have a good gender neutral third-person pronoun, nor do I (or they) call something a baby that hasn't been born yet - particularly if they are older and unsure that they will carry it to term.

    Just because you want to play the semantic game to support your view, doesn't mean that's the way the world works.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:58pm

    Well, for one, she didn't call anyone a murderer and didn't refer to pro-choice people as brain damaged. I think that is a step in the right direction for Jessica; she is setting an example we would all do well to follow.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 2:07pm

  35. "No, because contact doesn't ensure conception."- LV- what if the fertilized zygote fails to adhere to the uterine walls? is that a lost child? lots of people have a hard time conceiving...every time they fail, are they murdering a child?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:09pm

  36. How effortlessly we come from "It's a private decision between a woman and her doctor" to .."It's the taxpayers responsibility to fund my privacy".

    Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 1:41pm

    Sliver:

    As I posted before, here is the issue: How do girls/women without health insurance and/or low incomes afford either depo or the Norplant device? Will the government cover it? Does someone work with them to provide services at reduced cost?

    Where in that do you get "It's the taxpayers responsibility to fund my privacy"?

    Maybe the government wouldn't need to "fund" someone's privacy if a) healthcare and health insurance were affordable for all and b) states didn't make it illegal for a health insurance company to cover abortion.

    Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 2:09pm

  37. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:03pm; Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:12pm :: an extremist radical through and through. You are indeed correct in one point LV- you and your islamic brothers are very, very similar indeed. Its hard to see where any real distinction lies. American Taliban...alive and well.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:18pm

  38. No, because contact doesn't ensure conception.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:00pm

    Okay...is a fertilized human ovum one micro-second after implantation in the uterine wall...a "human being"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 2:18pm

  39. As I posted before, here is the issue: How do girls/women without health insurance and/or low incomes afford either depo or the Norplant device? Will the government cover it? Does someone work with them to provide services at reduced cost?

    Not sure. But I'm a guy, who has no say-so in what a woman does with her body, so don't ask me. And don't ask me to pay for it, either.

    Here's an idea...an abortion costs, what...$300-350? How about the abortion providers take $50 from every abortion and fund contraception. Fair? Could they advertize for donations? If it's just the right thing to do, why is it so hard to get the funding?

    Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 2:25pm

  40. If a young woman can work at Taco Bell to buy shoes, a young woman can work at Taco Bell to buy contraception.

    Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 2:26pm

  41. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:21pm :: I'm sorry for your loss. I wonder why God chose to first bless your daughter-in-law with a child, and then steal it away in such a cruel fashion.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:27pm

  42. "We never considered it to be just invasive tissue."- for the people who do consider it as such...do you think them deserving of being parents?? for someone who has such little respect for the child inside them...why do you insist on them having the child? are they not undeserving in your eyes anyway?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:28pm

  43. LV- listen, people can disagree and still show compassion towards eachother. I understand you had wanted a grandchild, I understand the reverence you hold for the unborn, and so I express my condolences. In this same token, I sympthize with women who chose abortion, I sympathize with people who have to make tough choices that I have no idea about, that I cannot relate too, and I respect them by paying my condolences. I am pro-choice because I can never understand the complexity of everyones lives, I dont think anyone is wise enough to decide for every single person on this planet what is "right" and what is "wrong". The only person I can decide that for is me.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:40pm

  44. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:12pm

    I'd argue that you don't have a particularly sophisticated understanding of karma - which if I were to guess is probably based on the confused mess of a Wikipedia article - and a bit of ethnocentricism.

    Karma, at base, is about attachment to the fruits of action. I think Gandhi explained it beautifully in this passage:

    "We should do no work with attachment. Attachment to good work, is that too wrong? Yes, it is. If we are attached to our goal of winning liberty, we shall not hesitate to adopt bad means. If a person is particular that he should give coins to me personally, one day he might even steal them. Hence, we should not be attached even to a good cause. Only then will our means remain pure and our actions, too." From the Bhagavad Git: According to Gandhi.

    Based on some of the opinions I have seen you post here, I think this would be a very useful point to reflect upon.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:15pm

    Compared to Jessica's previous posts, I think this is fair. She is marking an occasion and taking a position - but she hasn't done anything to frame the discussion so that other points of view are put in a negative light. I consider that fair.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 2:43pm

  45. "But that is why I believe that there are always those couples out there who may not be blessed with the ability to conceive on their own and would and do make wonderful parents to these children" :: so, adoption yes?? and I agree its a wonderful option, but there aren't enough adoptive parents out there to handle the numbers of unwanted children presently. This in itself is not a solution, sadly.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:44pm

  46. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:28pm

    Now this is an excellent example of radical leftist thought. Convoluted and resorting to canards rather than intelligent debate.

    Leftist thought? Have you never seen people claiming to be conservatives doing the same? Or do you ignore those people here?

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 2:48pm

  47. Margaret Sanger, in 'Birth Control Review' 1921: 'The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/22/2008 @ 2:52pm

  48. Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 01/22/2008 @ 2:52pm :: curious- do you ever say anything original and your own, or do you just copy and paste quotes all day?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:53pm

  49. Excuse me, LL...not to be boorish, but might I get an answer?

    No, because contact doesn't ensure conception.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:00pm

    Okay...is a fertilized human ovum one micro-second after implantation in the uterine wall...a "human being"?

    Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 2:18pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 2:58pm

  50. "I just believe at the end of the day, that choosing life for others even at the risk of self-sacrifice will ultimately be the right decision."- LV, I respect your beliefs, and I also respect the beliefs of Valenti and other pro-choice individuals. That is what they are- beliefs. They are extremely personal, individual, and variant. Just as you would feel encroached upon if someone tried to tell you what to believe, the other side feels this tension as well. I prefer pro-choice because I am relieved of being a dictator to anyone. Everyone makes their own choices according to their own needs, not according to my beliefs.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 3:04pm

  51. oh, and congrats on such a wonderful, diverse family. You have every right to be proud.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 3:05pm

  52. Sliver:

    Not sure. But I'm a guy, who has no say-so in what a woman does with her body, so don't ask me. And don't ask me to pay for it, either.

    You're right. You don't have the right to a) force a woman to do something with her body that she does not want or b)otherwise intimidate or pressure her into doing something that she doesn't want to do. That may be why I asked ACook, not you. You know, she is a nurse, and she does have some background in the medical field. She may have some good ideas as to how to make something like that work. Unlike you.

    Here's an idea...an abortion costs, what...$300-350?

    Depends on where you are located. The clinic in my town charges $600. That's $200 for the ultrasound (required by state law) and $400 for RU-486 if you're less that 8 weeks or the D&E if you're 8+ weeks. Along with that, you get a three month prescription for Ortho-Tricyclen w/a one month free coupon from the manufacturor.

    How about the abortion providers take $50 from every abortion and fund contraception. Fair? Could they advertize for donations? If it's just the right thing to do, why is it so hard to get the funding?

    Well, let's see. They don't operate for profit so there really isn't extra cash lying around to fund contraception. In all seriousness, the failure to advertize probably has to do with the fact that many clinics are still operating in fear of the clinic bombings of the 1990s. The one here has FBI wanted pictures of all of the crazies posted behind the front desk, the nurses talk to the patients behind bullet proof glass, and an armed police officer guards the door. Perhaps they don't want to advertize for fear that some nutjob will try to blow them up?

    Did you even notice the fact that I was critical of the local clinic for its failure to fully care for the women it treats? Nope. You just replied with the typical rhetoric.

    You're swell. A truly helpful member of society who is clearly here to engage in thoughtful conversation and not merely a troll.*sarcasm*

    Times like these make me want to use the ignore button.

    Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 3:18pm

  53. If a young woman can work at Taco Bell to buy shoes, a young woman can work at Taco Bell to buy contraception.

    Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 2:26pm

    Not the kind ACook was suggesting. In order to prevent pregnancy, several contraceptive methods should be used.

    Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 3:22pm

  54. Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 3:04pm

    Ditto.

    Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 3:26pm

  55. However, while I certainly respect your right to hold to your religious views, they are obviously a copout to personal responsibility from my standpoint.

    Not at all, LVLIBERTY1!

    If you are "conscious" and fully present, then you would want to engage the world skillfully in a manner that is conducive to spiritual enlightenment.

    The problem with your self-righteous approach is that you make "judgments" about the merit of other religious paths and assign your path a superior position to that of another. This has been the source of much war and bloodshed, as "beliefs" are quite personal. To "impose" your personal beliefs on other people violates the spirit of every major religion, including Christianity.

    Can you imagine Jesus saying: Come follow me or I will put you in jail? Or could you imagine him accepting a follower who came to him out of fear of persecution rather than out of love for his teachings?

    Beliefs MUST BE volitional, or they are not beliefs at all. The moment you start imposing your beliefs on another human being, you have substituted force for faith.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 3:31pm

  56. Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 3:31pm :: another great post, keep them coming :)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 3:38pm

  57. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:56pm

    Then, perhaps, you might want to consider dropping the "leftist" adjective. It's not a leftist problem. It's a problem that transcends political viewpoint.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 3:50pm

  58. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 4:10pm

    Parse words...words like "human being" and "baby"?!?!?

    I'm trying to see if you have any idea what you belief, much less talk about.

    So....is a fertilized human ovum one microsecond upon implantation in the uterine wall...a "human being" or not?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:13pm

  59. Show me once where I have ever suggested much less stated clearly that I want to "impose" my views on others.

    Well, that is the sub-topic of this thread: imposing your religious view that life begins with conception and ends with the death of the body, denies a woman her choice of not just what she can do with her body, but her ability to chose a different belief than you regarding the nature of life.

    So if you really LOVE LIBERTY, as your moniker suggests, you ought to support a woman's right to choose what she wants to believe regarding the nature of life, even if that means she chooses a different religious interpretation and path than you.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 4:25pm

  60. Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 4:25pm

    METTE, can I just pause for a moment from the logical dissection I'm giving poor LVLIB and defend him slightly.

    He has stated on numerous occasions that he has GIVEN UP on the idea of legislatively or by government mandate outlawing abortion...and is in the "change hearts and minds" camp. Which is fine...pointless, but harmless.

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:28pm

  61. But, hey, that's just my opinion.----Posted by FREIHEIT 01/22/2008 @ 4:27pm

    and of course, you're "not making any judgements for or against abortion"....right?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:29pm

  62. BTW, FREI.....C.S. Lewis thought that we should suffer the pain of old age in 'fairness' to our souls for the joys of youth (C. S. Lewis---'perpetual springtime is not allowed'--Breakpoint magazine article "Mercy Living")...

    in other words, if we don't suffer horribly (from cancer or some other disease or condition) in correspondence to our painfree youth, we don't grow spiritually....which is fine, if you think that God gives you brownie points for being wracked with pain.

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:35pm

  63. Right.---Posted by FREIHEIT 01/22/2008 @ 4:36pm

    Right? "Right" you're stating your opinion on how those of us who are pro-choice want to kill old folks too, but you're not "making judgements for or against abortion"?

    That has what to do with anything?---Posted by FREIHEIT 01/22/2008 @ 4:37pm

    Well....SOMEBODY said "Recommended reading: "The Screwtape Letters", CS Lewis."

    So SOMEBODY thought Lewis was relevant, hmm?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:42pm

  64. BTW, FREI...care to take a stab at it?

    1. Do you agree with LVLIB that a pre-implanted fertilized human ovum is NOT a "human being"?

    2. Does it become one, one microsecond after implantation?

    Or do you "not think about what you don't think about" (Ref: "Matthew Harrison Brady" "Inherit the Wind")

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:43pm

  65. But I'm not really interested in arguing your "microsecond after implantation" sidetrack.---Posted by FREIHEIT 01/22/2008 @ 5:00pm

    Of course not, because you're smart enough to know what you'll eventually have to say...and it will make you look foolish.

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 5:31pm

  66. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 5:18pm

    Now, I'm curious. Where do you fall on the following issues:

    1. What about condoms? Does wearing one interfere with God's plan? Is this not potentially life in the same way that a fertilized egg is? If not, what is the relevant difference?

    2. What about hormonal contraceptives (Norplant, the pill, the patch)? If I remember correctly, you didn't have a problem with them, even though they could "abort" a fertilized egg.

    3. Is there not a difference between a black adult or child and a fertilized egg?

    4. What about other innocent life? Do you hold the same position regarding animals and the eating of animals - particularly those that are kept in factory farms? If not, why do you make the arbitrary distinction between animals and humans? Is this not similar to making a distinction between people and fetuses? If not, why not?

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 5:34pm

  67. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 4:13pm

    It is easy to see that most of those opposing your idea of opening one's self up to debate come to this issue with their own particular religious biases, whether it is Hinduism of Buddhism, or some secular bias. Thus they are doing what they claim is your approach to the subject. You obviously don't come to this debate as a neutral but then not one of us ever do to any topic.

    However it is not necessary to have a formal religious position to have a gut feeling that the pro-abortion position is some way down the same intellectual path that led, in a previous time, to the gas chamber solution. Thus it is not really only a religious versus the rest issue but rather it seems to me to be not only a human rights issue but also one that ultimately defines the society in which we live.

    This needs a more substantive debate than arbitrarily defining when human life begins.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/22/2008 @ 5:45pm

  68. I cannot make the leap of logic that you take and conclude that innocent life should either be destroyed or enslaved to satisfy someone else.

    Well, MASK, it looks like LVLIBERTY1 is not as libertarian on this as you suggest.

    LVLIBERTY,

    The issue is not what YOU believe to be innocent life; the issue is whether you are going to IMPOSE this belief on others who don't share your religious views?

    Even Jesus, who broke the Sabbath, did NOT "force" others to break the Sabbath as well. And he respected the right of others who still wanted to observe the Sabbath.

    I think you are not appreciating the role volition plays in ALL religious beliefs and want to FORCE your view of when human life begins and ends on others!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 5:45pm

  69. Posted by HARVEY 79 01/22/2008 @ 5:45pm

    The problem is that this "debate" centers on that question. People that favor abortion think that life begins sometime after fertilization. People that are "pro-life" think it happens at fertilization (or perhaps even before).

    If you try to approach it from a practicality perspective, you are going to get lost because ultimately this is a deontological argument that needs to be addressed on its own terms.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 6:11pm

  70. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 6:01pm

    There are some that take your position that do make arguments 1 and 2. I think 2 is a problem for you because those that argue that life begins at conception would say that allowing hormonal birth control is a form of abortion, and you are supporting "murder".

    As for 3, again, you are assuming that an embryo in the womb is a person. I don't think a freshly fertilized egg is anymore of a person than an unfertilized egg. Nothing magic happens at conception. You have potentiality - just as you have when they are seperated by a condom.

