Abortionists are heroes

My reaction to her comments are a derivation of the Love Story motto: Being extreme left means never having to say you're sorry.

I have known several women and girls who have had abortions. Every one of them said the same thing "I feel like I have no other choice..."
Pro-choice my a$$. These women feel backed into a corner with no way out.

Heartwarming -- that's the word I failed to come up with a few seconds ago. Abortion was portrayed as a heartwarming thing.

Backed into a corner of not being able to afford college. How could they NOT whack that sinister, quality of life ruining fetus?

GIITTV: Yes, considering we live in a country where where the poor people are fat. Your definition of "decent life" is in sore need of adjustment.

RB: huh?

But dub, *her* logic doesn't matter - it's much easier to judge her if they can frame her as an advocate for 'baby-murder'. You'll never get an absolutist to concede that anyone else's beliefs are valid, though it's clearly the crux of the matter. The intent of the woman carrying the fetus is paramount here. For a woman who wants to carry her child to term, that fetus is a baby from the moment she knows about it. It would absolutely be "killing a baby" to abort that woman's pregnancy. For a woman who has no intention of having a child, a fetus is little more than a nuisance, and no amount of hyperbole, threats, or attempts at shaming or guilting her into compliance will ever make that woman see the thing inside her as "a baby." I wish the anti-choice people could tell me exactly why it is they want to force people who don't even think of their fetuses as human to have and raise children. They must really hate kids.

True dat, Bob F - but that applied to "already born" blacks...

Pithy, to be sure, Norris, but your statement doesn't follow from the conversation at hand. What do gay activists have to do with abortion?

I thought you were a gay activist and I was "moved" by your posts on, er, ah, the unborn.

For a woman who has no intention of having a child, a fetus is little more than a nuisance, and no amount of hyperbole, threats, or attempts at shaming or guilting her into compliance will ever make that woman see the thing inside her as "a baby." This is pure subjectivism. It's pretty dangerous to base any moral standard on it. Either the fetus is a baby or it isn't. Whether or not it's a "nuisance" is irrelevant.

I was responding to Therese's post, not yours.
However, with that said, the homosexual marriage movement is based on equal treatment under the law with equal protections for all human beings, not codifying support of sodomy as it appears you believe from what I've gleaned from that comment. If that were the case, gay marriage would be moot and our ballot initiatives would have little "yes" and "no" checkboxes next to the question, "Is gay sex awesome?" Two different things my friend. And as for your "killing children as a personal choice" comment, you can't be killing children if an unborn fetus is not a child. Moot point. I was addressing Therese's comment which implied that homosexuals are dangerous because some have sex with no intention of having a child from it....just like the other groups I listed. Those untrustworthy folks out having sex with their partners for fun. Those types.

"However, with that said, the homosexual marriage movement is based on equal treatment under the law with equal protections for all human beings..." I know this is kind of drifting off-topic, and I don't mean to sound smarmy---those who campaign for gay marriage are usually for abortion, which does not treat "all human beings" (scientifically you cannot deny that a fetus is a "human being") with equal protection. It seems to me that the primary goal of most on that issue, then, is equal protection for all SEXUALITIES---explaining why the same people who support abortion support gay marriage. God bless.

Joey,
It's not responsible to say that "scientifically you cannot deny that a fetus is a "human being." It's not responsible because it's not true. It has qualities that will allow it to become a human being, but a human being it is not, and no amount of science (as much as we liberals love love love it!) can unequivocally determine what constitutes a human being. That is opinion and that is impossible to prove with science. So my original contention about the gay marriage movement would still be the one I stick with, because like another poster had mentioned -- the two topics are completely not intertwined.

Norris, The thing is (the whole crux of every abortion debate, including this one revolving around Marcotte's insistence that it's "good") that there isn't even a starting point to the conversation. You say every abortion kills children. I say none do. We're not even on the same planet as far as this debate goes to start having it, because we are essentially not even talking about the same thing because we fundamentally see an abortion in two completely different, uncompatible ways.
Thanks for your comments though.

dub, Agreed. BTW, what's the color of the sky on your planet? ;-)

It's not responsible because it's not true. It has qualities that will allow it to become a human being, but a human being it is not, and no amount of science (as much as we liberals love love love it!) can unequivocally determine what constitutes a human being. That is opinion and that is impossible to prove with science. Assuming that "human being" covers a life forms such as a 30 year old man, a 30 minute old baby, and a variety of people with various handicaps and ailments, what qualities set apart the "fetus" from those who have "become a human being"?

Abortionists are heroes. They are living breathing people just like you and me. And in some cases the decision is a rational, safe and humane choice. Far be it for you, a safe, secure, white upper class white male to decide what someone does with their violated body in crisis. If a priest can be a hero then an abortionist can be one as well.

I think the entire abortion issue is too complex and personal to form a one-sided, solid opinion about. That s why I choose to have more faith in humanity, to trust in people s self-knowledge and ability to form individual right choices. This is not a one opinion fits all issue; it is not so black & white.
Norris Harrington: If ignorance is bliss you must already be in heaven.

Mr. Godwin, your table is ready.

Ah yes, the miscegenation argument. Well, Grace, I covered that point in my blog some time back. An excerpt... ****** It's important to realize that we all have legal and moral standing in society because we are human. To deny that standing because of skin color is unjust because that which makes us human is not skin color.
The analogy of skin color and sex ultimately fails because while others have denied the humanity of people based on skin color, I do not deny the humanity of homosexual activists. Rather, I deny that genitalia are irrelevant in matters of sexual relations. Lesbians and homosexual men are fully human, but men and women are not interchangeable. While skin color is irrelevant regarding the humanity of a man, his genitalia are not irrelevant regarding his being a man. Or more importantly, the genitalia of his mate are not irrelevant regarding their mating, and by extension, their marrying. Of course the po-mo gender studies crowd will pull out their magnifying glasses and cry, "But we have transgendered persons who're neither man nor woman!" (I'm secretly pleased that "transgendered" is not recognized by the MS Word spellchecker.)

Norris Harrington: You are showing a sad stereotype of homosexual-obsession with the Radical Right. In case you were not paying attention, this discussion is about Abortion not the GLBT community. Please, stop flaunting your obsession with gay people and gay-sex with us. That is not what we are trying to discuss.

