Mr. Obama is nothing but a barbarian in supporting this type action or ducking it as he usually does.
This is where unlimited abortion leads. Life has lost its meaning in abortion. Now Mr. Obama wants to “give” us National Health Care where we will be subject to rationing of care and euthanasia.
Welcome to the ‘OBAMA BRAVE NEW WORLD”.

When it comes to abortion, maybe he IS an ogre…
He won’t speak out about this because it will offend the abortion extremists who love him so much.

Gene, your comments hardly merit a response, but I will say this: Obama has NEVER supported “this type of action.” The complexities of a late-term abortion are too much to write in blog comment. Such procedures are rare, but must remain legal in cases where the very survival of the mother is at risk. Neither you nor I have any business making those decisions, which are better left to the woman, her physician and, if she chooses, her family and clergy.

Tim;
The truth hurts; Obama stifled ALL attempts to pass a law protecting the botched abortion baby who lives.
A nurse, who held a baby until it died, testified 3 times before his Illinois Comm. and Obama was unmoved.
The man wants unlimited abortions for any reason and at any time during the pregnancy.
Your response is so expected and completely disregards the simple fact that abortion is murder! Take a look at a sonogram and tell me that it is not a baby in the picture.
We will pray for you!

Gene, it is ridiculous lines like these that destroy your credibility:
“The man wants unlimited abortions for any reason and at any time during the pregnancy.”
That is not and has never been his position.
I’ll pray for you, too.

I wouldn’t waste my prayers on lying bile-spewers like Gene.

Tim,
I tend to believe Gene’s position is accurate. Has Obama EVER articulated a gestational line that ought not be crossed, or a reason NOT to have an abortion? The answer is no.In his silence is his assent.
The Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, combined, allow for abortion at ANY time during the nine months of pregnancy.
Additionally, babies can be taken at 23/24 weeks by C-section and brought the rest of the way in the NICU. This makes the argument about the life of the mother into an almost academic exercise, as the medical cases requiring an abortion are now so rare. Juxtapose that with over 50 million dead babies.
All of this praying back and forth in these posts, I hope it is done with sincerity. It’s always a good way to begin and end exchanges over this issue.
God Bless.

Tim,
The CDC’s own data shows that a very small percentage of abortions are performed to save the mother. Nearly all are performed as a matter of convenience. Perhaps the CDC is lying?! If abortions were 99% due to the health and safety of the mother, that would be something to consider for a dialogue, since its murder of unborn children for convenience sake and the mother is not at any risk whatsoever other than those normally present in any pregnancy, what is there to debate or discuss?
Please look up the CDC’s abortion statistics yourself. And if you or anyone else support abortion, especially late term, you should have to look at these: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/
Richard

Steven,
Just to be clear, my position – which I think is representative of many pro-choice people – is not that the moral status of the fetus changes depending on whether it is inside or outside the womb (although this is relevant to whether we want to allow the mother to choose to destroy it). The moral status of the fetus depends on the cognitive abilities the fetus has developed at a given stage. As it acquires more of the abilities that are characteristic of fully developed human infants, it becomes more wrong to destroy it (not trying to start a philosophical argument here – but to head off the obvious objection – I would also argue that a certain level of cognitive abilities is a sufficient condition to have the moral status of adult human beings, so I would not claim that it is more wrong to murder Einstein than a severely retarded individual). While I would condemn the doctor’s action, I would say it’s the moral equivalent of a mother who decided to have an abortion at that stage for some completely frivolous reason. I would hesitate to say “this is murder plain and simple” as this implies that it was the moral equivalent of killing an infant or an adult human being. I actually don’t know enough myself to render an opinion about whether, given the status of the fetus in the 23rd month of development, abortion should ever be allowed in cases where the mother’s health is not at risk. Nonetheless, it is not obvious to me that a fetus at that stage is more like a human infant with fully developed sensory capacity, the ability to form preferences about the future, etc…, than a clump of cells with none of these abilities.
Jason