    As for 4, I would make arguments about continuing revelation - but it would be off-topic.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 6:20pm

  71. In time, with the legitimacy of abortion entrenched, euthanasia will become easier to rationalize. Then we can easily accept it is in everyone's best interests to exterminate handicapped - I mean, who really watches the special olympics anyway? Next, perhaps we'll just decide that really the world should be white. All easy, easy steps.... So, my argument is against the legitimization of the practice of abortion because that acceptance leads people away from accepting personal responsibility and away from God. That is the ultimate goal of the abortion on demand advocates. The rest of us arguing women's rights and uterine walls are just useful idiots.

    Okay, so if I read this correctly, the pro-choice people who aren't just brainwashed quailtards mouthing the opinions of their leftist masters are actually White Supremacists looking to eugenically cleanse the globe through the Power Of Abortion.

    I obviously need to get better drugs from my leftist masters, because that sounds perfectly credible to me.

    Posted by cyrano at 01/22/2008 @ 6:29pm

  72. "Most people I know that have children, refer to it as "it" during the pregnancy because even with ultra-sound, it takes several months to determine gender. English doesn't have a good gender neutral third-person pronoun, nor do I (or they) call something a baby that hasn't been born yet - particularly if they are older and unsure that they will carry it to term.

    Just because you want to play the semantic game to support your view, doesn't mean that's the way the world works. " ::SRJENKINS

    just so you know LV, your question did not go unanswered.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 6:43pm

  73. ultimately this is a deontological argument that needs to be addressed on its own terms.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 6:11pm

    Precisely and I was suggesting that it is about ethics whereas yours is not purely an ethical but primarily an argument about biology intertwined with a woman's right.

    It seems to me that one can hide behind an arbitrary definition of what constitutes human life and miss what is possibly the real ethical issue. If there is any doubt that in fact it is a "human child" then LVL is on much safer ethical ground.

    That leads to the conclusion that he is focussed on the ethical considerations whilst you are trying to work out, without any ethical consideration except for a woman's right, what that "thing" is that a pregnant woman carries in her womb.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/22/2008 @ 7:27pm

  74. any of you abortion supporters who have children care to admit that what you called what was in the womb before it's birth?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:57pm

    An immaterial question, but I'll bite:

    We called it "the baby."

    But since we made a decision to have one, that was thinking ahead to the end result.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/22/2008 @ 8:00pm

  75. The Dalai Lama has said:

    Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.

    If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.

    Dalai Lama, New York Times, 28/11/1993

    I would add that one of the central concepts in Buddhism is "non-judgment". In other words, people practice Buddhism for their own spiritual welfare, not to conform to some "authority". In this sense, there is no one to judge the actions of the doer, as karma, which is a natural law, is enforced regardless of anyone's judgment. Karma is the essence of life force energy, it is what distinguishes between a body that is dead from one that is alive.

    It is this karmic-life-force-energy that propels one into further rebirths, and whether one is born into a blissful or woeful state is determined by the karma of a specific being, not the judgment of others.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 8:18pm

  76. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 6:33pm

    I bring it up because it shows an inconsistency in your position. There is just as much arbitrariness in selecting uterine wall attachment as there is in selecting fertilization, and the charges you make against others of "murder", from the perspective of life begins at fertilization, can be attributed to you.

    I'm not sure where I fall on the debate. I admit that at some point before birth, we are dealing with a child, but I don't think fertilization or uterine wall connections make cells into a child. I also know that any distinction made after that fertilization is completely arbitrary.

    I answered 3 @ 2:07pm. See JRO555 above.

    As for 4, intelligence, possible intelligence or progress isn't a necessary condition for moral standing. See your own arguments regarding fertilized cells on the uterine wall as persons (who don't have brain function much less intelligence) as a case in point.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 01/22/2008 @ 7:27pm

    I've actually offered no arguments regarding women's rights. Until the above, I haven't even stated WHAT my position is on abortion on this thread. I merely asked LVL questions.

    However, the central question is not one of biology. The central question is whether fertilized human cells are "people" and have moral standing. In short, it's a question of ethics.

    So, your comment that "one can hide behind an arbitrary definition of what constitutes human life and miss what is possibly the real ethical issue" pretends to miss the real question while at the same time, provides an answer for it. That is, if it is uncertain, then you think it is safer to assume fertilized cells are people.

    But, I would assert that I am certain that fertilized human cells, even one's implanted on a uterine wall, are not people. Pretty much brings us back to where we started now doesn't it?

    That leads us to the conclusion that you actually have an agenda here and are claiming, falsely I might add, that I'm not dealing with the real ethical issues, because I'm not parsiing them in the way you would like. Might I suggest trying to offer an argument or criticism on my actual position - rather than making things up?

    If you don't know what my position is, you can ask - much like I'm doing with LVL. I'm not sure I can offer much more than I have above.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 8:21pm

  77. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/22/2008 @ 8:00pm

    Interesting that you don't call it fetal rights and explain why they trump women's rights. Also, it isn't nearly as prevalent as you are suggesting - and leads to absurd outcomes, like a woman claiming that unlawful imprisonment occurred because she was arrested while pregnant. You have to think out all the issues, my friend.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 8:38pm

  78. absurd outcomes, like a woman claiming that unlawful imprisonment occurred because she was arrested while pregnant.

    Huh? What was the reasoning for that, exactly? That the fetus was effectively being imprisoned as well? I don't follow.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/22/2008 @ 9:52pm

  79. It's not as common as one might think. Also, even most pro-lifers wouldn't have object to an abortion due to pregnancy caused by a rape.

    Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 1:54pm

    i know its not common. just thought i'd pick the easiest place to start.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 10:02pm

  80. Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 1:54pm

    Well, count me as one of those pro-lifers who do object to abortions for rape. Don't murder the child because of a crime committed on the mother.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:03pm

    see what i mean?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 10:03pm

  81. While the debate over whether Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam are correct as to whether reincarnation is a lie or the truth will only be realized by each of us upon our death, I will stand with these 3 faiths on the truth that we live once and then to judgment.

    The theology of reincarnation has been responsible in much of Asia for thousands of years in bringing massive suffering to hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:12pm

    well, if i remember rightly, world wars 1 and 2 (mostly) were fought by christians, jews and muslims.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 10:06pm

  82. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 2:43pm

    ¿what goes around, comes around?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 10:09pm

  83. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 5:49pm

    Sorry, so late...went out to see "Cloverfield" (Interesting, but nothing spectacular...for a spectacle)

    No, the point is YOU just set an ARBITRARY "zone of comfort" that you are morally (or theologically if you like) at ease with a woman terminating her pregnancy.

    "A few days".....so, upto "a few days" after implantation of a fertilized human ovum....

    it is NOT a "human being" to you. And not "killing a human being" to de-couple it from the uterine wall and flush it from the womb.

    Now...aside from your ARBITRARY time limit, what's the difference between you and the average person who has no problem with abortion in general.

    Again, apart from your ARBITRARY time limit?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 10:22pm

  84. Now, any of you other "pro-lifers" (THRAWN, RIO, FREIHEIT) want to step and tell us YOUR arbitrary frame of reference from micro-second fertilized egg to...."human being"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 10:23pm

  85. Posted by THRAWN 01/22/2008 @ 9:52pm

    See following link for an old example. It's logically consistent when you give fetus seperate rights as a person independent of the mother.

    THE LAW; Missouri Fetus Unlawfully Jailed, Suit Says

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4D9153EF932A2575BC0A 96F948260

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 11:08pm

  86. Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 10:23pm

    maybe this will help:

    Iran looks to science as source of pride

    Nuclear program stokes ambitions

    By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff | August 22, 2006 TEHRAN -- The white-coated scientists at Tehran's Royan Institute labor beneath a framed portrait of the turbaned, bearded supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the head of a state that enforces strict religious rules governing everything from how women dress to what kinds of parties people throw.

    But in the cutting-edge field of human embryonic stem-cell research, the scientists work with a freedom that US researchers can only dream of: broad government approval, including government funding, to work on the potent cells from early-stage embryos that researchers believe hold the promise to cure many diseases.

    The green light for embryonic stem cells was possible because Shi'ite Muslim scholars have long ruled that a developing fetus is infused with a soul only at the age of 120 days. That allows stem-cell research in Iran to steer clear of the abortion debate that has made it controversial in the United States.

    http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/22/iran_loo ks_to_science_as_source_of_pride/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 11:18pm

  87. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 10:09pm

    My take is that it is more attachment to achieving certain results, particularly results we think of as good, invariably leads to bad results. Spinoza had this notion of looking at things under the aspect of eternity, and I think it is related. We do not know what ultimately will be good or bad actions viewed from God's perspective, so we need to put aside this notion that we know that by doing X, we are accomplishing good. We never know for sure, but if we think that dropping atomic bombs, flying airplanes into skyscrapers or what not is doing good, then perhaps it is time to think about how our notions of "good" is bringing forth what is likely evil into the world.

    Case in point, suppose Roe v Wade is overturned. LVL might rejoice and think he has saved millions from "murder". Then suppose population pressure, pollution (lack of clean water) and so forth reach a point that there is such scarcity that War World III is the result and billions die - indirectly as a result of his actions.

    It's never neat and clean like this - but LVL likely won't live long enough to experience the repercussions of his action. So what comes around goes around doesn't really work in that way. Many sow and leave for others to reap what they have sown. Karma isn't a balance. It's a wheel, a wheel that takes the bumps that are along the way.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 11:33pm

  88. It's a wheel, a wheel that takes the bumps that are along the way.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 11:33pm

    i guess bush's wheel's gonna have one hell of a flat tire.

    i'm reading this one up. thanks so much for your response.

    perhaps you'll enjoy this site [sacred-texts.com]

    in the meantime, if you need any help with polychords or orchestration, feel free to ask.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 12:23am

  89. hey, this stuff is very frosty-like:

    Manusmriti written by the ancient sage Manu, prescribes 10 essential rules for the observance of dharma: Patience (dhriti), forgiveness (kshama), piety or self control (dama), honesty (asteya), sanctity (shauch), control of senses (indraiya-nigrah), reason (dhi), knowledge or learning (vidya), truthfulness (satya) and absence of anger (krodha). Manu further writes, "Non-violence, truth, non-coveting, purity of body and mind, control of senses are the essence of dharma". Therefore dharmic laws govern not only the individual but all in society.

    i'm trying.

    The satvik karma, which is without attachment, selfless and for the benefit of others;

    the rajasik karma, which is selfish where the focus is on gains for oneself;

    and the tamasik karma, which is undertaken without heed to consequences, and is supremely selfish and savage.

    wow. life sure is a battle.

    chapter v:

    46. He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss.

    47. He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.

    48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

    49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

    68. In order to preserve living creatures, let him always by day and by night, even with pain to his body, walk, carefully scanning the ground.

    anyways......................................................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 12:49am

  90. THE LAW; Missouri Fetus Unlawfully Jailed, Suit Says Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 11:08pm

    Huh, interesting. I hadn't really thought of that permutation. I don't think it's a defeater, obviously, since it only begs the question about whether the woman's claim has any validity, etc, but it is really interesting. Does a pro-life stance lead to some bizarre results? Yeah, probably, which I think means little more than that the law itself is complex enough to create some strange results if any philosophy is really enacted consistently. A good example escapes me right now, but I'll try and find one by tomorrow (by which I mean Wednesday).

    Now, any of you other "pro-lifers" (THRAWN, RIO, FREIHEIT) want to step and tell us YOUR arbitrary frame of reference from micro-second fertilized egg to...."human being"?

    Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 10:23pm

    Hmm. You want the honest answer? I don't know. I think that a lot of the posters here are right: this is a very difficult issue, but I don't think that automatically entails a pro-choice stance, or at least not the kind of pro-choice stance we've seen here for the most part.

    Right off the bat, I'd like to echo whichever poster alluded to the flawed reasoning behind Roe; I think it was a bad decision, and should probably be overturned. I refuse to defend appointing justices to the bench for the sole (or even primary) purpose of doing so, but I do believe that someone who believes in the original understanding in the Constitution will agree that Roe was a poor decision (though I would support them regardless of their agreement on that front; I think it's safe to say they'd likely be smarter than I am).

    More fundamentally, though, I think that the pro-lifers are willing to engage where pro-choicers haven't: they're willing to treat the question of life as relevant. What I think is really important, as I've argued before, is that the ambiguity goes both ways. Though it may seem arbitrary to suggest that life begins at conception, I think it's also arbitrary to suggest that it begins right at birth; what about right before birth? right before that? etc. I think that both sides have a problem because they don't grapple with the difficulty of the issue, and what's really needed is a balanced approach that realy tries to take life into consideration without assuming that they know precisely when that life starts. That, I think, is the real challenge in this debate, and I hope that we will be able to make progress in it. These questions have to be confronted, from both sides. Both have something to add, and I hope that they do so.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2008 @ 01:10am

  91. Posted by THRAWN 01/23/2008 @ 01:10am

    Notice you didn't answer the question in all that...

    at what point in the reproduction process, do YOU think the fertilized human ovum becomes a "human being"...specifically?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 07:11am

  92. It is this karmic-life-force-energy that propels one into further rebirths, and whether one is born into a blissful or woeful state is determined by the karma of a specific being, not the judgment of others.

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 8:18pm

    If there were no judgement of others in a society, then wouldn't such things as rape, murder, armed robbery be fully legal?

    at what point in the reproduction process, do YOU think the fertilized human ovum becomes a "human being"...specifically?

    Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 07:11am

    Does it really matter? WHy is the drinking age 21? WHy is the voting age 18? WHy is the retirement age 65? It seems that, societally, we have no problem in determining guidelines or benchmarks based on a timeline. Wasn't it 1st trimester only?

    Posted by Sliver at 01/23/2008 @ 07:33am

  93. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 8:21pm

    You were not in view in my first post but that is the main if not only reason advanced by pro-abortion advocates. In fact the expression of a woman's right, used in the Roe and Wade decision, is "a woman's privacy". Ms Valenti's article indicates that is the only issue a feminist need or should consider. So perhaps I read too much into your "fairness" in an article that was solely about women's rights and aspirations about which you said: " I also want to thank Jessica Valenti for providing a thoughtful post. It's nice to have an issue brought up for discussion without it being framed in a way that leaves no room for fairness."

    I find no reason to change my view that those who oppose LVL's position, on the grounds that he is promoting a view based broadly on Christian principles in a judgemental way, are doing precisely the same thing by offering a judgemental and sometimes abusive response to his opinions.

    I did not notice at the time but notice now that you are oriented toward a Hindu religious point of view so it seems that far from being a disinterested actor dealing with the issues raised, it is as much about your set of authoritative doctrines against LVL's set, as it is about rational dispassionate debate. And ditto for the Buddhists etc.

    I had noticed we had a fairly judgemental Buddhist on board as well as a secularist. It would seem to me that a Gandhi or a Buddha may have hummed a mantra and said marvellous in response to LVL. How different are their disciples.

    As you know Ghandi had a very high opinion of Jesus, though he was, in his pronouncements a bit ambivalent with respect to the Jews. There are some who would claim he was anti-Semitic.