Max Schadenfreude Put it on? That would imply that it ever comes off. ;-)

When I had my oldest son U was single and ended up spending time in a half way house for single moms and their kids. While I was there, I was suprised to find that probably 75% of the moms there had had an abortion prior to becoming pregnant with the child they took to term. Totally anecdotal, but I would be willing to guess that the rate of women who have abortions who experience another unplanned pregnancy within 5 years is pretty high. Also, given the ever rising rates of illegitimacy, it seems unlikely that abortion is having the net result of reducing suprise babies.

Nightlad, "Homosexual-obsession with the Radical Right" you say? Hmm. So homsexuals are obsessed with the Radical Right? Tragic. Perhaps they've surpressed their rational faculty for so many years so as to fit in that they lash out the way they do. That's IT! Gays should come out of the Conservative Closet and reclaim their rationality! In the meantime Nightlad, you may have been the room monitor when the teacher left the room, but your not in charge here.

Scrappy, The problem is, that even though I've been lurking here and finally posted on the comments the other day -- it's not like this is the first time I've had this conversation. It's not the first group of people I've had it with. They aren't new questions. We all know what questions everyone will ask, and we all know what answers everyone will give. It's tiresome. No amount of talking it out or discussing timelines will make anyone change their mind -- as such it has strayed from my intent with my original posting, that nobody is considering the logic in why Marcotte posts what she does, and why the subsequent reactions are really fruitless because they don't address where she is coming from in the first place.

Norris, I certainly think so.
I honestly had no idea who she was until this whole "thing" happened. I read one of the other bloggers from Pandagon's site (Pam's House Blend), but never knew Marcotte. Obviously she's politically motivated and is a hard-core left-winger, but I find that I enjoy reading her blogs most of the time. I just look at the whole brouhaha this way -- if she would have written the things she had written about Islam, they'd be making way for a new columnist in every paper that carries Ann Coulter. The whole blowup was a big case of some people being able to love those who dish it out, but can't manage to take it. And I'm thankful that I've got Pandagon on my bookmarks now, for sure.

Oh golly - where do I start? How about the easy ones: I thought you were a gay activist and I was "moved" by your posts on, er, ah, the unborn. I may be gay, and I may be an activist, but I am in no way a "gay activist" in the sense in which Norris used the term. This is pure subjectivism. It's pretty dangerous to base any moral standard on it. Either the fetus is a baby or it isn't. Whether or not it's a "nuisance" is irrelevant. See, this entire debate hinges on two things: Authority and Framing. When speaking of any personal sin, one *must* speak subjectively if one is to engage with reality. For the only truly relevant parties in the debate surrounding abortion, what they subjectively experience and believe is all that matters at the moment the decision is made. Now, you and millions of others may believe objectively that abortion is murder. What does that belief have to do with Sally Example, senior in High School, straight-A student with aspirations for college whose boyfriend got a little clumsy with the condom on prom night?
Subjectively, her world is over unless she terminates that pregnancy. Is she selfish for thinking that way? Sure she is. Is she making a mistake?
Even objectively, with all things considered, she's absolutely not making a mistake from a purely utilitarian point of view. Thing is, no one gets to decide for her but her. Subjectivity is all there is because for every conglomo-statistic that people bandy about, there are millions and millions of individuals with their own lives, their own concerns and their own senses of what is right or wrong for them. No one has the authority or the capability to frame reality for them.

My point is, giittv, that "wal-mart wage slaves" have plenty to eat, rendering your "decent life" argument invalid. A "decent life" requires food on the table and new shoes every now and then, not a 2500 square foot house and a new car every five years. To take a life out of materialism...even the god in the tv wouldn't like that. I understand your point now, and I can only say, in light of the post I just completed above, there's more to success in life than having food. There's the dignity in working for one's self instead of slaving for a hellish operation like Wal-Mart.
What if Sally Example above is best suited to being a biochemist and knows it? Would relgating her to servitude because of a single, easily rectifiable mistake be "right?" By whose authority?

But GIITV, your Sally is only a *potential* biochemist. We may, in our simple philosophies, believe that one day Sally will be a biochemist, but we don't really know, do we? There are lots of potential biochemists in the world, but only a relative few go on to become *actual* biochemists. So, our concerns about Sally's potential should never allow us to forget that it's only *potential* and not reality. Or, at least, that's what my pro-abortion acquaintances say when they insist that unborn humans are only *potential* life...

I find the "life begins at conception" notion as laughably ridiculous as you find my statement. Perhaps, but just because you find the right side of the aisle to be laughably ridiculous doesn't mean that you need to do the same on the opposite side of the aisle.
This is a serious topic. Perhaps if prochoice people could show that they can give serious consideration to womb life at some stage, then the prolife people might start to show some consideration towards the situations/problems that make women choose to abort womb life. I've chosen the fetus(10 weeks) to be that point. You may choose another point, but to say that there is no middle point-that a mother can do anything she wants up to the point the fetus takes the first breath, only makes the issue more difficult for women who want to preserve choice. The AMA doesn't agree with you. Physicians have guidelines that they must follow. They aren't permitted to abort a fetus after a certain stage unless the life of the mother is at risk. If nothing else, stick to AMA guidelines.

Most, if not all, would recognize that they are ending a human life. What's up with you? So Watsy, if most people recognize the 22 month fetus as a human life, how can we possibly sanction killing it? Can pre-meditated murder possibly be justified? I'm really not trying to be provocative here but it is hard for me to understand your position because you hardly strike me as a utilitarian.
Now Camille Paglia readily admits to the fetus as a human being and abortion as murder but considers the right to that murder important to preserve female equality. Is that your postion? She also believes that a woman who has an abortion does great harm to herself as well and should be advised as such. This is in keeping with a utilitarian viewpoint. It is rational but generally unacceptable to Christians historically or theologically.

Erin -
That was glib, and frankly it was beneath you. The main idea of that post was that in the moment the decision to view a pregnancy as a blessing or a curse, the only opinion that makes one bit of difference is the pregnant woman. If you want to stop abortion, change minds. As dub so succinctly pointed out, it's gonna be an uphill battle for you folks who wish to convince us that choice isn't relevant.

Well, holocaust is a loaded word... Can someone out there fill in the numbers for me: Numbers of innocents murdered in the past 100 years: A) Jews B) Homosexuals C) Fetuses

Last post was an answer to SiliconValleySteve.

Who's Marcotte? OH, the MINX. Quite right. That story is SOOO Anna Nicole Smith.

Easy answers for ya Scrappy: A) More than 6 million at last count. B) Probably less than 6 million at last count, though who knows? C) None.