Jason,
I have three children. None of them emerged at nine months of gestation, ” a human infant with fully developed sensory capacity, the ability to form preferences about the future, etc.” This comes further down the road, and in increments. Would it, by this standard, be permissible to commit infanticide at birth?
Before making the common mistake of dismissing a human in its earliest stage of development as “a clump of cells,” consider this quote from Scot F. Gilbert’s Developmental Biology, arguably the most authoritative text in the field. Wherever you see the word dog, substitute with the name of another vertibrate—-human.
“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”
Therefore, biologically, even at the single-celled stage, we each had a complete organismal structure for that developmental stage.
You say, ” I actually don’t know enough myself to render an opinion about whether, given the status of the fetus in the 23rd month of development, abortion should ever be allowed in cases where the mother’s health is not at risk.”
And, “The moral status of the fetus depends on the cognitive abilities the fetus has developed at a given stage.”
Says who? You???
The pro-life position takes the guesswork out of it for you. Personhood is a moral status that is intrinsic to every human, from their earliest developmental stage, through natural death. It exists by virtue of the fact that even at the zygotic stage, it is a new human organism on its own developmental trajectory. This developmental trajectory does not exist compartmentalized, but is a continuum.
“I actually don’t know enough myself to render an opinion…”
Amen. Take the most inclusive approach.

Hi Gerald,
I agree that the adjective “fully developed” was wrong in my message – rather than defend my view however, let me try to get you to clarify what you mean by yours.
You said: “Personhood is a moral status that is intrinsic to every human, from their earliest developmental stage, through natural death. It exists by virtue of the fact that even at the zygotic stage, it is a new human organism on its own developmental trajectory. This developmental trajectory does not exist compartmentalized, but is a continuum.”
I agree that it is a continuum, what I don’t follow is why conception is especially relevant (it seems to me that this “continuum” in fact starts prior to conception). Which of the following claims (if any) would you agree with:
1) The key point about conception is that this is the first time that we can refer to the organism as a singular entity rather than as multiple entities
2) The key point about conception is that this is the first point at which the organism’s full genetic code is together in one place
3) The key point about conception is that – in the normal course of things – the organism would continue to develop absent human intervention
If none of these are perfect, please feel free to write your own along the same lines – I’m just trying to see exactly what positive aspect of conception you feel gives it the normative weight you attribute to it.
Jason

Gerard, I am not sure if President Obama has articulated a reason not to have an abortion. That is not the point. It is not his decision to make, nor yours, nor mine. The pro-choice position is that the moral decision of abortion belongs to the pregnant woman.
I am insulted by this line: “The pro-life position takes the guesswork out of it for you.” Who are you to say you have the answers to difficult theological questions that no one has the answers to? When life begins .. when personhood begins .. when the soul is conceived .. you have your beliefs and I have mine. I don’t believe either of us has the right to harness the law to our side. The pro-life movement tries to do just that; the pro-choice movement does not.
Richard, are you arguing that choice be taken away from women because most pregnancies do not put the mother’s life in jeopardy? I don’t doubt that some abortions are for convenience. But we do not know all the details of any pregnancy. And it is not up to the state, or you or I, to interfere.

Tim,
Sorry about your thin skin. The comment that upset you was in the context of comments addressed to Jason. These are serious, life and death matters. Such forums as this are the new town square where the mature come to discuss them. You don’t advance your position by getting a case of the vapors. Just ask for a clarification. It keeps the conversation mature and honest.

Hi Jason,
Thanks for giving me the room to navigate my point. All three of your points contain elements of the truth. Let’s forget that I am a Roman Catholic and pro-life. Allow me to wear my molecular biologist’s hat for a moment.
You get into quite a bit here, and there is much truth in each of your three propositions. Allow me to distill what I see to be the truth from each of them. Before I do, the argument I am making is not a theological one, but one that I believe can be reached from a biological and logical perspective.
You say that the developmental continuum of which I speak, exists prior to conception. I would say that the egg and sperm, each of which contain half the complement of chromosomes, certainly are made by the mother and father, and are the bridge that makes for the BIOLOGICAL continuum of life down through the ages. The egg and sperm are not two separate organisms. They are two separate cells. That’s a key distinction that I see your third paragraph calling for.
For example, a bone cell and a skin cell are cells that comprise, in part, my body. I the organism, am not reduced to a couple of cells. Therefore, the bone and skin cell could not be considered organisms and do not enjoy the same ethical considerations in the research community as does the organism. The same may be said for sperm and egg.
The organism contains a full complement of DNA, is intrinsically ordered to function as an autonomous animal (in the case of a vertebrate), and is defined as such beginning with the zygotic stage (single-celled after conception), and remains such through every successive developmental stage in the life cycle of that animal.
In essence, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (or precursors).
With that in mind, my specific answers to your propositions.
#1 Yes, at conception we refer to the organism as a singular (and autonomous) entity (individual). I choose not to call the sperm and egg as entities. The language of biology clears the confusion. Sperm and egg are called gametes. At fertilization, we have a new organism in its single-celled developmental stage called a zygote.
#2 Sticking with the language of molecular biology, your use of genetic code is incorrect here. The genetic code refers to how the chemical bases in DNA code for the building of proteins. What you are describing is the full genetic complement, meaning all of the DNA from mom and dad is in one place. Yes that’s true. Moreover, this is not any ordinary cell. The zygote is uniquely configured to begin the work of building what will eventually become the adult form of the animal.
#3 I agree, though I wouldn’t say that it is the “key point”. Conception is the starting point of a new organism. If it does not possess any genetic flaws and is left unmolested, its genetic program will continue to direct its development through all of its many developmental stages.
Now for the muddy stuff. The quote I gave you from Gilbert in my post above makes clear that the animal is the same individual at every stage of development. An organism does not need to possess the adult form to be the same individual, or to be regarded as such. We see this clearly if we consider a frog. Before attaining the adult form of the frog, it existed as a tadpole. Yet, it was the same organism as tadpole, and remains as such as an adult frog.
Could the tadpole do all the things an adult can do? Clearly not. Yet it is the same individual. That’s why Gilbert’s quote points to the folly of defining the individual according to adult structure and function.
An individual is what it is. Its dignity derives from what it is.
An individual is not what it does. Buying into this not only opens the floodgates to abortion, but also euthanasia and eugenics.
The individual’s dignity does not derive from what it does, but from what it is. Those of use blessed with handicapped children enjoy a heightened awareness of this reality.
Theology-free pro-life position. Did this clarify things?
All the Best !