    Anyway this is a little gem, which may or may not have some Ghandi relevance to how to deal sensitively with the abortion issue:

    "During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife," he said. "They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

    "Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"

    Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."

    If Gandhi is your cup of tea, then you're a hero and I'm a coward but please don't be judgemental.

    To get back to your response.

    "However, the central question is not one of biology. The central question is whether fertilized human cells are "people" and have moral standing. In short, it's a question of ethics." "So, your comment that "one can hide behind an arbitrary definition of what constitutes human life and miss what is possibly the real ethical issue" pretends to miss the real question while at the same time, provides an answer for it. That is, if it is uncertain, then you think it is safer to assume fertilized cells are people."

    But, I would assert that I am certain that fertilized human cells, even one's implanted on a uterine wall, are not people. Pretty much brings us back to where we started now doesn't it? "

    No. It will only bring one back to where you started if you reduce what is inside the womb of a pregnant woman to " fertilized human cells". That is a classical example of reductionism. And that is the sense in which I suggested part of your argument, in seeking to define when life begins, is about foetal development, such as the central nervous system, which of course is the province of biology.

    The issue which philosophers, ethicists and Justices of the Supreme Court have never been able to come to agreement on is when an embryo/foetus becomes a "human being" or assumes "personhood". (There is even argument about what constitutes personhood outside the womb).

    Let the Justices (Roe and Wade) have the last word:

    "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."

    Let me suggest a very simple biological fact that LVL has already mentioned. Human embryos implanted in the womb of a woman are humans and they will never be anything else.

    That is trivial but points to what I suggest is a different sort of solution. And it is that the embryos that are called foetuses after about two months, until birth are living, growing, developing human beings and that is enough to give pause to those who think it is OK to premeditatedly destroy them.

    If we think in these terms the diversionary tactics of bringing up milliseconds after the act and contraception or embryos and foetuses that die of natural or accidental causes are shown to be no more than that.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/23/2008 @ 07:36am

  94. 1)human- any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage. 2) human being- a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species. 3) Person- a human being, whether man, woman, or child. 4) Child- a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl. 5) Birth- any coming into existence; origin; beginning ::: The point of this exercise was mainly for myself, but I thought others might benefit. If we could force ourselves to be as objective as possible, we might ask ourselves, does a zygote or a fetus meet the requirements of the above definitions? yes? no? somewhat? And the definition of BIRTH is very key- it has always been a commonplace to draw the line. Anyone who is born here becomes a citizen, we celebrate our birthdays (not our conception-day), we count our years according to our day of birth (not 9 months beforehand). These are general musings directed at no one in particular, something to think about.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 09:16am

  95. Does it really matter?----Posted by SLIVER 01/23/2008 @ 07:33am

    Well, apparently not for those who want to discuss inter-uterine "human beings" and killing "babies"....since they can't give a straight answer when probed a bit.

    See, it's a trap. Say "The moment a sperm hits an egg, it's a person" and you look like an idiot saying that an fertilized oocyte 145 microns in diameter is a "baby". Go for "implantation in the uterine wall" and you have to start talking about why it's "a person a micro-second AFTER implantation, but NOT before".

    Go for a LVLIB answer of "a few days" after implantation...and you're stuck with ARBITRARY and SUBJECTIVE periods of time by which you will no strong conviction against terminating the pregnancy....which means it's merely a "matter of degrees" between YOU and us PRO-CHOICERS!

    That's why I must congratulate LVLIB...he tried to come up with an answer....while most other "pro-lifers" turned tail and ran. (and tried to pawn it off as "I have no interest in discussing that")

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 09:17am

  96. Posted by MADLIB 01/23/2008 @ 08:32am

    Really everybody here on the pro-choice side is....working TOO hard.

    Follow my lead. ASK the "pro-lifers" some DETAILED questions about their belief in at which point in reproduction a sperm and egg become a "human being and to destroy them is murder".

    Keep at it...and they'll collapse into their own contradictions.

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 09:19am

  97. I most certainly do know about depleted uranium and cluster bombs. I was an engineering manager involved in the modern cluster bombs you see used today.

    I spent nearly 8 years on the program and personally oversaw a good deal of the development and production.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/23/2008 @ 12:41am

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 09:26am

  98. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/23/2008 @ 12:26am

    Judeo-Christian belief rightly says that our actions today have consequences for us that may or may not be correctable depending on circumstance. But they do not alleviate our subsequent submittal to God's judgment. I would rather take the Judeo-Christian path that says that indeed, I am subject to the laws of sowing and reaping, as is everyone.

    "Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor." John 4: 36-38

    Traditional Christian belief provides that Jesus died for our sins, which is both a repudiation of the notion of being judged by our actions and of reaping what we have sown. A savior allows us to be saved even though we don't deserve it.

    One of the critical moral shortcomings of Buddhist thought is the lack of true personal accountability.

    For one, I'm quoting Hindu thought, and while Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism, they have significant differences. Their concept of Atman for instance.

    The guy understood that the concept of reincarnation was destructive and he wanted a way out. His ultimate path was to deny any existence of deity or eternity of the soul...

    There are several major schools of Hindu thought that talk about Atman in a way that is similar to a soul. I think you could also point to Mahayana varieties of Buddhism such as Pure Land Buddhism in Japan as counter-examples. Now, you might argue that they don't match up with Shakyamuni's teachings, but Buddhism is a rather complex beast and making claims like you are making is very hard to do.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 09:29am

  99. Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 09:19am :: agreed.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 09:30am

  100. Posted by HARVEY 79 01/23/2008 @ 07:36am

    Fairness simply means she didn't try the spin the topic beyond staking out a position herself. It doesn't mean I agree with her position or how she argues for it.

    I did not notice at the time but notice now that you are oriented toward a Hindu religious point of view so it seems that far from being a disinterested actor dealing with the issues raised, it is as much about your set of authoritative doctrines against LVL's set, as it is about rational dispassionate debate.

    Actually, I'm a Quaker. The God Within isn't much different in conception from the Hindu's Atman, Rastafarian I-and-I and numerous other examples. So, I simply try to learn from these different perspectives.

    I think you miss Gandhi's point. Gandi's position is that it is simply better for us to die ourselves than to commit acts like dropping atomic bombs on people. Few people can live up to that standard, and they want to argue that they are entitled to commit acts of evil to protect themselves. I include myself in this group, but it doesn't stop me from recognizing that Gandhi is correct. It just may be a bit too high of a standard for me.

    As for the rest of your argument, I'll ignore it. You are asserting the premise that I am calling into question. You even admit that it is arbitrary. The fact that these cells can become human (assuming it is brought to term), doesn't make them human. Sperm is not human. Human eggs are not human. They are potentiality, just as they are when they are combined. The potential to be human does not make one human.

    You want to claim that something with no heart beat, no brain activity, no viability apart from the mother is human. I'm sorry. I simply do not agree. Further, I dislike your attempts to paint it as if your view, is the only view.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 09:48am

  101. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 09:26am

    FROSTY, you're working too hard too...on chump change LVLIB weapons use. Forget cluster bombs....try NUKES!

    (On 'the way we SHOULD have won the Korean War')

    BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel

    "3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

    BTW, the man LVLIB would vaporize millions to earn that "victory" for....said this-

    "It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." -General Douglas MacArthur

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 10:00am

  102. Posted by MADLIB 01/23/2008 @ 09:55am

    I realize that...but it's MUCH easier and MUCH more instructive to watch those who scream "baby killers"....have so MUCH trouble defining what IS a "baby"!

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 10:01am

  103. Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 10:00am

    well, it's one thing to sit behind a keyboard and say "nuke the gooks".

    it's another to MAKE the weapons.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 10:13am

  104. I choose to be Pro Life because:

    1. Life is the most precious commodity in the universe and to destroy it because it may be inconvenient is horrific.

    2. Adoption is a much better alternative

    3. The fetus has done nothing wrong so why is he/she being punished?

    4. someone has to speak for the unborn since those who support the anti-life position only consider the pregnant woman.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/23/2008 @ 10:15am

  105. 1. Life is the most precious commodity in the universe and to destroy it because it may be inconvenient is horrific.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/23/2008 @ 10:15am

    so you don't kill ants, then..................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 10:29am

  106. First off...a word to the site's sponsors. For some reason, I have to log in twice in order for it to recognize me as being logged in, so I just wanted to note that little glitch.

    Onto the discussion, though...Mask said none of us have been able to give a clear delineation for when life begins. He's right, but he then proceeded to say that I didn't answer his question. I did. I said I don't know. Unfortunately, I think he completely missed the rest of the answer:

    think that the pro-lifers are willing to engage where pro-choicers haven't: they're willing to treat the question of life as relevant. What I think is really important, as I've argued before, is that the ambiguity goes both ways. Though it may seem arbitrary to suggest that life begins at conception, I think it's also arbitrary to suggest that it begins right at birth; what about right before birth? right before that? etc. I think that both sides have a problem because they don't grapple with the difficulty of the issue, and what's really needed is a balanced approach that realy tries to take life into consideration without assuming that they know precisely when that life starts. That, I think, is the real challenge in this debate, and I hope that we will be able to make progress in it.

    As a really quick wrap-up note:

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/23/2008 @ 09:48am

    I actually did not know that you were a Quaker. I'd heard that there were a couple of different schools within the faith, one of which oriented itself more around the Bible and one of which oriented itself more around individual and group experience. I'm sure that's an incredibly rough and oversimplified depiction, but I was sort of curious (not as judgment, but solely as curiosity) which school you tend to associate with.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2008 @ 10:33am

  107. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/23/2008 @ 10:11am

    No, you've played semantical GAMES...using pro-life terms like "taking of a life", etc. while trying to sound "open-minded" with your "I make no judgements for or against abortion".

    So, once, without games, FREI...is a fetus a "human being"? If it is and a woman and her doctor "kill it", is it "murder"?

    You didn't want to answer my "conception" question...and the reason is obvious....you either can't (because you don't really think about it) or WON'T (because you know the road it will lead you down and you'll sound ridiculous).

    But willing to give you another chance to try?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 10:47am

  108. Posted by THRAWN 01/23/2008 @ 10:33am

    No, THRAWN, I read that paragraph...and aside from platitudes and "It is argued this and it is argued that" vagueness....you DIDN'T answer the question.

    You oppose abortion? Fine. You think it's "immoral"? Fine.

    Define the parameters YOU believe about it? Is it "immoral" to terminate at the moment of fertilization? At implantation in the uterine wall? "A few days" later (as LVLIB says)?

    When?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 10:49am

  109. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/23/2008 @ 10:15am

    LEN, want to take a shot at a specific question???

    Or like the rest, keep up the vagueness and generalities?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 10:50am

  110. Posted by THRAWN 01/23/2008 @ 10:33am

    yep. and you now have to log in everytime you come here.

    have you checked out the cookies you receive?

    ask.com

    doubleclick.net -- What We Do

    DoubleClick is your partner in achieving success with digital marketing--whether you are a web publisher, marketer or advertising agency. We are a reliable, experienced, innovative partner who can help you capitalize on the opportunities that digital media bring, and meet the challenges they present.

    If you're a marketer or agency, our people work to be sure you get the best return on your advertising dollar. If you're a web publisher, they partner with you to increase revenues.

    Freeing You to Focus on Strategy and Creativity

    Our integrated products work together to simplify and streamline your advertising sales, buying, operations and billing. DoubleClick's industry-leading reporting systems enable you to stay on top of campaign performance at all times, across all digital media. It all combines to let you get on with what you do best.

    Ahead of the Market--Then and Now

    We've been at the forefront of the industry since 1996. That's long enough to know that digital marketing can change in the blink of an eye. So we bring you strategic insights that keep you ahead of the curve and drive business results. Our Innovation Lab and R&D program are constantly developing new solutions that help you stay in the vanguard, and our Research Department answers the questions that are keeping you up at night.

    Where the World's Top Publishers, Marketers and Agencies Connect

    DoubleClick is at the hub of the world's leading digital publishers, marketers and agencies. With more than 1300 employees in 17 offices on three continents, we work across industries, across platforms, and around the world.

    DoubleClick: the nerve center of digital marketing.

    quantserve.com -- Exact Match

    Profile for Thenation.com Weekly journal of opinion, featuring analysis on politics and culture. Founded in 1865. Global Reach: 875,923 US Reach: 699,940 Rank: 3265 Monthly Page Views: 3,324,197 Monthly Uniques: 875,923 Quantified Accepts Advertising

    tacoda.net -- TACODA® Audience Networks™, the first and largest behavioral targeting advertising network reaching more than 120 million people across 31 discrete audience segments every month. With our innovative programs, scale and reliability our partners can be confident that their advertising is working efficiently and delivering results.

    thenation.com

    all right! i've been quantified, spied upon, and classified!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 10:56am

  111. yep. and you now have to log in everytime you come here.

    I noticed that too. I figured it was just me. Glad I'm not the only one.

    I really despise cookies (although I know those do have some minor benefits) and especially internet updates to Norton's, Microsoft, etc. Accumulating data about my computer and my visits to report to...somewhere.

    Being spied upon, didn't begin with and doesn't end with the Patriot Act.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/23/2008 @ 11:00am

  112. Hi frei :) "Your premise is a red herring and does nothing to refute my point that in abortion a potential life is terminated. When life begins is immaterial to that truth. Can you understand that?"

    You have stopped saying "innocent" life and begun using "potential" life. Every month when I menstruate a special egg with a special DNA code is lost forever, it had the POTENTIAL for life. Has this "potential life" been terminated?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 11:06am

  113. Oh, did anyone else open this up only to see the advertizement of the woman with the ridiculously huge boobs selling swimsuits?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 11:22am

    see Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 10:56am for more details.

    they give you what you look for.

    my ad (when i turned it on, curiosity) is for the guardian u.k.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 11:25am

  114. Posted by THRAWN 01/23/2008 @ 10:33am

    I tend to think that there are three branches of Quakerism. I forget the proper names at the moment and only have a minute, so I'll call them liberal, conservative and evangelical. Conservative is a bit of a misnomer since they basically put a primacy on Christian teachings but would be called leftists by the religious right in the United States.

    My meeting is a liberal, unprogrammed meeting. But there is no set creed so even within the context of an individual meeting there can be a great diversity of thought. I doubt that my belief structure is something that most of my meeting would agree with, but then again, they wouldn't be concerned with this issue - as I don't find the fact that theirs is different from mine to be a problem. We each move as our Guide leads us.

    In any event, I have more of a universalist point of view and focus on Christ's example rather than Christ as savior.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 11:27am

  115. That graphic would show Europe as having abortion restrictions far, far greater than America.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 11:04am

    well, i agree with freiheit. this is a personal decision of the woman and should not be illegal.

    it is not something i ever want to get involved with.

    my wife had abdominal x-rays before we found out she was pregnant. an unscrupulous doctor tried to convince us it was better to abort. i guess he had a car payment or something (this was in mexico).

    luckily, we found better medical advice, and now my son is 7.

    i taught him how to play "smoke on the water" on his guitar yesterday..............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 11:30am

  116. rape...........