I see it as a health issue and balancing the right's of womb life with the right of women, with the advice of the physician, to decide what's best for her life in terms of preserving her health. You are well within your rights to see it that way, watsy. I'm glad that works for you. What you, or I think, or anyone else other than the person making the decision about bringing their pregnancy to term is simply irrelevant. Abstracts and generalities are all I read and hear on this subject. If there have been 40 million abortions, then there are 40 million proofs for us all that we have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Hey Turbo! That's got a nice sound to it.

Sorry Scrappy, I'm not falling for your equivalence fallacy. All of those Jews were people. None of those fetuses were. Unless, of course, words stop meaning what words mean.

Watsy, Physicians have guidelines that they must follow. They aren't permitted to abort a fetus after a certain stage unless the life of the mother is at risk. If nothing else, stick to AMA guidelines. The point is that the pro-life intent is to supercede physician guidelines and impose "moral" standards on abortion. I wonder, should such a thing come to pass, if it will be considered rude to keep statistics on the number of de facto double murders of women who die along with their life-threatening fetuses that the moral law refuses to be aborted. I doubt that the AMA will like it much, either.

giitv, What makes the Jews people and the fetuses not? dub says "birth". What do you say?

It's my feeling that we should not have surgical abortions unless the mother;s health is at stake. I feel that this is a human rights issue. A fetus begins to develop brain cells 14 days or so after conception, and thus in my opinion, is a person after that point because at least in theory it might be aware of its existence. I would allow the morning after pill, however, because it can be use before neural development.
I don't know how the issue of gay equality has entered this discussion, but I also feel that this is a human rights issue and that gays are entitled to equality under the law with at least civil unions that have all of the legal rights of marriage as we have here in Vermont.
Just my $.02

How, exactly, does pregnancy destroy Sally's life, or end her dreams? You miss my point - it doesn't *matter* whether it *will* have those effects if Sally *perceives* that it will. You talk of stopping the act of abortion. The only way to do that is to stop the decision to abort. Whether Sally is right or wrong, morally, as the result of her decision is moot. No one makes it but her. News flash: 95% of women will have no problems whatsoever with pregnancy, which means they can continue to go to college, work at meaningful jobs, and enjoy life even during those nine months when there's another human developing inside of them. So far as they decide to become mothers, all of that is true. What does that have to do with Sally? If Sally doesn't want to be a mother, she can give the baby up for adoption. It's not your place to force her to incubate someone else's child. But what galls me about this argument is that some of you seem to think that nine months of minor inconvenience is too much to pay for a new human life. "Minor inconvenience" is in the eye of the beholder, and unless it's your uterus beholding that fetus, it's a moot point.

"The analogy of skin color and sex ultimately fails because while others have denied the humanity of people based on skin color, I do not deny the humanity of homosexual activists." Miscegenation laws didn't deny that blacks (or whites for that matter) were human. It merely was based on the fact that God supposedly separated the races and intended them to remain that way. They were (in theory if not in practice) SEPARATE BUT EQUAL. Mind you, it was all based on nonsense and people's pointless disapproval. "Rather, I deny that genitalia are irrelevant in matters of sexual relations. Lesbians and homosexual men are fully human, but men and women are not interchangeable." No one's claiming anything of the sort. However, a black man in love with a specific white woman will find any other "replacement" for her unsatisfactory. Similarly, a man in love with a specific man. Aside from convenient religious convictions based on underlying bigotry and pseudo-science, what reason is there in civil law do deny either of these imaginary couples civil marriage rights?
"Or more importantly, the genitalia of his mate are not irrelevant regarding their mating, and by extension, their marrying." Pffft. So a man in an accident who has no more genatalia is unfit for marriage? Sex or fertility are not prerequisites for civil marriage, nor do they a marriage make. "Of course the po-mo gender studies crowd will pull out their magnifying glasses and cry, "But we have transgendered persons who're neither man nor woman!" (I'm secretly pleased that "transgendered" is not recognized by the MS Word spellchecker.)" There are truly biologically intersexed (meaning, you can't tell by looking) people born every day. I wonder how you'd fit these people into your narrow equations of human relationships.

Grace, For one thing, I do not argue from scripture or from religious tradition in these matters. At least give me credit to realize such arguments mean nothing to non-belivers. People, even you, do indeed argue that men and women are interchangable as regards mating and marriage as soon as you advocate that "gay marriage" (an oxymoron) is something for which to advocate. As far as hermaphrodits and such, I am reminded of a baby born without legs. Just because she has no legs it does not follow that nature did not intend for her to walk. Similarly, just because a man seeks to mate with a man, it does not follow that nature did not intend for him something else entirely. Many feminists, and also gay activists, argue against the nature of biology. Thus the famous phrase, "Biology is not destiny." And I think how one concludes regarding nature and biology (as organic) really sets the mold for subsequent conclusions regarding sodomy and tribadism. Grace, regarding marriage, I have four questions I would like you to answer. 1) Please give a comprehensive yet concise definition of marriage as you define the term? 2) What purpose, if any, does marriage serve the common good? 3) What limits, if any, are there regarding marriage? 4) What are the principles of such limits?
Best,

There is one argument that has really not been discussed yet. Having a baby compleatly changes your body, it's not like it pops, you can give it up for adoption and life just goes on. I personally don't like abortion. I do see it as killing a potential life, but I'm not going to tell another woman what she can do with her body. I'm in college right now and unemployed. If I got pregnant I would have to drop out, I doubt a pregnant 18 year old would be able to find a job, especually since after a few months it would show and eventually I wouldn't be able to work anymore for a while. My boyfriend would also either have to drop out of his school for a low paying full time job or try to do both. The baby would come into this world with parents who aren't ready or able to support it. I can almost gaurentee that child with not grow up to be a stable adult.
An abortion would seem like the smarter idea here, but I personally couldn't do it and I couldn't bring a child to term and then let it go. I know myself to well. Thats why im on the pill, but alot of girls aren't.
I coulnd't imagine bringing a baby into this world unless it is wanted, and I dont think anyone should have to. You need to think about the needs of the already living before you adress the ones that aren't yet born.