Gerard, your arrogant response makes no attempt to respond to my argument. Very telling. Do you always go for the ad hominem when you have nothing intelligent to say?

Tim,
You weren’t making an argument. You were busy feeling insulted over an intelligent exchange I was having with Jason. Ad hominem, and arrogance is acting insulted instead of asking a question or mapping out the basis for one’s opinion. BTW, abortion law IS on ‘your side’. I don’t believe that Roe v Wade or Doe v Bolton have been overturned. As for not having the ‘right’ to ‘harness the law’ to one side or the other, that’s what a democratic system of government is all about. We debate. We lobby. We vote.

So long as the law protects a woman’s right to choose, it serves both sides. (Oh, and thank you for the civics lesson. I had no idea that’s how our system works.)

Tim,
“So long as the law protects a woman’s right to choose, it serves both sides.”
50 million butchered babies (in the U.S.A. alone) would beg to differ with you on this one. The law did not serve these humans well. We in the pro-life movement oppose the legalization of such barbarism and stand for the abrogated right to life for the unborn. Where have you been for the past 36 years, that you could make such a statement?

Hi Gerard,
Your response is extremely helpful, let me see if I can press you a little further.
It seems to me that it really is a different thing morally to destroy a tadpole than to kill a frog, to destroy an acorn than to cut down an oak tree, or to destroy an embryo as opposed to killing an adult human being. It just doesn’t seem that the destruction of a freezer full of millions of embryos would be the moral equivalent of the holocaust. This intuition doesn’t settle the matter no matter how widely shared, but it means your argument must meet a pretty hide burden to override an intuition which I suspect is shared by just about everyone in the world who is not explicitly tailoring their views for consistency with some theology. It is not sufficient to say we should err on the side of caution. If someone insists that tomatoes are the moral equivalent of adult humans, should we err on the side of caution and stop eating tomatoes?
I’m suspicious at points that the argument you make is in part a semantic one – I don’t see why the distinction you draw between cells and organisms should have moral weight. Let me give you an “imaginary” biological example to try to press you to clarify further exactly what you mean. Suppose that the egg and the sperm on their own were not sufficient to define an organism. Imagine a world where the sperm fertilized the egg, the resulting “protozygote” multiplied and grew for several weeks, but it was only after a month that an additional piece – let’s call it, “Egg Part 2″ – broke off from a part of the mother’s ovary, joined with the existing “protozygote” and provided the additional information needed for the organism’s “full genetic complement” and the instructions for continued growth.
In this example, would you then say that it was alright to destroy the protozygote prior to insemination from “Egg Part 2″ because it was just a cell? What exactly would “Egg Part 2″ have to bring to the table for you to decide that the organism didn’t really begin until it arrived?
I also of course disagree with the conclusion that denying that life begins at conception means that we have no basis to think that eugenics is wrong or that handicapped children should be respected as equals. Again, to reiterate the position I articulated earlier: it is a grave wrong to kill anything which has reached a certain level of cognitive development. In my view, this includes adults, children, infants, handicapped infants, as well as chimpanzees and other higher order animals.
Jason

Hello. And Bye.