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 11:13am

    well, it's the most obvious place to start in order to explain.................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 11:32am

  117. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 11:30am | ignore this person

    I picked up a guitar at a shop about a month ago for the first time in my life. I figured I'll be 40 this year and ought to learn how to play. Smoke on the Water and Horse With No Name were the first two songs I learned (not that I can play them too terribly accurately). I recently added Tom Petty's "Free Fallin'" to the mix. I pretty much suck but am getting better. :)

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/23/2008 @ 11:35am

  118. 1. Life is the most precious commodity in the universe and to destroy it because it may be inconvenient is horrific.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/23/2008 @ 10:15am

    no more air strikes in Iraq then. right?

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 11:45am

  119. death penalty is out. it's a life.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 11:46am

  120. Back on topic though:

    To me one of the main issues about abortion, when dealing only with the fetus as opposed to the woman/mother, is when it goes from being a potential for life to life. When does life begin? At the heartbeat? First brainwave activity? Acutal birth?

    Lot's of ethical questions surrounding this issue. What if there is a high risk of death to the mother should the fetus be carried to term? Who's right to live trumps who's? Is the mother more important or the potential child? Why should a woman who has been a victim of rape (the most heinous of crimes that could possibly be commited against a woman) have to carry an unwanted fetus to birth? What kind of psychological damage would that result in to both the mother and the child - should it be carried to term and birthed (on top of the damage already done by the act itself)?

    I think these and many more questions have to be - and indeed are - taken into consideration when a woman considers an abortion. Ultimately, I think the woman has the right to choose and in truth, the woman will be the one who has to deal with the outcome of her decision.

    So, for the record I'm pro-choice. As a male, I couldn't begin to imagine being in that type of situation having to make that type of choice. I've also noticed that most of the folks who are against abortion, are males who would never have to be put in the place of having to consider having one. It's easy to "monday morning quarterback" when you will never, ever be put in a position to make that decision. And I'm saying "most" because I know there are women out there who are against abortion.

    I'd love to live in a world where there would never be a need for such a choice. But since we don't live there, I think having the right to make that choice is paramount.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/23/2008 @ 11:50am

  121. "It hurts the people who want to adopt children."

    Mary, there is no shortage of children to be adopted. There are thousands waiting in foster homes, thousands more being born daily. Perhaps if you are picky about the color or gender of your adopted child you may have a problem, but otherwise, there is no shortage of children who need to be adopted.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 11:52am

  122. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/23/2008 @ 11:50am :: thank you fritz, excellent post

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 11:54am

  123. "1.188 million babies are aborted and the justification is the feelings of 11,000 women who have been raped?"

    Babies cannot be aborted, only fetuses can be aborted. Again, this touches on the subject of when a formation in the uterus is referred to as a "human being"- yet to be resolved...probably will never be resolved.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 12:03pm

  124. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 12:01pm :: I saw a post and thought it was rese as well, but I think they created another account "rese2", you may have seen that.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 12:05pm

  125. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/23/2008 @ 11:35am

    learn how to play a --

    power chord [fretjam.com]

    then play power chords on the "a" string on the following frets:

    2 - 5 - 5 - 7 - 7 - 10 - 9 - 10 - 9 - 10 - 5 - 5 - 7 - 7

    heheh.

    then learn how to read tablature (tabs). [en.wikipedia.org]

    also learn the 8 "campfire chords" - C, A, G, E, D, Em, Am, Dm,

    (quintillions of songs are available in tabs or chord/lyrics formats online.)

    and you are ready for rock-stardom.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 12:27pm

  126. "Abortion is an action that terminates a potential life following the consequence of a sperm fertilizing an egg."- so is the morning after pill abortion?? It has the capacity to flush out a fertilized egg. Also, some birth control pills weaken the lining of the uterus, and in many instances a fertilized egg is unable to implant, and is subsequently flushed out as well. Is this too abortion?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 12:29pm

  127. "Mask, I don't know if the fetus is a human being.....It doesn't matter, Mask, when conception occurs, so feel free to scream your lungs out on that. Abortion is an action that terminates a potential life following the consequence of a sperm fertilizing an egg."----Posted by FREIHEIT 01/23/2008 @ 12:12pm

    So you "don't know" and "it doesn't matter"...but you have a strong opinion about abortion?

    And when does it move from "potential life" to a "baby"? Or does that not matter or you don't know?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 12:39pm

  128. MARYBRETBRAD/Darin,

    Any answer to my question?

    To refresh...."Is a human ovum one microsecond after sperm fertilization a 'human being'?"

    (and for extra credit) "Is destroying it 'murder'?"

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 12:40pm

  129. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person

    " All American Boy" Bill Parsons

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 12:41pm

  130. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 12:29pm

    JR, increasingly obvious isn't it, that they cannot or WILL not answer those kind of questions, out of fear or the ulitmate ILLOGIC and contradiction such answers would entail.

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 12:42pm

  131. if it's a potential life, is it potential murder?

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 12:43pm

  132. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 12:29pm

    To those that believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, then every form of hormonal conception from the pill to Norplant has the potential to "murder" a "child" that is no different from an abortion.

    I don't know what they will do when/if a form of hormonal contraception is discovered that works like a condom. Perhaps it will be a win for everyone.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 12:46pm

  133. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/23/2008 @ 12:49pm

    Potential life, pretty much by definition, isn't life. People could, and do, make the same arguments about using condoms - stopping a potential life from happening.

    The central problem in your position is that you have to make an argument that once fertilization occurs, there is a different state of affairs, DNA gets set or whatever. But you are assuming this question - which people on the pro-choice side of things do not.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 12:54pm

  134. Because I believe people should be making their own decisions regarding their destiny, and not Government, which is also the reason I don't think their should be any governmental support for it.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/23/2008 @ 1:07pm

  135. "Abortion is a purposeful action to terminate a potential life. What do fertilized eggs not attaching to the uterine wall and being flushed out - thus ending a potential life - have to do with abortion?!"

    I take birth control pills with the purposeful action of preventing pregnancy. As to your second sentence... you contradict yourself. You say fertilized eggs not attaching to a uterine wall and being flush ends a potential life...and then you ask what this has to do with abortion? have you not said, over and over and over again, that this is precisely what abortion is? the termination of a potential life? Therefore, my purposeful taking of birth control is responsible of possibly aborting a fertilized egg, therefore terminating a potential life. This would mean you have to be against birth control, it ruins potential lives. Do you agree with this?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:10pm

  136. "Jro555. Does it matter? Ask yourself this: If the sperm penetrated the egg and fertilized it, is there potential life?" There is potential for life even before the egg and sperm meet. They both are the key ingredients to life, they have potential. Every time I let an egg pass in menstruation, I am purposefully denying it the right to create life.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:11pm

  137. and you are ready for rock-stardom.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person

    Thanks for the tips Frosty! I'll try 'em out. I'm going to hold off on buying my stage outfit, at least for a while. :)

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/23/2008 @ 1:19pm

  138. sort of off the subject, but perhaps someone male would care to humor me: In order to save unborn lives, would you instate a law that would force men to have a vasectomy and keep a sperm bank for when they chose to have children? This way, men can have sex without the possibility of ruining potential lives, and when they so chose they can impregnate a woman with their sperm and have children. why or why not?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:27pm

  139. US women wanting to vote for Hillary because she is a woman really, really should two things before voting:

    1) consider what Maggie Thatcher has done for British women during her time as a prime minister, namely basically throwing back the movement for gender equality at least a decade.

    2) Read this article by Tracy Fishman on Obama's stance on women's rights, especially on his pro-choice position (sorry, for one reason or other, linking does not work): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-fischman/a-vote-for-obama-is-a -vot_b_82842.html

    Posted by elziax at 01/23/2008 @ 1:29pm

  140. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/23/2008 @ 12:49pm

    No, you're right. It is a POTENTIAL life. Wouldn't say it isn't.

    Problem is, you can't figure out what kind of life, much less when it's potential.

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 1:31pm

  141. "Abortions are done on purpose, JRO555. Because there is potential life, not because there isn't potential life." - Frei, I'm not arguing there isn't potential life. I'm arguing there is ALWAYS potential for life. My eggs have potential for life, sperm has the potential for life, when they meet there is potential for life, when they attach to the uterine lining there is potential for life, while the zygote develops into a fetus there is potential for life, upon birth is when the potential is realized. I argue with you Frei, that potentiality extends before your cut off. Statement: A human female egg has the potential of becoming a human life. True or false?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:31pm

  142. 1) I'm not sure. It probably depends upon who's definition you are using.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 1:12pm

    Okay, so again back to subjectivity, and therefore I can assume you would NOT support a ban on abortion....right?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 1:32pm

  143. If you do something intentional to interfer with the normal development of the fertilized egg (abortion) you are killing a child.

    Now, that's not against the law, but had you not interfered there is a very high probabliity that there would be an additional child on earth. ----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 1:31pm

    Wait a minute...thought you said "I'm not sure".

    NOW you're saying it's a "child" if it's a "fertilized egg"?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 1:33pm

  144. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/23/2008 @ 12:59pm

    Morally, how is a zygote different from a sperm and ovum? Does a cells ability to duplicate itself via mitosis make us human? Does establishment of a genotype make one human?

    I'm also saying that potential human life is stopped by a condom just as potential human life is stopped by hormonal contraceptives and abortions. You have to make that trip from potential to human life in order for your argument to have the moral weight you are trying to establish. You can't simply assume it.

    I think there is moral issues in play. I'm just not certain when they come into play. I don't think the establishment of a genotype makes one human, anymore than a blueprint makes a house. I'm inclined to pick some arbitrary point like the beginning of a range where brain activity is detected (say perhaps 8 weeks), but this is still a pro-choice stance. And since 87% of all abortions happen in less than 13 weeks into the pregnancy. and 57% happen in less than 8 weeks, it completely reframes one's perspective to look at it this way.

    http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/abortion_statistics.shtml

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 1:34pm

  145. mary- "retarded"? why?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:36pm

  146. Notice how when a male's body is subject to coercion, suddenly the issue becomes "retarded". Do you not find it unfair that a woman might be forced into pregnancy for the sake of unborn lives? Why should a male's body not be subjected to physical alterations for the sake of unborn lives? Pregnancy creates massive changes in a female body. why is it ok to turn a womans body into an incubator, but men never need worry about their body being subjected to the same?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:40pm

  147. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 1:25pm

    Arson is the willful or malicious burning of property. At what point when I take your cigarettes and smoke them, have I committed arson? What about when I'm thinking about burning "love", who owns "love"?

    In short, there are so many relevant differences in your arson analogy that it's not even worth much of a response. What consititutes "property" and who constitutes a "person" are the central questions to arson and abortion and your example assumes what is being called into question.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 1:43pm

  148. There's an hour's worth of argument right there...

    Define the word "potential"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 1:44pm

  149. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 1:44pm

    Apparently moving on from me, but I'll ask again...

    Is a fertilized human egg a "child" in your view?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 1:45pm

  150. "Besides, who says we have to plan our lives out? Sometimes unplanned "inconveniences" turn out to improve our lives in undesribeable ways." - whose to say we cannot plan our lives out to the best of our ability? You may welcome inconveniences, but just because you welcome them doesn't mean everyone else does. If a person is diagnosed with a tumor, should they consider it an "inconvenience" and just live with it, or seek medical attention and have it removed? "Beyond that, child rearing is the most important, most rewarding activity 95% of people on this earth will ever undertake." Curious, where do you get this number from?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:49pm

  151. "nature will cause" - nature? since when did nature dictate to humans how we lives our lives?? We are so far removed from nature now, for better or worse. We side step, curtail or simply defy nature all the time. So claiming "interfering with nature" is the reason abortion if wrong is basically saying building dams, building cities, and so much more of our modern lives are wrong.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:53pm

  152. So I'd pick my gittar with a great big grin

    And the money just kept on pourin' in

    But then one day my Uncle Sam

    He said (sound of 3 footsteps) "Here I am"

    "Uncle Sam needs you, boy

    I'm-a gonna cut your hair

    ah-Take this rifle, kid

    Gimme that gittar" yeah.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 1:55pm

  153. death penalty is out. it's a life.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 11:46am

    hi brannigan.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 1:55pm

  154. So you're saying the computer reads my mind and knows I like to look at ridiculously huge boobs? Well at least it's accurate.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 11:47am

    nope. i bet you've been visiting some big-boob sites and have been "tracked".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 1:56pm

  155. "There is nothing about air touching skin that causes a magical transormation of the fetus into a baby." - there is something VERY special about a fetus being cut from the umbilical cord and becoming a baby. There is something VERY special about it breathing on its own for the first time, feeding on its own for the first time. Curious Mary- and I'm not suggesting anything, just curious- if an illegal woman from mexico is impregnated in the states, is carrying her child to term, but is caught- is her fetus a US citizen? why or why not?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 1:57pm

  156. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 1:40pm

    At what age would these vasectomies occur? Do you think the government should be controlling reproduction? Lots of thorny problems with this approach.

    Personally, I think the easiest ground is to focus on fetal rights. Trying to make it a woman's choice versus the rights of the unborn is a losing utilitarian argument that doesn't play with deontological justifications (which most pro-life positions are). Focus on the justification for asserting personhood and undermining it; it's the only approach that will work with a deontological argument against abortion.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 1:58pm

  157. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 1:53pm

    I've stopped reading Mask's posts, so I don't know what he is up to other than what I see other people quoting. If you are responding to him, then I'll assume some of the weirdness of your logic is probably a function of the arguments he is making.

    I basically agree with your position, and I am looking for a reasonable, moral argument to use. I simply don't buy the genotype/fertilization argument, so I am looking for some arbitrary point that makes more sense.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 2:03pm

  158. "Do you think the government should be controlling reproduction?" - This is my point- a big fat NO. Therefore, government should not be able to force a pregnant woman to carry her fetus or not.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 2:10pm

  159. "Menstration is not a conscious decision. (Although, this can be interfered with.)" and so can pregnancy. There are many natural processes that can be interfered with. We have operations for breast implants, nose jobs, sex changes- there are all offensive to nature, but we still can and do them. We also have chemotherapy, blood transfusions, other operations that can defy nature. pregnancy is not an every day bodily process like eating food.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 2:17pm

  160. Besides, who says we have to plan our lives out? Sometimes unplanned "inconveniences" turn out to improve our lives in undesribeable ways.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 1:37pm

    in 2000, we had planned on waiting another 10-15 years to have a kid.

    we were using birth control (correctly, we're not dumb) and nonetheless my son is now 7.

    most beautiful accident of my life.

    however, i very glad that accident happened with my wife and not with other women i had met.

    half of the kids i teach have divorced parents.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 2:17pm

  161. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 2:17pm :: I'm glad your situation worked out well. But this kind of thought is hurting a lot of people. As pointed out in various articles here at TN and other sources, accidental pregnancy is being painted as some rosey, cute romance comedy by hollywood (knocked up, Juno, Waitress) and pro-life advocates. I worked with 3 teenage mothers who had unplanned pregnancies and gave birth during my college summers. They were cashiers at a boating store with me. None of them stayed with the father, one wasn't even sure who the father was. They all dropped out of school, they all quit or were fired from their job. They were all miserable individuals, constantly blaming everyone else in the world for their misery and very very rude to customers. They fought over who's baby was cuter, like comparing their knock off designer bags. I feel for these children...it is unfair they have such unfeeling, self absorbed moms who can't even keep a job ringing out fishing poles.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 2:35pm

  162. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person

    Ok smarty, who made that record really?