Norris--I won't speak for Grace, but I'll take a stab at your questions: 1) An intimate (emotionally, physically, and spiritually) and ideally lifelong relationship between two consenting persons above the age of majority, not related by blood within the prohibited range of consanguinity. 2) Marriage serves the common good not only because it provides stable families for the children that will undoubtedly result from most of them, but because (again, ideally) it provides a context for two people to build a family--a place where they belong. People who feel that they belong somewhere--are "rooted", if you will--have a stake in society and making it good.
3) Marriage should be limited to two people, able to consent by virtue of mental capacity and age above the majority (14-year-olds should not get married, no matter how pregnant they are), and not related by blood within the prohibited range of consanguinity. 4) The reasons for these limits? Here's where we get to the part of debunking the whole, "if you allow gay marriage, people will marry their pet rocks!" business. It's about the concept of sexual orientation. Healthy adults come in three general varieties (although there's plenty of gray areas in between)--heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual. Heterosexuals are by far the most numerous, as one would expect, given nature's desire for us to perpetuate ourselves. However, gay and bisexual folks have always been around, and we come from every imaginable walk of life, as well as from all kinds of families. Given that, it's hard to think of a logical explanation for homosexuality in humans that isn't grounded in biology. My partner and I were brought up very differently, and both of us realized we were gay in our teens. Opening marriage to same-sex couples actually provides a logical ending point, not an abyss where everything's allowed, and here's why: Find me someone who can argue--with a straight face--that he or she is only attracted to multiple people at once, and therefore can only marry two or more people. Find me someone who is only attracted to close relatives--the closer the better. Of course, you can find people who are attracted to children or animals, but those desires are pathological, and not just because I say so. They are because children and animals cannot consent to the sexual desires of an adult human, and those encounters are therefore exploitative--and dare I say, evil.
I understand that an orthodox understanding of Christianity renders sexual orientation (somewhat) irrelevant, because homosexual activity is in contravention to certain Biblical teachings. I am a Christian, but not an orthodox one, so I won't attempt to speak to that. If that issue is the breaking point for someone, I understand that--it's honest. Aside from religious faith, though, I don't see a logical reason to oppose same-sex marriage other than the "yuck factor": Gay stuff is yucky--I don't wanna do that! Then don't. No one will make you, regardless of what they publish in the Onion. And Norris--if you're going to make an argument about the unitive nature of heterosexual sex, let me say this--unless you're making a religious argument, the unitive nature of that act is subjective. It is unitive--for the vast majority of people who are heterosexual. It is not for those of us with a different sexual orientation (at least those of "us" whom I know). I do find this to be an interesting discussion, and if it can be conducted respectfully, I hope to continue it.

Watsy, thank you very much. I wasn't sure if it was you who would come up with it, but it's that very sort of balanced statement that is missing from most of the debate, both here and in society-at-large. I can, personally, tolerate legislation about abortion if it is clear on all aspects of it: protection of the newborn in any adoption process (anyone who thinks newborns don't need protection is at best naive); protection of the civil rights of the mother (it's time to remove the punishment power of families and faiths in this area, especially when she is still legally a minor); legal liability placed on the father, especially in coercive situations (which must also recognize the consent of women still legally minors)... I could go on, but that's the point: this is a complex issue demanding complex solutions. To ignore any aspect of the complexity removes your (general) right to have anything to say on the matter, in my never humble opinion of course. And if I may be so bold, the crux of the conflict is this: religion (in my mind, and for my society, Christianity) refuses to step aside and let medical science do its job. With all due respect to Erin, it is precisely the AMA's responsibility and should remain theirs to enforce medical standards. Legislation is subject to non-scientific, emotional and political agendas. One does not compromise with science. One makes a decision based on science, or one gets the hell out of the way. Please forgive my passion on this, but "belief" has nothing to do with the medical facts of gestation, labor and birth. You (general) don't have to like it; I've been in situations where I hated it. That's not the point. When it comes to medical intervention, we either trust them in their training and experience, or we go the way of the Christian Scientists. Only a scientist can second-guess another scientist; it's called peer review, it is a formal and critical component of the scientific method, and that they sometimes come up with decisions that you (general) don't like is just too damn bad. Talk to a doctor just after he's informed a family that there's nothing more to be done... ask him how much he enjoys it. :(

I am about as pro-life as one can get...I believe that life begins at conception and all life within the womb is worthy of protection. However, I also have an incredible amount of compassion for women facing unplanned pregnancies. That's why I volunteered for awhile at a Pro-Life clinic that focused on offering practical help to those choosing to carry their babies to term. We were clearly instructed to talk to these women with the love and compassion that our Lord would offer them. We talked to those who were abortion minded about the facts and risks (medical and emotional) that go along with abortion. We were instructed never to use "scare tactics" and to use only scientifically accurate terms. We also offered post-abortion counseling and support groups because, whether society likes to admit it or not, abortion can leave incredible emotional and mental scars. My point is that, I do believe that Pro-life people should be willing to do more than just talk about our opinions. We should stand ready to be the hands and feet of Jesus and walk along side these scared women and help them in their time of need. When I picture Jesus approaching a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy, I see no condemnation or words of accusation. I see Him gathering her in His arms speaking softly to her and then helping her to make the right choice...Life for her child, whether in her own home or in the home of adoptive parents. You see, compassion and love can be combined with attempts to protect the unborn. Also, let's not forget that most of these women have made a choice that put them in their position...the choice to have sex in the first place. In my mind, that's where a woman exercises her right to choose. If she chooses to have sex, regardless of the possible consequences (even using fallable contraception) then she assumes the risk that goes along with it. Aborting an innocent child is, in my opinion, not a legitimate "choice" for her. (Note: I realize that some women are pregnant by virtue of sex that they did not choose, but that is a minority, as we all know). Therefore, all teens should be educated about sex, contraception (and its shortcomings)and everything else that goes along in this arena. Erica Erica

Just think of all the trouble we would save ourselves if we could, as a civilization, get over this silly idea that there is something wrong with killing people.

mitch s. summed up the entire argument perfectly. it worked for bush, it works for gay marriage, it works for abortion. It boils down to the 'with us or against us' mantra so loved at this moment by the right: if you do not agree with our Christian definition of everything, you are wrong. Mitch has furthered it to, not only wrong, but the only reasonable explanation has to be demonic possession. I don't hate you Mitch, despite your preface. I just find it a ridiculous jump in reasoning (or lack of, possibly), but not one that is shocking given the sorts of things we on the left get called and accused of on a daily basis.
Just more ho-hum vile humdrum.

I still need to understand a scientific definition of person/human being. giitt tosses out rhetorical questions in lieu of an affirmative definition. dub says "birth". So, dub, is it the location (outside the mother's body) or the breathing on its own or something else I haven't thought of?