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 2:46pm

  163. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=jro555

    what a heartless post on your part. uncharacteristically

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 3:19pm

  164. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 3:38pm

  165. I think Europe's laws that put very heavy restrictions after the 12th week are better than ours.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person

    only some do. misleading posts.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 3:42pm

  166. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 3:19pm :: the heartless ones are those who mistreat their children and provide them with no viable future. So recounting my personal experience working with 3 teenage mothers who had no respect for their children and felt no responsibility to them is heartless? so be it.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 3:46pm

  167. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 2:35pm :: the moral of the story, for those of you that missed it, is that accidental pregnancy does not always end up for the better. Not all mothers suddenly learn to be responsible, not all mothers learn to love their unwanted children, not all mothers are able to win their boyfriends affections with the newborn baby, not all mothers have support from family and friends. And I dare make the assumption that more unplanned pregnancies fall into the latter situation rather then the former.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 3:53pm

  168. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person

    so be it, unsympathetic and a conspicuous lack of kindness. you can do better.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:03pm

  169. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:03pm :: I prefer honesty to kindness.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 4:09pm

  170. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person

    obviously.

    honesty and kindness are not opposites.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:14pm

  171. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:14pm- in definition no, but all too often kindness will impede honesty. Frankly, I give kindness and respect where it is due. Seeing as how you know nothing of these individuals and did not have to work with them 4 months out of the year for several years, you don't realize the depravity of their character. Am I wrong for judging them? Perhaps. But we all judge, one way or the other. Here you are judging me... in fact, some would say you are being unkind in your judgement alike... are you wrong to judge? I digress...we've strayed much to far from the issue at hand.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 4:25pm

  172. Mr sensitivity you ain't.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:26pm

  173. Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 4:22pm | ignore this person

    post both sides of an argument, why don't you? whattajerk

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:24pm | ignore this person

    you too- very nice and gentile you are

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 4:31pm

  174. Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person

    stick to the subject, asshole.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person

    VERY polite indeed

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 4:31pm

  175. oh..and that'd be MRS sensitivity if you please ;)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 4:32pm

  176. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

    it's the only language Mask understands.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:45pm

  177. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/23/2008 @ 1:48pm

    Let me guess...a 1900 year old book from the Eastern Med knows the answer?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:48pm

  178. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:45pm

    Setting aside "instant character assessment"....feeling that "EMILE" is a long-time Nation poster under another nick (i.e. to avoid being associated with his previous statements)

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:49pm

  179. And to say that I became pro-life isn't to say that I think abortion should be outlawed.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 3:32pm

    So, like LVLIB, you're just a "win hearts and minds" "pro-lifer" and not up for anything making it illegal?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:50pm

  180. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

    it's the only language Mask understands.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:45pm

    Ah, I see, that makes it all better.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 4:58pm

  181. how silly of me to think perhaps you were being mean spirited in your name calling!! You're just speaking Mask's "native" language, how sweet you are :)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 5:00pm

  182. I am able to show some sympathy, when called upon to do so. something you are evidently incapable of in this instance. read your post again. perhaps you can think of a teeny tiny bit of something sympathetic you can say about those children. there but for fortune...

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 5:05pm

  183. There is nothing about air touching skin that causes a magical transormation of the fetus into a baby.

    There is a meaningful difference in that the woman, who is clearly a human being, has a right to control her body, and all that is "within" it.

    While the nature of that which is "within" the woman's body may not change, the mere fact that it is within the body of someone with clear rights can't be dismissed.

    A parent, for instance, is responsible for the conduct of their child, and it is not until the child becomes "independent" from that parent that responsibility shifts.

    To say, as you have suggested, that the child will "eventually" become independent so they should be at the same level as the parent NOW, with respect to rights and responsibilities is just not logical.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2008 @ 5:33pm

  184. If there were no judgement of others in a society, then wouldn't such things as rape, murder, armed robbery be fully legal?

    Karma doesn't care whether humans make a specific act "legal" or not; it acts "independent" of human judgment.

    If you read up on many barbaric societies of the past with no law, it is clear that those who murder either get murdered or have loved ones murdered, those who rape have their women raped - and certainly if you have lived long enough, you have probably seen this natural law of Karma play out in your own life. Sometimes this is with the assistance of "external justice" (law enforcement) and sometimes not.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2008 @ 5:43pm

  185. "read your post again. perhaps you can think of a teeny tiny bit of something sympathetic you can say about those children." - oh really? you mean like this?

    "I feel for these children...it is unfair they have such unfeeling, self absorbed moms who can't even keep a job ringing out fishing poles." Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 2:35pm

    It looks like YOU are the one who needs to read it again. All of my sympathy goes to those unfortunate children. get off your high horse already.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 5:58pm

  186. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=jro555

    ............

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 3:19pm

    Ah....ha. Only ONE poster in recent times uses the ABOVE linkages for reference to previous posters.

    BRANNIGAN?....McQ?....MASK2????

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 9:27pm

  187. death penalty is out. it's a life.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 11:46am

    hi brannigan.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 1:55pm

    mask, you're getting slow.....................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 9:49pm

  188. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 2:35pm

    re-read the "however" part of my post.

    i know we're very lucky (i think my son agrees). i was answering a comment on how an "accident" can turn out to be wonderful. for us, it is.

    but, of course, i see the pain many kids go through because their parents are just not prepared.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 9:53pm

  189. And I dare make the assumption that more unplanned pregnancies fall into the latter situation rather then the former.

    Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 3:53pm

    and i agree 100%

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 9:55pm

  190. and certainly if you have lived long enough, you have probably seen this natural law of Karma play out in your own life. Sometimes this is with the assistance of "external justice" (law enforcement) and sometimes not.

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/23/2008 @ 5:43pm

    actually, i've seen it happen VERY quickly.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 9:59pm

  191. Hey FZ- yea I didn't mean to pick on you, sorry. I'm truly happy you are lucky to have a son you love so much, please don't think I have any negative feelings towards you. You're actually by far the nicest poster on The Nation :)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 10:02pm

  192. "I figure after a generation or so, most would put some restrictions after 13 weeks except for life of the mother, etc." :: don't most abortions occur within the first 12 weeks anyway? and don't the bulk of abortions that do happen after are because the mother is in jeopardy?? I'll research this more and report my findings.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 10:06pm

  193. "Eighty-seven percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 2004." - more than even I expected. Also at this website is a useful pie chart and all sorts of other abortion statistics. It seems to be neutral enough. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

    Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 10:19pm

  194. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 9:49pm

    No...just wanted to make sure.

    Eventually I knew he's give something away and we'd pin down who he really was. Note: He's a proven liar now, since he claimed he "had never posted here or under another nick".

    Another punk kid going from computer to computer down in the university library...thinks he's a genius as "disguising" himself.

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 10:24pm

  195. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 1:44pm

    My question: Morally, how is a zygote different from a sperm and ovum? Does a cells ability to duplicate itself via mitosis make us human? Does establishment of a genotype make one human?

    Your respponse: Intentional human interferance.

    I think there is a big gaping hole in your argument. By this standard, use of condoms also applies - which is why I have kept mentioning them although no one has went with this argument yet. It is clearly a case of interference, yet I think most people don't find this to be a moral question.

    However, in your view, if my wife uses Norplant which could potentially impact a fertilzed egg - even though it is designed to stop it in the first place, this counts. Or doesn't it?

    Both take conscious intent. The only relevant difference is fertilization, and I haven't seen why you have decided that is an important event, i.e., your answer to the original question ignored establishing why fertilization is important. You went instead with conscious intent - unless you meant to include condoms in this category. Did you? Because if you think about condoms, this statement makes no sense.

    It takes a conscious intent to interfer with the child's development in order to prevent it's birth. That is how a zygot is morally differnt from a sperm and egg.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/23/2008 @ 10:34pm

  196. Another punk kid going from computer to computer down in the university library...thinks he's a genius as "disguising" himself.

    Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 10:24pm

    actually, all you have to do is create a new e-mail address (g-mail, yahoo, hotmail, etc.), register with the new e-mail and you can be someone "new".

    i've often thought about becoming "DESTROYATRON" my über-righty evil twin.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 11:11pm

  197. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 10:02pm

    thanks.

    i didn't think you were picking on me. i understood when i posted OUR story, that it was precisely that, OURS, and that, unfortunately, many children are born unwanted.

    be safe,

    fz.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 11:14pm

  198. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 10:19pm

    nice link, thanks.

    good to see the # of abortions going down. that must be a difficult thing to go through.

    if only these "pro-life*" crazies in governments would spend more time on the economy instead of trying to impose moral subjugation, a lot more women could afford to keep their kids.

    *the ultimate misnomer (well, for the vast majority of these folks)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 11:21pm

  199. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person

    the moms were children. look it's ok that you show no sympathy. but you will be called on it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 11:43pm

  200. It's funny that in a country where human lives are considered collateral damage we argue about abortion as if it is somehow bad. LVLIB argues FOR the use of cluster bombs even though they are known to kill LIVING children but will then argue AGAINST kill a child that hasn't been born yet. The hypocrisy would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/23/2008 @ 11:46pm

  201. Posted by JRO555 01/23/2008 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person

    I hope you feel real superior to those child moms. that's what I got from your post.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:11am

  202. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/23/2008 @ 5:36pm

    It's more complicated than that. A couple of examples: In Poland, for example, while there are certain (very narrowly defined) circumstances under which abortion is allowed, it's very hard to get one in reality...legally, at least. In Austria, abortion is not legal, strictly speaking. (Trust our gov to find a way to have it both ways.) It's exempt from punishment during the 1st trimester for a healthy pregancy, and until birth in case of handicaps, etc. In Spain, abortions are legal in cases of rape, incest and serious health risk to the mother only.

    The laws are patchy, and some are better than others. Regardless, as we basically have freedom of movement, there is always the possibility to go and get an abortion where it will be provided.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/24/2008 @ 05:36am

  203. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/23/2008 @ 11:46pm

    No, no, no...you got that wrong. Cluster bombs never ever kill 'people', much less children. They only kill *enemies*, you know.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/24/2008 @ 05:38am

  204. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/24/2008 @ 12:11am:: yep, sure do!! there, all better?? now you can keep riding your high horse and feel superior to me :) I'm glad it had a happy ending after all.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 08:40am

  205. the moms were children. look it's ok that you show no sympathy. but you will be called on it.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 11:43pm

    When you have a kid, you no longer are a child, you become an adult. These mom's couldn't pull it together to provide, love, and nurture their children. So you are 100% correct- I have no sympathy. If a young child who loves you unconditionally is not enough incentive to convince someone to grow up, well then I don't know what is. but AGAIN, we are so off topic its ridiculous.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 08:43am

  206. "one can't really go over this again, that idiot Mask notwithstanding. all we need now is that ass Plain Bruce to show up.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:17pm"

    you are just superior to EVERYONE aren't you?? gee...why can't we all be as smart, KIND and SYMPATHETIC and CARING like you are?? so sad.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 08:45am

  207. Posted by JRO555 01/24/2008 @ 08:45am

    And he's a bald-faced liar, JRO....check it out-

    "I have never posted as nick or another nick."-----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:44pm

    ((Oh, yeah?....Look familiar???)))

    "http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=jro555

    what a heartless post on your part. uncharacteristically"----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 3:19pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 08:51am

  208. Mary- I see. So, if handing over the decision to the states will change little or nothing, why bother? I wouldn't mind terribly if the decision were to be handed over to the states themselves, but it raises questions about funding, safety, and the strain that abortion clinics would feel when they are bombarded by out of state women in need of their services.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 09:04am

  209. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 09:09am:: though your comparison may be true for some, I find the real decision breaker for women is choosing college/school over child rearing, or choosing their career over child rearing. Still unacceptable to some, but not as disappointing as choosing an ipod over a baby. "Our welfare system is effective enough that any one can raise a child, if they sacrifice the luxuries." If you consider education a luxury, sure. If you consider your life's work or calling a luxury, sure.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 09:20am

  210. "The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner." - from the link posted above.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 09:22am

  211. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 09:09am

    So, if a woman is prepared to go without her i-pod and manolos, her two minimum wage jobs will be enough to raise a child on. Provided the child never gets sick. And she never gets sick. And she has some place for the child to be while she works. Wait...daycare isn't cheap. ... Would you like to check your numbers?

    Also, Europe has no laws on abortion. Countries in Europe do, and their laws differ significantly.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/24/2008 @ 09:23am

  212. Also Mary- sure you can scrap by and raise a child, but what about their future? no savings for hobbies and sports, no savings for college, no savings to help buy a house, no savings for their future children- having a child when you are not economically secure only ensures they will have difficulty finding a path to their own economic security.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 09:25am

  213. I support unequivocable reproductive freedom druing a female's first trimester of pregnancy. During the final trimester, however, I believe the father/progenitor, as well as society at large has an important stake, and therefore voice on the matter, and abortion shouldn't be permitted. The second trimester is a grey area, which should be examined case by case, with the mother's indecisiveness/irresponsibility/forgetfullness, or whatever rationalization, being strong evidence for preservation of the still, at this stage, embryonic/fetus.

    I say this because: 1) I'm not an absolutist, instead believing; 2) timing is everything; 3) actual physical and mental suffering is far worse "eternal rest/death;" 3) abortions should be sage and increasing rare over time with conception prevention education/techniques, and; 4) as an adult male, if I, or any member of my gender group doesn't like the concept of a woman's privacy right to a safe abortion, we shouldn't have one, i.e. let's not moralize about another's life/decisions (remember to remove the beam in our own eye before decrying the splinter in another's).

    Furthermore, Life's antithesis, Death, being a certainty to which any/all must eventually, sooner or later, accede, I support practices/means to reduce/eliminate human suffering as opposed to hypocritical pronouncements and posturings about the "sanctity of life" - see # 4 above. Suffering/anguish, like the capacity for joy/euphoria, is a potentiality of human consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no awareness of sensation, thus no "Life." I believe the unconscious don't suffer and, hopefully, as Metteyya so eloquently postulated, the unborn merely return to the great karmic queue; like me and you.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/24/2008 @ 09:54am

  214. The "sage" should always proofread. Lo sciento. I meant to say pregnancy terminations should remain "safe."

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/24/2008 @ 09:57am

  215. "Because it is important for people to accept moral responsibility for themselves. It is bad when seven men say to the country, You aren't qualified to make this moral decions (where to balance the rights of mother and child) and so we are imposing our morality on you."