Scrappy, put 100 children born on the same day into a (very large) room. Measure their overall, group developmental level. Just to keep the measuring team sane, make them six years old. Guess what? It will be impossible to describe that level with one word. Perhaps you can explain why, all other things being equal, one six-week preemie will live and thrive, and another one will die despite everything modern medical science can offer. They both had the same gestation period, and I just defined them as being equal in every other way. Go on, explain it. You can't. You have valid viewpoints to offer, and valid arguments and rebuttals to make. If you find better questions, you might actually express them.

Frankin, I'm not sure I understand your point. I would say all 100 6 year olds are people. I would say both premies are people. If you say some are and some aren't, I'm just asking how you can tell one from the other. It doesn't need to be a point in time, it can be some sort of scientifically measurable attribute. Otherwise you might be accidentally killing someone that you *would* call a person.

I think he needs to know because the base question in this debate is not whether or not women have the right to choose abortion in the U.S. (if that were the question, there would be no debate) but rather SHOULD they have the right to abort. That's where the question "When does a fetus become a person" comes in. Many pro-lifers have said that they believe personhood begins at conception (me included) while other have picked other points (ie. Watsy's 10 weeks). Why are many pro-choice indivuals so loathe to draw a line in the sand?? Basically, we find the argument "we don't know when life/personhood begins in the womb, so let's just say that at no point is a fetus a person" doesn't wash as logical to us.

Erica, I (and many others) find the argument "a small group of cells at conception is human life" doesn't wash logical to me.

That is to say, the way you put it, it's called a straw man.

This is an argument... http://www.nordog.com/stemcell.html

I'm in the position of someone several posts above; a pro-lifer who is also for legalized gay marriage. Just to get this out of the way: Rod seems unaware that homosexuals were terminated in the Holocaust, not just Jews (as were political rivals, POWs, the handicapped, and a few others). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't science say that a fetus has different DNA than its mother? Does that not make it a separate entity, and ergo out of the mother's reach? In other words, it is not part of the mother's body, but rather residing within it for a fixed amount of time? It would be kinda like saying that because I live in my parent's home until I'm 18, they have the right to kill me.

OK, here we go, high school biology, people. Living organisms have cellular activity and division. Non-living organisms do not. (One could even argue that sperm and eggs are living cells and therefore should be treated with respect, but we re not going to go there. They are sex cells they only have of DNA and are produced in redundancy.)
If a live sperm meets a dead egg, nothing happens. Vice-versa, etc. However, when viable sperm meets a viable egg, they are no longer sex cells, they are complete live cells with complete DNA (barring any genetic defect) and they immediately begin to divide and grow. Now can somebody explain to me how this can possibly be non-living? Of course, the same is true for plants, animals and bacteria too, so the question really becomes what life is permissible by law to end. Certainly there are religions and philosophies that dictate that no life ought to be knowingly ended. In practice, this is nearly impossible to do. Thankfully, most civil societies at the very least have laws that prohibit the killing of other human beings, or else we might very well not be having this argument. So if this group of cells with complete DNA and cellular division happens to have human DNA, then could someone please explain to me how that group of cells would not be termed living human cells?
The next question, then, has to do with whether these human cells deserve the protection of law, since they are by definition alive and human. (Unless someone has a good answer to my two questions above ) This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are a nuisance, or whose business it is, or any other feminist nonsense passed off as an argument. There has to be some sort of consistency to the protection of human life. If it is permissible to terminate a living group of human cells, then it is not disingenuous to ask when in the development of this human it stops being permissible. If it is not permissible to terminate a baby that has been born, then it is not disingenuous to ask why it is permissible to terminate a baby that has not been born. It has been alive and human by definition since the DNA combined and began doing its work. True, it can t do long division, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Moral personhood by its own virtue, or moral personhood because we recognize it as such? My 3 year old does not possess what I would term moral personhood...unless I am not comprehending what you mean by the term. Or unless you are referring to what one must grant another in order to morally contravene the dismemberment of that other. Also, I think that either it is not clearly both human and alive to many "pro-choice" advocates, or they are squarely in denial. Or utterly disingenuous. In giving the benefit of the doubt, I tend to (naively) assume it is the first...

Wasn't there an old Catholic writing that talked about "the quickening" of a fetus in utero, and stating that abortion before that happened was acceptable? Seems to me that even way back in the way back people understood that fetus != person.

Nice try, Giitt. In 1974 the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith published a document on abortion, which stated: "In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine [that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development] - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous." So the short answer to your question about the permissibility of abortion before the "quickening" is, no. Of course science has progressed somewhat from the 13th century in its understanding of embryology and human development and the Church's teaching is now able to incorporate that knowledge more fully than before. As for your question about infallibility, which I assume you were serious about, the answer is again no. Catholics do not believe that everything the pope says is infallible, and certainly not in this example.

Of course science has progressed somewhat from the 13th century in its understanding of embryology and human development and the Church's teaching is now able to incorporate that knowledge more fully than before. What on earth does science have to do with a position on the indwelling of the soul in a fetus? You guys need to decide which hat you're going to wear in this debate - the scientific or the spiritual. They're mutually exclusive.

The DNA code unique to every single human being, is present at the moment of concepetion. And at death. Is it the pro-life position that DNA is "the soul?"

Giitt, For the sake of brevity I did not fully explain the basis for the Medieval understanding of ensoulment. It was based on an errant notion of how new life is created. He followed Aristotle's position that the new life was more or less contained in the semen, that the male provided the active principle of life. Aquinas wrote, "And after the sensitive soul, by the power of the active principle in the semen, has been produced in one of the principal parts of the thing generated, the sensitive soul of the offspring begins to work towards the perfection of its own body, by nourishment and growth. The active power which was in the semen ceases to exist when the semen is dissolved and its spirit vanishes." Clearly science has shown us that this is not right. Many scholars of Aquinas currently argue on philosophical grounds (too complicated to go into here) that Aquinas would likely have revised his position on ensoulment if he had the benefit of modern embryology.
The question of indwelling of the soul, therefore, is intimately tied to the proper scientific understanding of the development of life. Aquinas did not have the proper understanding that we now enjoy. It makes a difference. As for science and spirituality being mutually exclusive, I disagree. Pro-lifers can and should argue on both grounds, as it has become abundantly clear that the scientific evidence supports the notion that life begins at conception.

As for the notion that science has not reached a consensus on this, I'm not so sure. Robert George and others repeatedly point out that a survey of embryology textbooks locates the beginning of the human individual to be at fertilization. Here are some of his references. Bruce Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Biology (St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 2004); William J. Larsen, Human Embryology, 3rd ed. (2001); Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed. (2003); and Ronan O Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition (2000).

Franklin, thanks for your response. I agree that a discussion of ensoulment is completely beyond the realm of science. I wasn't trying to make a scientific claim for ensoulment, but rather show that the theological debate over ensoulment was based on a faulty scientific notions. Many theologians, Aquinas perhaps foremost, did not see science and faith as excluding each other. Rather, they believed that there was an order and rationality to God's creation and that human reason, though faulty, could learn a great deal of truth about this creation. So while scientists rightly may not want to consider theological issues, I think that theologians should not wish to consider scientific issues. I hope I'm expressing my point clearly.

Scrappy, we are not so far apart on a common ground here (I won't presume to suggest we are very close to agreement, grin), but choice is not a fallacy. It is morally ambiguous... which is why we are having such a spirited argument over it. It's not about me: it's not my uncertainty that is important (to anyone but me), it's the uncertainty of science. So long as you insist that science supports your moral claims, I (or someone like me) will be there to insist that some science supports you, and so long as you make an assertion where science does not, you are stepping beyond the scope of science. I stand with you at least in principle about erring on the side of caution. I will not, however, impose my caution on a woman who experiences pregnancy, is of adult and sound mind, and who is willing to make the (for her) moral decision to end the pregnancy. This is the central conflict of morality: if she is as convinced of her moral standing as you are of yours, who are you (general or specific) to arbitrarily dismiss her morals? The answer, if you'll forgive my seeming incivility, if for you to just ante up and say it outright: no woman is permitted to make her own moral choice, and furthermore the moral choice belongs to [fill-in-the-blank], and anyone who doesn't like it can lump it, or be punished according to the laws that morality decides are appropriate. That, Scrappy, is tyranny. You can call it benign if you wish (and I won't deny you that), but you must go beyond the morals and face the consequences. That tyranny is an imposition on the physical integrity of women. You cannot get around it.

Franklin, I agree with your modification. I just wish I knew more about the state of uncertainty in the scientific world on this matter. George and others feel confident enough to assert that there in fact is a consensus within the scientific community about when life begins. I can't say whether or not this is right, and I find it easy to believe that some scientists may reject those claims and argue that life begins at another point, but I'd like to know their arguments.

Franklin, I was with you until you put words in my mouth in paragraphs three and four. Indeed it's not about you, it's about the woman making the decision. But you are the one who is here articulating what you believe to be the basis of a possible justification for abortion. I can (and will) confine future comments as addressed to "the woman" instead of to "you". Others here have been very articulate in making the affimative pro-life case. I've been trying to probe the rationale of the pro-choice case.
I think we are probably all in agreement that killing people is a bad thing. Bad enough that, for example, it trumps the alleged property rights of slaveowners or the political rights of pre-war Germany. The woman has plenty of rights. But, substitute "3 month old baby" for "fetus" and then tell me about her rights. Again, this is why an affirmative argument for why the fetus is not comparable to a 3 month old baby is so important to your argument. It seems that you subscribe to the idea that one person shouldn't impose their morality on another person. Do you see the Civil War as immoral because one group imposed its morality about slavery on another group? Or does the personhood of the victims trump the freedom of choice of the slaveowners? Sorry to be repetitive, but if the woman, like you, believes in erring on the side of caution, she must either dismiss the personhood of the fetus or calculate the weight of its basic human right to life against her right to freedom of choice.

Franklin says: The answer, if you'll forgive my seeming incivility, if for you to just ante up and say it outright: no woman is permitted to make her own moral choice, and furthermore the moral choice belongs to [fill-in-the-blank], and anyone who doesn't like it can lump it, or be punished according to the laws that morality decides are appropriate. That, Scrappy, is tyranny. You can call it benign if you wish (and I won't deny you that), but you must go beyond the morals and face the consequences. That tyranny is an imposition on the physical integrity of women. You cannot get around it. Huh??? All laws since the beginning of society have been based on one standard or another of morality, of what is right and what is wrong. Without them, you have chaos, not society. I guess it is much easier for all parties to agree that stealing is wrong than it is in matters of taking lives. Either way, I think most sane human beings will agree that it is not tyranny to make murder punishable by law.
Now, if a woman kills her abusive husband, we will probably all agree that she was free to choose to do that (not to mention justified ), irrespective of the fact that there does indeed exist a law against killing. She may receive a less harsh punishment under the circumstances, but she has still broken the law. None of this pro- or anti- abortion argument has the slightest thing to do with either right to choose or tyranny . Both are merely shadows that obstruct true reason. A woman will inevitably choose at some point to take good care of her born or unborn children, or she will choose to neglect or even abuse or kill them. No one is disputing that. Her right to make that choice is manifest in her biological motherhood. That right does not free her from any legal or moral consequences of her choice, as determined by the laws of the society she lives in.
Long ago, changing societies because of tyrannical laws was unthinkable; nowadays it is not. So, since our current system of law derives its mandate from the masses (thank you Monty Python), and if the majority (not the judges ) says that abortion is immoral and illegal, a woman is still entirely free to choose to have an abortion, but she will have to risk suffering the consequences if she does. Or she can choose to live somewhere else, where abortion is legal. That is the way it worked prior to Roe V. Wade. There s absolutely not a thing tyrannical about it.

Scrappy, I offer a heartfelt apology that you took those paragraphs as putting words in your mouth. I am sensitive to that myself. I had no intention of doing it, nor would I to you or anyone else. I regret that my choice of phrasing came across that way. The "substitution" game is, if you'll forgive again my incivility, both lazy and lacking in fundamental concepts. There are substantive differences between a 3-month-old baby and an embryo. I know your original statement used fetus, please bear with me. The problem is many-fold. The moral process, however, is simple: All of the following questions are intended to be rhetorical, in service to my point. 1) A woman gets pregnant in a variety of combinations of intent, consent and desire. Are you willing to impose a blanket law on all conceptions in the uterus? If not, please list the exceptions. 2) Medical science has mapped gestation very precisely. Any given pregnancy is going to exhibit a variation on the map, small and irrelevant, large and of major consequence to the health of the developing child, the mother or both. Are you intending to impose a blanket law on the entire gestation, regardless of variation? If not, please list the exceptions. 3) Medical science has not, yet, determined when -- or even if -- a developing child obtains the functions of sentience prior to birth. I'm talking about the complex interactions and responses of the mind, not the low-level neurological functions. Every organism experiences pain; only humans, for example, will deliberately seek out pain; while you and I may not call that intelligent, it is a measurement of sentience. Are you intending to have a law that makes an essentially arbitrary decision about when sentience begins? I am rightly accused of being longwinded, so I'll stop there, but please don't take omission for any intent to limit the discussion or the decision process to what I've written above. I seek to illustrate why this complex issue of abortion cannot be decided solely by politicians, must not allow emotional investment to pick and choose the science that supports it, and in the end it must do more than pay lip service to the moral sensibility and integrity of women.