    But they were giving us the CHOICE to make. A ban on abortions is exactly what you are saying here: that we aren't qualified to make our own moral decisions. The supreme court ultimately decided it was up to us, individually, to decide whether abortion is moral. We all decide for ourselves, according to our own standards. Find abortion morally objectionable? Do not have one. Find abortion a necessity to your unique situation? Then have one. Anything other than providing individuals CHOICE is moral subjugation.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 10:00am

  216. If a young child who loves you unconditionally is not enough incentive to convince someone to grow up, well then I don't know what is. but AGAIN, we are so off topic its ridiculous.

    Posted by JRO555 01/24/2008 @ 08:43am

    actually, i would say that is the heart (literally) of the matter.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 10:02am

  217. Our welfare system is effective enough that any one can raise a child, if they sacrifice the luxuries.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 09:09am

    well, come on up and i'll take you on a tour of detroit.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 10:04am

  218. "It gives them the sense of purpose that comes with living your life in the service of others. It not about me, me, me, my job, my career, my comfort. Children are the best teachers of this." - Yes, because children ARE very needy, with their me me mes and mine mine mines and I want I want I wants!! (if anyone can name the film this quote is from I'll give you a cookie). And why do you think everyone lives so selfishly?? There are millions of jobs out there that aim to provide services to people in need, why is it so selfish to work daily to help out others and make a living yourself? Policemen, firemen, paramedics, teachers, not-for-profit employees, nurses, librarians...this list can go on forever. Are these people selfish for pursuing their careers?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 10:05am

  219. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 10:16am

    Because this is not a juridprudence seminar?

    Posted by Deadra at 01/24/2008 @ 10:19am

  220. I'm sorry did I read this right?!??!!

    "It is bad when seven men say to the country, You aren't qualified to make this moral decions (where to balance the rights of mother and child) and so we are imposing our morality on you."----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 09:47am |

    So the 1973 Supreme Court "imposed its morality" on us, by overturning abortion restrictions?!?!?

    How do you "impose" something...by just making it legal, not in ANY way "mandatory"?!?!!?!

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 10:37am

  221. BTW, any "pro-lifer" who tries to pull the "I just don't like 'Roe' because I think it was bad law"....is, well, be kind and say "disengenuous".

    They don't care HOW the USSC reached it's ruling...they care WHAT the decision was.

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 10:39am

  222. "Could SCOTUS give you the CHOICE to own slaves? Could SCOTUS give you the CHOICE to terminate the life of a child under 18?" No, because "slaves" are living breathing BORN human beings. "A child under 18" is a living, breathing BORN human being. Again, we debate what constitutes a HUMAN BEING. And as Mask and others have pointed out again and again, the pro-life movement cannot pick a point in time that is agreed upon and not arbitrary. The only time we can be certain without a shadow of a doubt that life exists is upon birth.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 10:51am

  223. "Except for Roe, where seven men told the rest of the country to go to hell and do as you're told." and what are they telling you to do?? to make your own decision!?!?1 You are angered by being given the choice to make your own decisions??? NO- you are angry/annoyed/bothered that you don't get to make decisions for other people.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 10:56am

  224. you are just superior to EVERYONE aren't you?? gee...why can't we all be as smart, KIND and SYMPATHETIC and CARING like you are?? so sad.

    Posted by JRO555 01/24/2008 @ 08:45am | ignore this person

    I have never claimed any of this.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 10:56am

  225. "Those who agree that the woman's rights supercede the baby's in all cased up until the point of birth say, "Sucks being you loser pro-lifers" The Seven justices agree with use and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it. Nyah nyah nyah." - Ok, I don't know any pro-choicers who are like this. Especially lately, we are all hanging onto our uterus's as best as we can as this administration keeps chipping away at our reproductive rights. If anything, our rights hang by a thread.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 10:58am

  226. "Could SCOTUS give you the CHOICE to own slaves? Could SCOTUS give you the CHOICE to terminate the life of a child under 18?" No, because "slaves" are living breathing BORN human beings. "A child under 18" is a living, breathing BORN human being. Again, we debate what constitutes a HUMAN BEING." - did you miss this earlier Mary?? No, "whites" cannot own "blacks". But you seem to have no qualms about the state and males owning WOMEN now do you?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:05am

  227. "I don't have to pinpoint the exact moment to recogice that by the time it's born, it's been a child for a long time."

    Child: a person between BIRTH and FULL GROWTH; a boy or girl.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:09am

  228. The insistence that a fetus/zygote has rights more important than the mother's strips her of her humanity, of her right as a human being and a citizen of this world. You reduce her to the value of an incubator, a vessel, for a "life" that you consider far more precious than her own.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:14am

  229. YOU, mary, are reducing women into slaves with your insistence on fetus rights over women's rights.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:15am

  230. osted by JRO555 01/24/2008 @ 11:15am | ignore this person

    consistently fine posting on this subject. we can come right out and say it. FORCED PREGNANCY.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 11:18am

  231. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 11:18am | ignore this person

    abolition must be quite a disappointment to you.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 11:20am

  232. "Sure they can. Whites can own blacks if 5 supreme court justices say they can. That doesn't make it right, but as a matter of law, that is all it takes." Well no kidding Mary, they had slaves for quite some time too if I recall correctly. and No, it didn't make it right. But what you are talking about is one PERSON/HUMAN BEING owning another PERSON/HUMAN BEING and depriving them of their rights. As of yet, on this blog and in the heated debate for decades now, no one has been able to prove a fetus is in fact A PERSON OR A HUMAN BEING. All we can agree on is "potentiality" - and that is not good enough reason to force women into pregnancy and to reduce them to shells for the state and mankind.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:22am

  233. "That is not an objective fact, that is your opinion. Laws balance the opinions of a nation."

    mary, thats the definition out of the dictionary. Unless you want to start reassigning definitions to the entire english language, it is fact.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:24am

  234. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 11:24am :: you are robbing her of her free-will, much like the slave owners robbed their slaves of their free will. You are forcing a woman to sacrifice her body and her way of life for your moral and subjective contentions, much like slave owners forced slaves to sacrifice their bodies and well being for the slave owners well being.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:25am

  235. To refresh...."Is a human ovum one microsecond after sperm fertilization a 'human being'?"(and for extra credit) "Is destroying it 'murder'?" Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 12:40pm

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 11:19am - same as your cake analogy. and as I stated before- there is ALWAYS the potential for life, starting with a single egg or a singe sperm independent of one another.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:31am

  236. "Telling a woman that if she doesn't want a child and she gets pregnant, she must abort it in the first 12 weeks isn't putting her in chains and taking away her right to vote or speak." - no, you are taking away an even more fundamental right, you are taking away the right for her to do whatever she wishes with her own body. "You're just getting upset that I am laying out reasoned arguments and you can't refute them." who's upset? Can you taste my tears through your computer screen? Your "reasoned" arguments can be re-framed easily enough to support my position as well.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:34am

  237. "Before emancipation, there were varing opinons as to whether Blacks were human or should be considered human. Today, we all share the same opinion that they are."

    For the majority of the history of the human race, women have been considered inferior and second rate citizens. Even today, around the world, they are seen as property and not as humans. In this country too, women are still seen by some as the "weaker sex". Black men had the right to vote nearly a half century before women of all colors and creeds could vote. Your continual references to fetuses as "black slaves" only helps support my conviction that women are still considered unimportant to the needs and wants of everyone else in society.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:39am

  238. "Now, at 19 minutes, it's edible. At 17 minutes, it's edible, but has problems. At 10 minutes, it's not edible." It is edible at all stages. Eggs, flour, butter- all edible. mix the batter together- yummy and edible (what, you never lick the spoon?). bake it- still yummy and edible. Potentially edible at all stages, before mixing, after mixing, and after baking.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:40am

  239. "You are trying to say that at 19 minutes it's not a cake." - not until its got its frosting on!! lol christ, we've subverted this controversy into cake baking and eating. brilliant, I love it :)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:41am

  240. "but I'm saying at 39 weeks, the baby is viable and she shouldn't be able to kill it." - what about at 8 weeks? 12.5 weeks? .05 weeks? a macro second after fertilization?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:42am

  241. since he claimed he "had never posted here or under another nick".

    I did not claim that, read it again.

    it amuses me that all you jerks are making such a big deal out of this. you don't think anyone else has done this?

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 11:44am

  242. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 11:27am | ignore this person

    you are dim witted. read them again.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 11:47am

  243. Let's return to my "retarded" assertion of state mandated vasectomy. You mean to tell me, that in order to save the unborn, you would not be willing to have a vasectomy and keep a sperm bank? why? is this infringement on your rights? is it intrusive to your body and your right to it? the state should have no say in your reproductive affairs?? why is a forced pregnancy different?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:49am

  244. "When there is a child growing inside her, there is more to consider than just her rights." - how far will this go? how many rights will she have to loose? Suddenly, she is subject to all sorts of new restrictions because of the well being of the fetus inside her. Suddenly, drinking a glass of wine can become a criminal offense to the fetus, working out at the gym a little too late in her pregnancy can become punishable, tripping and falling by accident becomes punishable... anything she does that makes her an unsuitable vessel makes her subject to punishment because of a fetuses rights.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:51am

  245. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 11:48am :: a 16 year old is old enouhg to drive, as mandated by our law. A zero year old is not old enough to drive, as mandated by law. A zero year old has no right to drive much in the same way a zygote or a fetus has no right to control a womans body. A born baby is like a "16 year old" in this anaology (please don't take this out of context, it will sound very silly), it is old enough to assume its rights.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:54am

  246. "Yes, forced sterilization is an infringment on my rights"- you are not sterilized, you can still conceive with your sperm bank. "In my opinion, A 39 week old baby should have the right to force it's mother to carry it another week and deliver it, and then give it to the state is she doesn't want to raise it."- why is "your OPINION" more important than a womans right to her own body? Now listen- a 39 week old abortion is a RARE occurrence, less than 1% of abortions are conducted this late. you want to ban those instances (unless the woman is at risk...which is usually why), then fine.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 11:58am

  247. "How do you know you are not unfairly restricting the freedom of a 15-year old? or a 14-year old? Where does it stop? Maybe we have to let zygotes drive to make sure no woman ever has her rights infringed." - how is it unfair if everyone has to abide by it? we all had to wait until 16 to drive, so every other 14 and 15 year old has to wait too. They can go-cart race or possibly even road race in special venues with a special racing license if they so please. Now that last sentence is just silly :)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 12:02pm

  248. Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 10:24pm | ignore this person

    it's posts such as this that make life worthwhile.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:02pm

  249. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 12:00pm:: around and around and around we go! yes, we set a consensus- what is the consensus in accordance to the debate?? We keep having some serious deja-vu with this argument on "when life begins". There's "potentiality" and then there is a full fledged, human "life" upon birth. I prefer certainty over maybes, I prefer honoring a living human in our society their rights then honoring a "potential" life rights over another human being.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 12:08pm

  250. "In your opinion, the prober balance is the one that err on the side of the mother never having her rights limited, ever."- a mother's rights are limited- once her child is born it has all the same rights as the rest of us. She cannot kill her baby after birth, that is infanticide. Mothers OBVIOUSLY do not have unlimited rights.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 12:10pm

  251. In Euroupe where the question is left to the People it's around 12 weeks.

    this is just not true.I posted a link where the facts are.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:18pm

  252. "Since you are of the opinion that the unborn baby doesn't have any rights, you see this as an unreasonable limitation for no reason at all. I, an millions of other Americans hold an opinion differnt from you and we beleive we should be able to petition our legislators to write laws that reflect our opinions." - so, because you have a different opinion from me, you can lobby to have laws rewritten and control my body? It doesn't matter that you can decide for yourself if you will not abort, you want to make this decision for everyone else in the country?? because of something as subjective as OPINION? and don't start with the slavery thing again. Slaves are PEOPLE residing in our society on this planet, that were owned and abused by other PEOPLE. As illustrated again and again and again in this blog and elsewhere, you cannot unequivocally say a fetus or a zygote is a HUMAN or a PERSON.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 12:27pm

  253. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person

    here are the facts, according to BBC

    England 24 weeks

    sweden 18

    spain 22

    Romania 14

    Portugal 16

    holland 13

    Ireland no set limit

    finland 24

    in addition all of those countries provide for far later abortion under many circumstance.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:32pm

  254. Posted by JRO555 01/24/2008 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person

    the supremes decided that slaves were 3/5ths human. the rest is presumably property, like a suitcase or a cow.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:34pm

  255. I challenged your inclusive Europe, and I'm right. eight european countries don't conform to your assertion.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:43pm

  256. you don't think anyone else has done this?----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/24/2008 @ 11:44am

    Only if they wanted to escape everybody's Ignore list because they were a jerk (Ref: Aludra)...

    or if they wanted to avoid taking responsibility for what they had previously posted.

    or if they were a dopey immature kid.

    (or all three....heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 12:49pm

  257. MARYBRETBRAD/Darin

    Basic question...

    Do you think abortion (even on a state-by-state level) will ever again be effectively rendered illegal?

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 12:50pm

  258. Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 12:49pm

    17,453,657% in agreement.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 1:06pm

  259. "You're deciding what to do the the unborn child's body. I'm saying the state can limit you to protect the child. Basic balancing of rights." - no, the balance is not fair. I exist here now, I am a human and there are no doubts, no insistence that I might be a "potential" human. I am here, a BORN citizen of this country and society and the world. Now, you are saying the "potential" life in my uterus deserves rights because perhaps maybe, it will be one day become a "human being"?? especially so if you tie my hands and do not allow me to seek an abortion if it were necessary in my situation. How is this balanced?? How do you equate a "potential" life with a real human life?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:09pm

  260. By instituting fetus rights, you degenerate all the rights we have for born citizens of this country and this society. By placing my rights behind that of a fetus inside my body, you render me of less value than the fetus in my body. You value a "potential" life over a fully realized life that exists.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:12pm

  261. Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 12:50pm :: good point. South Dakota is a pretty good indicator that abortion bans won't be as forth coming as many pro-lifers think (or pro-choicers feared).