Franklin, I will address your points despite the fact that they are extraneous to the issue at hand. That prior to Roe v. Wade women sought abortions in about the same numbers as after that decision. I don t know what your source is for these statistics; the only thing that I find are statistics that appear to have an upward trend from 1973 onward. I could toss the statistic at you that there are significantly higher numbers of women who have had three or more abortions now, compared to almost none then; however, neither statistic has any weight in the decision whether the act is right or wrong, and whether it should be legally permissible (and covered by insurance, etc .hmm, now there s an interesting thought think how much money there is at stake here ). Some were permanently scarred, injured, sterilized and/or killed during procedures that barely deserve to be called procedures. I have heard that too. I have also heard about people getting AIDS from sharing hypodermic needles, all the lives lost to overdoses, etc. All very regrettable, I agree, but still irrelevant to the intrinsic morality of the act. That even after Roe v. Wade, most places (decreasing in number over time, since) also continued to outlaw contraception. ??? I don t know what sort of response you are searching for. According to the Constitution, this is within their province
That our culture continues to have a significant portion of it who both refuse to have public education in sex and human reproduction, and refuse to provide it to their children outside of school. Again, this is really the province of the parent, and it is within their legal, constitutional right to choose how to teach their children about such subjects. There exists no evidence that shows that any amount of this highly-touted sex education has had any positive effect, though there are many who like to claim it has.
Personally, I am not entirely sure how having high school kids race to see who can put the condom on the banana fastest is supposed to discourage them from having sex. But then, I guess I m terribly old-fashioned to think that high school kids should be discouraged from having sex
That as a society, we continue to have not one direct law that places liability and responsibility on the man who makes the woman pregnant; that the only time such a thing happens, is after the woman presses both criminal and civil charges. If you can explain to me a way that this is any more legally viable than proposing castration for repeat rapists, please let me know. I'd like to see discussion on the fact that when a girl or woman from a sexually repressive family gets pregnant, she generally gets punished by the family. Having consensual sex and getting pregnant are not currently on the books as crimes. Do those girls and women deserve some sort of legal protection from their families? OK, here we re treading on gender issues that predate the chastity belt
How about if we come full circle and talk about how proud Marcotte s parents must be of her literary prowess

"That as a society, we continue to have not one direct law that places liability and responsibility on the man who makes the woman pregnant; that the only time such a thing happens, is after the woman presses both criminal and civil charges." This is simply not true. The woman may need to notify county authority to enforce the father's liability and responsibility, but he is indeed automatically and statutorily responsible in the various states of the nation (this is a state issue, not a national one). Interestingly, this issue touches on an inherent disparity in the law wrought by RvW that is rarely discussed: Fathers have no right to the lives of their children if the mother decides to terminate; nor do the have the right, as does the mother, to renounce paternal responsibilities if such responsibilities might interfere with career, mental health & wellbeing, or if they are certain they'll be a rotten parent (better to terminate the poor bastard than let them have a rotten upbringing doncha know). Typically in family law the father has next to no rights and lots of responsibility. And even the rights he has (visitation) are next to impossible to enforce. The government can garnish a father's wages, but how do you garnish a child for the weekend? Again, your statement is so self-evidently wrong, prima facie, that I wonder if you were really thinking about what you wrote.

Erin, Moral relativism is indeed a problem, and I acknowledge it thus: even while the woman getting the abortion considers it a moral choice, we must continue to have the viewpoints of those who find it immoral. The question I'm asking is the one that ratiocination and Norris either don't see or don't want to address: at what point do we draw the line when we legislate morality? If the US Civil War had never happened, if slavery had remained a legally valid mode of industry, we'd be having this same discussion about abolition and slave ownership, though I can't escape the cynical view that those of us on the abolition side would likely be doing so anonymously. The penchant for violence is there; just as there has been a very small number of people who believe "abortionists" deserve death, I can imagine a few slave owners needing to "protect" themselves from abolitionists, and choosing violence to do so. I do not deny the need for the debate. Your heartfelt (and received!) observation of the arbitrary nature of things does not change a heartless fact: law does not leave room for feelings. I had that rubbed in my face last month, when I sat on a jury for a rape trial: the prosecution did such a poor job of making the case, we had no choice but to find the defendant not guilty, no matter how much we were sure that the girl was telling the truth about some things. We sat for three hours with one holdout (verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous on all charges); it broke my heart to participate in that persuasion. The law is clear. It can seem arbitrary. That's why we have positive values against taking the law into one's own hands, and why legislation is required to remedy the abortion situation. It sucks that this is a political football. We need representatives that will honestly and openly work this issue, not people who will posture and declaim in order to get votes, then will bow to expediency when we put them in office.

Because you've set up the mother as the sole and total moral authority in this issue, you've said no, abortion can never be wrong. Well, Erin, if I did that I apologize, because it simply is not true. The woman's ob/gyn is integral to the decision process. He or she is responsible for informing the mother of all the details and ramifications. No one, myself or anyone else, has denied that science is important to the moral decision each woman makes. If you are not familiar with it, please look up the logical fallacy called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. I reject the argument that if we agree that some abortions are wrong (and we do, in fact, have that agreement!), that all must therefore be wrong. The word does not make the thing. I sense deep and difficult feelings in you Erin, and I truly want to respect them, but I expected better from you than to suggest that the term "baby shower" somehow, by itself, lends power to labelling the fetus or embryo.

Norris, do you have an answer to the third question in the post I addressed to Scrappy? Let me put it another way: some unknown but finite period of time will elapse, and science will make a determination on when during gestation, if at all, sentience begins. Are you willing to bet that this determination will match your prohibition of all abortions because it is the "murder" of an "innocent human being"? Or is your belief (however arrived at) enough? I'm not trying to make this a trick question. Answer it (or not) as you wish.