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:18pm

  262. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 1:25pm :: that is not MORE than potential life. If you did not have paramedics there to slice open the dead woman (love this, jut slice open the worthless cow)and give this baby the essential care that would be needed in this extraordinary situation, it would die along with its mother, in the womb. You want to talk real life??? Cows and live stock are "real lives" but you have no issues with their wholesale slaughter-why not? what is "real life"?? only humans have "real life"?? humans and their fetuses?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:33pm

  263. "Temporarily limiting the freedoms of the mother to protect the life of the unborn child will not cause armegeddon. It will not be the first step toward forced impregnation." No, no first step needed, because it IS FORCED IMPREGNATION. Telling a woman she cannot abort, when the services and know how clearly exist, is forced pregnancy. "Some women will get abortions earlier, some will be inconvenience and give the children up for adoption. And people will know that our country has a sizable population that feels unborn children are deserving of life." - Almost all woman get abortions earlier. This is the problem I have with your arguments: you are pro-life. You think a fetus in the womb is a baby. But its ok to abort before 12 weeks? what, the "potential" life isn't as precious in the first 12 weeks? To assert the the unborn have rights, well, where do they begin?? upon fertilization? 12 weeks in? 30 weeks in? Your argument for unborn rights is inconsistent when you do not explicitly state when a "potential" life, or an unborn, exists.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:39pm

  264. "And people will know that our country has a sizable population that feels unborn children are deserving of life." - Yes, and people will know that women are still considered baby machines and incubators in the supposedly freedom-loving, HUMAN (not fetus) rights advocating, and progressive U.S.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:42pm

  265. "No, in 99% of the cases, she was not forced to get pregnant. She consented to the activity that caused pregnancy." - she can also consent to an abortion to end said pregnancy. By denying her to do so is FORCING the pregnancy.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:42pm

  266. "All life is fragile. That doesn't mean it isn't life. And if a paramedic witnessed a pregnant woman get decapitated, that's exactly what he would do: slice her open and save the life of the child inside." ::: oh yes, I'm sure HE would. Maybe we should just do this- kill insolent women when they get far enough in their pregnancies and rob fetuses from their wombs before they "get any ideas". If only it were so easy! A fetus at 32 weeks is probably an indication the woman wanted the child, and so saving it is of course expected. How do you measure this improbable and extraordinary situation with a traditional abortion occurring on week 10?? Is this ten week old fetus worth less to you than the 32 week old fetus?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:47pm

  267. "No, it's forcing delivery. Pregnancy has already occurred." - oh, well that makes it all better then doesn't it :) Has a nice ring to it, "forced delivery".

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:47pm

  268. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 1:44pm :: I could care less what Europe does. I'm concerned about our country and its laws and the protection of my rights. Much of Europe lay under the blanket of oppressive monarchy for some time after the American Revolution, are you saying we should've paid more attention to our european friends and never revolted? let them show us the way to democracy and freedom?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:50pm

  269. "These are moral question we can never know with certainty. I'm talking legal questions. Our laws are not perfectly moral, they are comprimises that do the best they can." - But you are asking them to be moral, you want "moral laws" for the unborn. Legally, its quite clear that "morality" cannot be objectively defined, we all disagree on it. Therefore, the law let's us make our own moral judgments in these situations- why would you want to force me to recognize your "moral" code when I don't believe in it? My "moral" code would not impede your decisions in the matter, why should you be able to coerce me against my moral leanings?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 1:55pm

  270. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 1:20pm

    Federally, or on a state-by-state basis?

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 2:48pm

  271. "I'm talking about a woman who has agreed to allow a child to develop for 12 to 20 weeks not being allowed to "change her mind" and cause the death of something she helped develop for a few months already." some women, honest to god, simply do not realize they are pregnant until late into the pregnancy. A classmate of mine did not know she was pregnant until her water broke- hard to believe, but its absolutely true. Is a woman at fault for nurturing a "potential" life she had no idea existed? completely irresponsible in my mind, yes, but I still refuse to pretend I or anyone else, should have the right to tell her how to take care of her reproductive affairs.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 3:01pm

  272. I hope our exchange has helped you to understand my point of view.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 2:04pm

    Yes, I still disagree, but I do understand your position. You have debated with me civilly and cordially and I thank you for that.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/24/2008 @ 3:03pm

  273. I want to bring back, briefly, the issue of Roe, especially after Mask raised a very curious point. He argues that people who criticize Roe on legal grounds do so only as a cover. First, this is very strange, given that (as I pointed out before) many liberal and conservative jurists (even those who are pro-choice) have come together to seriously question the existence of legal reasoning in that decision. Second, it's not responsive at all to actual argumentation about Roe.

    This is actually a point on which I differ from posters such as JRO555, and to some extent perhaps even from MBB. Though I admittedly disagree with Roe's outcome, my disagreement with the process utilized to reach that outcome is (at least I'd like to think) wholly independent. If MBB is arguing that Roe was bad solely for the reason that it overrode the ability to create legislative compromises, I think he's wrong.

    Though I think his concern is valid, I think it belongs at the level of a broader theory of how the Supreme Court should approach cases. The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law as it was written and originally understood, not to create new law or impose their own moral frameworks upon the country. One reason for this kind of restraint is precisely the concern that MBB raised, namely that difficult moral questions need to be resolved by dialogue and compromise, not by judicial imposition. Another, though, derives from the basic idea of the Constitution as law. As the basic document from whom the government's powers and the limitations of those powers derive, we expect it to remain consistent except when the people choose to add amendments; anything else would be fundamentally undemocratic. The way you keep the Constitution as a consistent body of law, in the way that every other law crafted by a government is recognized, is to adhere to some version of the law's originally understood meaning. This is particularly important for the Bill of Rights, because curiously enough, if their meaning can be expanded, it can equally be retracted by the same acts of judicial fiat (Dred Scott is a perfect example of this).

    I feel like Roe strongly disrespected this principle, because it made absolutely no effort to warrant its claims on the bare existence or scope of a general right to privacy in terms of the Constitution, simply claiming that the right "was broad enough" to overturn state anti-abortion laws. I object to Roe because it's bad law arising from bad Constitutional interpretation.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/25/2008 @ 01:53am

  274. You have debated with me civilly and cordially and I thank you for that.

    Posted by JRO555 01/24/2008 @ 3:03pm

    I want to also make sure that I am keeping the debate civil; please correct me if I depart from this.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/25/2008 @ 01:54am

  275. I mentioned the last time Peter brought up the idea of celebrating this event that it was nothing to celebrate, but simply acknowledge, that the less negativity associated with abortion the easier it is to engage in what should be a last resort.

    Last night I heard that the level of abortions in the US has dropped to its lowest level since 1980 in spite of the fact that its been legal all that time. That tells me people are still keeping perspective on things. Good for them.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/25/2008 @ 07:40am

  276. I object to Roe because it's bad law arising from bad Constitutional interpretation.----Posted by THRAWN 01/25/2008 @ 01:53am

    And that opinion is TOTALLY UNRELATED to the fact you oppose abortion on moral grounds....uh, right?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 09:22am

  277. MBB/Darin...in case you missed it-

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/24/2008 @ 1:20pm

    Federally, or on a state-by-state basis?

    Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 2:48pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 09:22am

  278. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/25/2008 @ 09:03am | ignore this person

    you just want them to substitute YOUR morality. a constitutional scholar you ain't.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/25/2008 @ 09:51am

  279. I object to Roe because it's bad law arising from bad Constitutional interpretation.----Posted by THRAWN 01/25/2008 @ 01:53am

    And that opinion is TOTALLY UNRELATED to the fact you oppose abortion on moral grounds....uh, right?

    Posted by MASK 01/25/2008 @ 09:22am

    Not really, and let me clarify. There are two specific legal problems that I have with Roe, one of which is somewhat related to my moral views and one of which is not at all related. The weaker legal problem is the link between a right to privacy and the unconstitutionality of banning abortions. Going beyond the fact that this link was never remotely warranted in the decision itself, the complete rejection of any possible state interest in protecting the fetus seems to be problematic based partly on my moral views, but I want to be clear here. I'm not asking for the Court to reify my own views into the Constitution's meaning, nor even asking them to affirm that those views are true. My problem here is that even the possibility of a compelling state interest here is dismissed, and that seems problematic. Again, though, this is the weaker legal objection.

    The stronger legal objection, and the one that many across the political spectrum have made, is against the Court's assertion of a broad right to privacy. This is the core of my opposition to the Roe decision, and has nothing to do with my own particular moral views. I simply think that the Court has more-or-less created a constitutional right out of whole cloth, and that's a real problem.

    I want to hit something else, though, briefly, because there's a more fundamental flaw in Mask's argument. Let's suppose, just for one moment, that my entire opposition to Roe were fueled by my own moral convictions. What Mask seems to be suggesting is that this would invalidate any arguments that I made against the decision. Unfortunately for Mask, this is bad logic; arguments are not invalidated by the motivations of the arguer.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/25/2008 @ 11:20am

  280. many across the political spectrum have made----Posted by THRAWN 01/25/2008 @ 11:20am |

    HOW many? How many of the "Roe is bad law" are from the pro-choice side of the aisle? How many from the political left in general?

    Long post, THRAWN, but show us some figures.

    The argument that "Roe is bad law...oh, but that's not really related to the fact that I'm pro-life" is bogus and you know it.

    The "pro-lifers" want it back to the States because they think they can get stricter regulatons, even bans, on a state-by-state basis that they cannot get Federally if "Roe" stands put.

    Same reason "Dred Scott" is thrown into the mix...not about Constitutinality, but conflating slavery with abortion.

    And the canard that "oh, a lot of guys on the liberal side think Roe is bad too" is (and I'll wait) rarely backed up by more than one or two "liberal Constitutional scholars"...with 90-95% of the rest fully supporting it.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 11:38am

  281. all this crap about the sacred constitution, and then invalidate the supremes? intellectual bankruptcy, and dishonesty.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/25/2008 @ 12:39pm

  282. Timing is everything, so, I find myself partially agreeing with MBB, I suppose, although I'm definitely more "Pro Choice" than those who trumpet their Orwellian should/ought tag "pro-lief" (ha,ha).

    Here's what I wrote way up-post ---- I support unequivocable reproductive freedom druing a female's first trimester of pregnancy. During the final trimester, however, I believe the father/progenitor, as well as society at large has an important stake, and therefore voice on the matter, and abortion shouldn't be permitted. The second trimester is a grey area, which should be examined case by case, with the mother's indecisiveness/irresponsibility/forgetfullness, or whatever rationalization, being strong evidence for preservation of the still, at this stage, embryonic/fetus.

    I say this because: 1) I'm not an absolutist, instead believing; 2) timing is everything; 3) actual physical and mental suffering is far worse "eternal rest/death;" 3) abortions should be safe and increasing rare over time, with governmental involvement/intervention emphasizing conception prevention education/techniques, and; 4) as an adult male, if I, or any member of my gender group doesn't like the concept of a woman's privacy right to a safe abortion, we shouldn't have one, i.e. let's not moralize about another's life/decisions (remember to remove the beam in our own eye before decrying the splinter in another's).

    Furthermore, Life's antithesis, Death, being a certainty to which any/all must eventually, sooner or later, accede, I support practices/means to reduce/eliminate human suffering as opposed to hypocritical pronouncements and posturings about the "sanctity of life" - see # 4 above. Suffering/anguish, like the capacity for joy/euphoria, is a potentiality of human consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no awareness of sensation, thus no "Life." I believe the unconscious don't suffer and, hopefully, as Metteyya so eloquently postulated, the unborn merely return to the great karmic queue; like me and you.

    Posted by LEWWELGE 01/24/2008 @ 09:54am

    By the way, do any here suspect the proverbial "800 pound gorilla" in the room of this debate is the cumulative effects of our puritanical heritage, so that most are voyeuristically jealous of and condemning toward the sexually stimulated/satiated/euphoric male or female adult?

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/25/2008 @ 12:45pm

  283. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=lewwelge

    ya got that right.

    as for last trimester abortions, why not let the doctor and the woman decide? that goes for the entire issue.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/25/2008 @ 12:48pm

  284. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/25/2008 @ 12:20pm

    So as long as abortion is restricted for the POOR...or those unable to travel to a "liberal state"...your work is done?

    BTW, it's not just going to be "California". Nevada will keep it legal, Utah won't...15 minutes from St. George to Vegas. West Virginia might ban abortion, Pennsylvania and Ohio won't. Anywhere in PA or OH from Charleston in 15 minutes. Alabama?...sure....but Florida probably not. Mobile to Pensacola?...not that bad a drive.

    So all you end up doing is making a tougher on the poor, which means you better start ratcheting up a new Welfare State...fast. Or...more likely, the pro-choice movement will invest in HUNDREDS of buses....and it'll turn out to be as effective as the Drug War in stopping the "immorality" that Prohibitions always do.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 1:15pm

  285. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/25/2008 @ 12:26pm

    They didn't "write law", MBB...they interpreted it as in the Ninth Amendment-

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    and Section One of the 14th Amendment-

    "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 1:19pm

  286. the infallability of seven arrogant men.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/25/2008 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person

    where do you get this crap from? no one has ever claimed that.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/25/2008 @ 1:48pm

  287. days of repetitive back and forth and still more children died today because someone felt they were defending freedom by creating "better" cluster bombs.

    Today it is the unborn child that is rid of as an inconvenience. In the future, it will be forced euthanasia of the elderly who become a financial drag as well as an imposition on families who want to not be burdened with their care, so let's blow them up now.

    All in all, my work on cluster bombs is a sad commentary on the current moral state of the US.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/25/2008 @ 1:47pm |

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 3:09pm

  288. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/25/2008 @ 3:30pm

    of course.

    sorry, dude. it's just that i'm very disappointed.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 6:20pm

  289. So...tragically, the actual analysis in response to my Roe arguments has not been all that good at all. There are two fronts to be dealt with here.

    The first is the "motives" front. Look, whether you approve of a decision can be independent of what your personal feelings on the issue are. If I were pro-choice, I hope that I would still believe that Roe was wrongly decided. Interestingly enough, Justice Ginsburg herself criticized it on the grounds that it helped, in her opinion, to subvert a democratic pro-choice movement. All in all, the "but don't listen to the argument because the arguer is pro-life anyway!" is nonsensical and logically fallacious.

    That's the other point I made under motives, that Mask just completely ignored, and it's huge. Even if you believed his claim that I only disagree with Roe because of the outcome, that doesn't invalidate the actual arguments; that would be like saying "well, bringing clean water to lesser-developed countries seems like a good idea...but Hermann Goering said that too! Can't accept that!" It's a blatant logical fallacy.

    So that said, onto the actual substance. Mask makes precisely one argument, and though admittedly it's not bad, it's still bad constitutional theory. He contends that Roe can be justified based on the Ninth Amendment, a justification that's deeply problematic. Since he's never challenged the "original understanding" framework, I'll respond based on it. Look, the balance of government branches was determined by a desire to limit the power of the federal government, and within the government, to give greater weight to those branches that are elected. The Supreme Court was designed as a branch whose purposes was to correct violations of the Constitution, but not to exploit it to impose their own preferences upon the republic. As a result, the Ninth Amendment would never have been understood to provide citizens with a set of rights whose definition was left up not to legislatures, but to the 9 people on the Court who stand accountable to no one. This applies both to the "privileges and immunities" clause and to the "due process" clause (designed, by the way, to insure procedural rather than substantive protections, as should be evident from the word "process").