Norris, Please take "you" to include the general case. It is not my intention to be confrontational here with you. Do take it as my statement of interest in your personal response. Say you've convinced me. I'm a reasonable guy (despite appearances; I do tend to let my passion color my writing). You still have a large obstacle, as defined in my secondary question: do you write the law to be arbitrary (no abortions, no matter what, end of discussion), or do you do the work and provide objective justifications? I can respect your moral response (and I do), but you can't get away with legislating morality on its own. If nothing else, the precedents will get you sooner or later. I'm not denying you the writing of an anti-abortion law. I am challenging you to write one that addresses the full spectrum of issues raised. Right now, "privation of rationality" (I plan to research the term, it's a good one) is precisely the justification for termination of life, from the intense Terry Schiavo case right on down to the unsung "unpluggings" that happen every day. Set the feelings aside, and address this issue of law. Others will be waiting to trip you up every step of the way. Here's one that comes to mind immediately: there is no rational assumption that permits equating lack of rational thought and blindness or physical handicap. One can easily be rational whilst being blind and lame.

SquirleyWurley, you're not so squirrelly. :) What you say makes a lot of sense to me.

Erin, I knew there was more. No apology needed; I just needed to see your clarification. When you ask for the "objective reality", I ask for your forbearance with my blunt response: a "baby" is the subjective reality, a "fetus" or "embryo" is the objective reality. I have long cringed every time someone uses the term "unborn child" in what is intended to be an objective context. I've stopped getting angsted about it, confronting the speaker/writer with "the correct term is fetus". The debate needs to happen, and my insistance on precision of language is not going to serve that debate. That's one aspect of my strong feelings about this. So, I think the question you need to ask (a phrasing suggestion, not a denial) looks something like this: What value is placed on the fetus, and whose value system is going to place that value? Possible responses (together comprising a spectrum, rather than in opposition to each other): Science looks at the physical development, viability, the health of the embryo/fetus as well as the mother's health, and whether known risks have been either mitigated or prepared for. Society looks at the embryo/fetus/child, and judges the worth of that entity at each stage according to values it decides are important. When society has no such value system, it falls upon the next, lower (as in smaller in scope) grouping that is willing to step forward and declare a value system. The individual woman looks at the process from the inside. She has her feelings, responses and reactions. When you say [...] I can't identify myself with the sort of woman who can look at that image, shrug, and say, "Kill that thing; I don't want it...", you have to ask yourself a question right on the heels of that (failure of) identification: am I willing to impose my responses and reactions on that other woman. When your answer is yes, the next step is to see that action in light of the values of society. If society agrees with your action, it will support it. If society disagrees, it will block you. Personally, I have much sympathy for your reaction of "horrific". You asked me (by implication) to answer the issues objectively. Objectivity leaves no room for "horrific". I don't know what that's worth in this discussion, but I do know one thing for sure: you are opposing the biggest, most heartless, most impersonal force known to humanity -- a society that has no unifying identity -- and abortion is not the only hot issue that suffers because of that.

I don't mean to interrupt this very interesting dialog between Franklin and Erin, but re ratiocination's comment above that There exists no evidence that shows that any amount of this highly-touted sex education has had any positive effect, though there are many who like to claim it has, apparently there is, in fact, some evidence. http://www.webmd.com/content/article/129/117331.htm The article is entitled "World Sex Survey Reveals Surprises." The survey is posted by colleagues from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Relevant quote: School-based sexual education delays and does not hasten onset of sexual activity. Among the other interesting findings: Marriage is no safeguard of sexual health. It is more difficult for married women to negotiate safe sex and condom use than it is for single women. The data make a powerful case for an intervention focus on the broader determinants of sexual health, such as poverty and mobility, but especially gender inequality. "The selection of public-health messages needs to be guided by epidemiological evidence rather than myths and moral stances," they conclude. "The greatest challenge to sexual-health promotion in almost all countries comes from opposition from conservative forces to harm-reduction strategies."

Oh, stop the presses! Yet another "study" claims "School-based sexual education delays and does not hasten onset of sexual activity." That's wonderful! My mind is put at rest. No matter that they don't actually present what evidence was used to reach this lofty conclusion. We'll believe them, because they're researchers. Especially since they have concluded "very early sexual experience within marriage can be coercive and traumatic." Heck, that's been true since Ugg beat Smugg on the head with his club and dragged her into his cave. Very deep, that. Thanks, sigaliris, for proving my point for me.

sigaliris, there will always be those whose distrust of science will not be assuaged, no matter how hard we try.

Franklin, FTR, I didn't think you were being confrontational, and have no idea why you think I was being emotional. Regarding your question of what law should be enacted (or words to that effect) I must say that I am less concened about the law than I am understanding the crux of a given matter and changing hearts and minds accordingly. I will say that RvW is a bad decision, and there are "pro-choicers" on record saying the same. Legislation should come from the legislature, not the court. In any event, I'll answer your question, indeed, I thought I had already. Simply: If any procedure is considered a failure because a innocent human being lives, that procedure should be illegal. Notice this allows for saving the mother's life in cases such as entopic pregnancies. For purposes of my answer, "human being" is to include zygotes, blastocysts, pre-embryos, embryos, fetuses, neonates, toddlers, children, adolescents (with possible exceptions -- I'm JOKING!), adults, etc. FTR, my conclusion that even the zygote is a human being comes NOT from the Bible or any Chrisian tradition. Rather, it is based on my study of a great Pagen philosopher and the fundamental distinctions he makes regarding... -matter and form -the potential and the actual -motion and rest -substantial change and accidental change -essntial qualities and accidental qualities ...as well as his teachings regarding the soul (a essential form which he attributes to every living thing).

Also, regarding cases such as Terry Schiavo as an example of privation of sentience as justification for termination, it should be no surprise that I opposed her being terminated. But even if I agreed that her termination was justified for that reason, it doesn't apply to the zygote for the following reason. Schiavo's termination was justified, it is argued, because her persistant vegetative state (PVS) had not only removed her rationality and sentience, but had done so permanently. Her privation was permanent. In the case of a the human zygote, the privation of sentience and rationality is not permanent, but only a temporary condition in that particular phase of growth in the human being. Indeed, properly understood in this way, it really isn't even a privation AT THAT POINT OF GROWTH in the same way that the lack of a fully functional sexual organs are not a privation in a five year old child.

Thanks Franklin. Speaking of time permitting, I work at sea and I'm off for my 6 week offshore rotation at work. I'll check in when possible. As regards those distinctions that inform my conclusions I highly recommend a deep study of the work of the great pagan philosopher Aristotle. Specifically... The Categories Prior Analytics Posteria Analytics The Physics The Metaphysics The Soul (ie, de Anima) Best,