    The bottom line is this...there is no broad constitutional right to privacy as Roe asserted, and thus there is no constitutional justification for the outcome that Roe reached.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/25/2008 @ 6:51pm

  290. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/25/2008 @ 1:58pm

    No, I'd ask them how they square that with the Ninth Amendment and Section 1 of the 14th.....and how they define "conception" since FEW of the "pro-lifers" here seem to have a specific definition.

    Regardless, you're only case is that you would make something illegal that a majority of Americans DON'T WANT to be made illegal.

    Yes, yes. Quote the parential notification polls, the "partial birth" polls, the "if it's just for gender choice" polls....the fact is that there is NO majority support for a total ban on abortion...and if you think BEFORE "Roe" that people were against it, guess again.

    There was this thing called a "trip to Tijuana" and "Missy went to Europe for the summer", just as common as the girls going away to the "Wayward Girls' Schools" to carry to term.

    And with RU-486?...we can't keep pot and coke out, how do you keep that out?

    The war's lost...you guys may have a few battles left that you might win (like the Germans at The Bulge)...but Berlin has metaphorically already fallen.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 7:19pm

  291. Posted by THRAWN 01/25/2008 @ 6:51pm

    THRAWN, what's interesting is...when it comes to abortion, the Right takes a STRICT interpretation of the NINTH....

    gun control or State's Rights...not so much on the SECOND and TENTH?!?!?!?

    (And yes, the libs are just as guilty. As Michael Kinsley once said, "If the Left used the same view of the Constitution on abortion, on the 2nd Amendment...gun ownership would be MANDATORY!")

    (I like individual freedom and the full application of the Constitution to uphold that!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 7:30pm

  292. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/25/2008 @ 9:32pm

    i think god is pretty pissed about iraq, too.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 9:36pm

  293. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/25/2008 @ 9:32pm

    When IS "conception", RIO?

    (thought I'd give it one more shot)

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 10:00pm

  294. well fancy that, this thread is still going :) I've seen many mentions of "God" by several posters here...and I wonder, what their God has to do with how this country is run or how individuals who do not believe in your God live their lives? Dragging theology and mythology into this debate only lowers the integrity of its content.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/26/2008 @ 10:17am

  295. Also, role call!!! who here is male? who here is female? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion the majority of the pro-life crowd here is all male? I ask you politely, had you ever considered what a woman must think when you find more value and worth in a fetus then you do in her? If the pro-choice side is guilty of valuing a woman/mothers life too much, then a pro-life side is very much guilty of having no respect or concern for a womans life and liberties.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/26/2008 @ 10:23am

  296. Posted by MASK 01/25/2008 @ 10:00pm: we know "conception" begins at fertilization. But when does "innocent, potential life" begin? And more importantly, when does one become a HUMAN BEING? A PERSON? (note: do not look in the dictionary!! its book of deceit and lies! and of course has a liberal bias)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/26/2008 @ 10:25am

  297. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/25/2008 @ 11:03pm

    RIO, did you know that LVLIBERTY doesn't consider a fertilized human egg to be a "baby" until "a few days" AFTER it's implanted in the uterine wall?

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2008 @ 12:12pm

  298. Posted by JRO555 01/26/2008 @ 10:25am

    Noted above to RB....and that's the kicker. Again, don't have to work so hard to see how illogical, even contradictory the "pro-lifers" can be.

    The best are the ones who say "moment of fertilization"...then you just ask them "when the ova cell wall is penetrated or when the mitosis begins"...and they quickly fall apart like the other guys do into "Quit talking semantics" (from a group of people who use the SEMANTICS of "human" with abandon!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2008 @ 12:15pm

  299. Posted by MASK 01/26/2008 @ 12:15pm : you are most certainly correct Mask, as the posters on this blog have proven time and time again.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/26/2008 @ 12:40pm

  300. Posted by JRO555 01/26/2008 @ 12:40pm

    Not one was able to give a definitive answer.

    They all know that "it's a baby" and a "human being"...but not when. Some (like LVLIB) wait "a few days" after implantation...but that means he's just as much a "pro-choicer" as somebody who says "wait a few WEEKS".

    The problem they face is...looking foolish in the face of what they consider a "moral absolute". Say "immediately upon fertilization" and they HAVE to say WHEN that actually happens (as well as the silliness of saying a 145 micron cell is a "person").

    Before a certain point it's bio-matter, after a certain point it's a "baby"....which means they are EXACTLY as us pro-choicers...just a slight matter of time-frames....nothing more.

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2008 @ 5:04pm

  301. All right...so as before, there are two arenas of debate. One of them, however, is now effectively gone. Mask, the now apparently sole advocate for the Roe decision, seems to have effectively conceded the argument in two ways: by failing to respond to most of the arguments, and by making a statement that amounts to a concession. Here's the relevant statement:

    THRAWN, what's interesting is...when it comes to abortion, the Right takes a STRICT interpretation of the NINTH....

    gun control or State's Rights...not so much on the SECOND and TENTH?!?!?!?

    (And yes, the libs are just as guilty. As Michael Kinsley once said, "If the Left used the same view of the Constitution on abortion, on the 2nd Amendment...gun ownership would be MANDATORY!")

    (I like individual freedom and the full application of the Constitution to uphold that!)

    Posted by MASK 01/25/2008 @ 7:30pm

    The Kinsley quote, by linking abortion jurisprudence to clearly absurd (legally and commensensically) results, amounts to a concession that the legal reasoning for Roe was poor. He makes a really interesting point on the Second Amendment. Lacking a reason why "the people" would have different meanings between the two (though this doesn't obviously preclude a reason from existing), I'm forced to concede the implication that the Second Amendment may not be an individual rights-claim after all. I of course reserve the right to change this conclusion if evidence comes up, but I'm granting it for the time being.

    The other front is abortion itself, and Mask's argument on this front reveals the same inconsistency that it has elsewhere:

    Posted by MASK 01/26/2008 @ 12:15pm

    He insists that pro-life advocates simply can't pinpoint the exact moment at which life begins. Here's the problem: pro-choicers can't either, because it's already been clearly established that the birth brightline doesn't work. Contrary to what some might argue, however, this doesn't simply imply "just leave it to individual choice, then." I think it's reasonable to suggest that when there's uncertainty on where life begins, the best response is to err (at least to a degree) on the side of caution towards the possibility of taking life. This seems to call for a more balanced discussion than either side appears willing to engage in. Mask continues to mock this as fluff, but has never given a better alternative. Moreover, as some others have pointed out, no one has to defend criminal legislation being the only (or even an essential) tool in this regard. The proper response to a muddled brightline isn't to go for a clearly absurd one, but to try and strike the best balance possible with the aim of minimizing loss of life.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/26/2008 @ 7:10pm

  302. Posted by THRAWN 01/26/2008 @ 7:10pm ::: I most certainly can pinpoint an exact moment when life begins- BIRTH. It has been defined this way for eons. Anything prior to this is "potential" life, birth makes it a reality. Again, I say- we celebrate BIRTHDAYS, not conception days; we become citizens upon BIRTH, not conception; we count our years upon the Earth by our date of birth, not our date of conception...this list can go on and on and on.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/26/2008 @ 8:33pm

  303. I'm not one to shy from offensive or insensitive remarks, so let's add this one to the list. Much like Freud accuses women of penis envy, I accuse men of uterus envy. I think pro-life men are frustrated that women have control of a "potential" life growing in their womb. A lot of pro-life men feel a need to compensate for this unfair balance of control, and so pro-life men advocate heavily to win jurisdiction and control over womens bodies in protest. Pro-life men have a problem with the natural laws that grant women the power to decide what will live and what will die in their womb, they seek to intervene with laws and religion.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/26/2008 @ 8:39pm

  304. Yeah, JRO555, de facto physical, and rationally perceived "INEQUALITY" is the "Maginot(sp?) Line" bifurcation/split in the seemingly consensus-free arena of sexual roles, broadly, and specifically, the cultural crucible of the womb.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/27/2008 @ 12:27pm

  305. most certainly can pinpoint an exact moment when life begins- BIRTH. It has been defined this way for eons. Anything prior to this is "potential" life, birth makes it a reality. Again, I say- we celebrate BIRTHDAYS, not conception days; we become citizens upon BIRTH, not conception; we count our years upon the Earth by our date of birth, not our date of conception...this list can go on and on and on.

    Posted by JRO555 01/26/2008 @ 8:33pm

    That's not nearly enough. The only major differentiation in the baby when born and prior to birth is the level of dependence upon the mother. Since we've already established (I think) that this can't be a standard for personhood, birth is not a nice, clean dividing line no matter how many people may desire otherwise.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/27/2008 @ 12:49pm

  306. the wheels on the bus go round and round

    round and round...........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 1:19pm

  307. oops.

    sorry, folks. carry on. (where's the UNsubmit button?)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 1:20pm

  308. Posted by THRAWN 01/26/2008 @ 7:10pm

    Okay, THRAWN, is a fertilized human egg "human life"....and therefore preventing a fertilized human egg from implanting in the uterine wall...an "abortion"?

    AND would you seek legislation to prevent the means of doing that to legally available?

    Just to "err on the side of caution"????

    Posted by Mask at 01/27/2008 @ 2:07pm

  309. "Although anonomus here, you do have a name that has been well known for over 5000 years! That indeed is reason for pity." - hmm, really? I do not know who this 5000 year old "jro" is, but I'm very curious so please do tell. My name is a combination of first and last name, followed by lucky number. "Psalms 51-1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;" I love how you refer to your book as some sort of factual evidence that people who do not submit to its will are fools. But I wouldn't expect any less :)"That is one evidence that none can deny since only mankind possess it." - do we have a conscience? sure. superior intellect? sure. Did "God" breath it into us as he molded as like lil clay dolls?? NOT so sure.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/28/2008 @ 08:55am

  310. "That's not nearly enough. The only major differentiation in the baby when born and prior to birth is the level of dependence upon the mother."- Yes, right until before birth, a fetus is still dependent on the mother FOR LIFE, via umbilical cord. It still needs to be feed sustenance via umbilical cord, it still "breathes" via umbilical cord. Unless you decapitate her AGAIN in some freak car accident, a fetus will always need its mother to live- UNTIL BIRTH. I state again, that birth is the pivotal moment, the moment when fetus becomes baby, when woman becomes mother, when another human takes its rightful place in this world as another among us. NOT BEFORE, only after.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/28/2008 @ 08:58am

  311. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/27/2008 @ 1:19pm ::: yea no kidding...we've beaten this topic into a bloody pulp....and yet we continue to mercilessly pound it to oblivion...

    Posted by jro555 at 01/28/2008 @ 08:59am

  312. Posted by JRO555 01/28/2008 @ 08:55am

    Maybe RIO BRAVO thinks you're the Devil?

    (Which would be cool, cuz I'd ask if you looked more like Robert DeNiro "Angel Heart"....or Peter Cook "Bedazzled"?...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 09:02am

  313. We were wrong about the shape of the earth for eons, too.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/28/2008 @ 11:28am

    Yes,probably due to a narrow minded book that trapped people's lives and intellect for centuries (funny how the church was most powerful in the age now called "the Dark Age"). However, unlike the shape of the earth debate, which pitted science and reason against religion, people have believed birth to be the starting point not because religion dictated it so, but because natural law dictated it so. For eons, birth has been the defining moment because it is the tangible and undeniable moment of truth- a new life is BORN into the world. Anything up to that moment is only "potentiality" - birth makes "potential" a reality.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/28/2008 @ 11:49am

  314. We were wrong about the shape of the earth for eons, too.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/28/2008 @ 11:28am

    actually, you might want to limit that to europeans.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 12:40pm

  315. and yet we continue to mercilessly pound it to oblivion...

    Posted by JRO555 01/28/2008 @ 08:59am

    hence my "retraction" -- too important to shut up, even if nothing will change.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 12:42pm

  316. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/28/2008 @ 11:28am

    Posted by JRO555 01/28/2008 @ 11:49am

    JRO is right. Odd analogy to use MBB, given that it was THE CHURCH who tried to enforce Ptolemaic astronomy over Copernican and threatened Galileo for promoting it.

    Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:27pm

  317. BTW, thread getting a bit long, so "My Final Word"....

    we will see the FIFTIETH (50th) anniversary of the "Roe" decision in 2023...and nothing substantial will have changed.

    Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:29pm

  318. Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 1:29pm ::: Agreed. Let's lay it to rest I suppose....until the next Valenti post lol.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/28/2008 @ 1:53pm

  319. no this thread will not die!!!!!!!

    so, anybody keeping up on "Idol"?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 3:04pm

  320. damn time warp! i try to put end of thread comment and it goes on "up".

    no this thread will not die!!!!!!!

    so, anybody keeping up on "Idol"?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/28/2008 @ 3:04pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 3:05pm

  321. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/28/2008 @ 3:04pm

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/28/2008 @ 3:05pm

    Look, my page counter shows 9....full-term, time to ABORT this thread!

    Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 5:39pm

  322. Ha! 10th page!

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/28/2008 @ 6:23pm

  323. Um, Jessica. Your 30 day stint is almost up. You got one more article left in ya?

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/28/2008 @ 6:24pm

  324. Posted by HAPPY 01/28/2008 @ 5:39pm::: nope, see, page ten, aborting now would be infanticide. This thread now has all the rights and privileges of a full-fledged blog :) Isn't it cute??? awwww... goochie goo!!!

    Posted by jro555 at 01/28/2008 @ 10:10pm

  325. goochie goo!!!

    Posted by JRO555 01/28/2008 @ 10:10pm

    Alright, if Fritz & you insist, the `girl' lives....and WE won!

    Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 11:43pm

  326. Yes, right until before birth, a fetus is still dependent on the mother FOR LIFE, via umbilical cord. It still needs to be feed sustenance via umbilical cord, it still "breathes" via umbilical cord.

    I know this thread is trying to die, but I have 2 questions to ask...After the baby leaves the womb, but is still connected to the mother by the umbilical cord, is it still OK to "abort" the baby? After all, it is still dependent on the mother to live.

    Did you just state that it is in fact LIFE? If so, does it not have a RIGHT to it?

    (sorry if these questions have been asked and answered, but I'm not about to read through 10 pages)

    Posted by usc1 at 01/28/2008 @ 11:53pm

About the Authors

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Obama's "Finish the Job" Talk Sets Stage for Afghan Troop Surge | But Appropriations Committee chair Obey warns the move would "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."
John Nichols
Posted at 10:45 PM ET

» The Notion

Bad Black Mothers | For African American women, reproduction has never been an entirely private matter.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell
7 Comments
Posted at 7:59 PM ET

» The Dreyfuss Report

A Kingdom of Bicycles No Longer | China's ambassador for climate change speaks on the eve of the Copenhagen summit meeting.
Robert Dreyfuss
39 Comments

» Act Now!

Coal Country | "This is a civil war."
Peter Rothberg
83 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Around the Nation | The week we went Rouge. Plus, Moyers on Afghanistan.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
114 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman