The Impact of Abortion Bans
Three Texas women shared heart-wrenching testimonies about being denied abortions. Their stories shed light on the complexities of abortion decisions and the impact of restrictive laws. It's essential to listen to these personal experiences to understand the real-life implications of such legislation. These women's circumstances challenge stereotypes, showing that abortion access is a critical issue affecting diverse individuals, not just reckless teens.
While the testimonies of these three Texas women are undoubtedly heart-wrenching and certainly deserve empathy, it's important to acknowledge that using personal stories to shape public policy can be problematic.
Relying solely on a few individual stories can lead to biased conclusions and misrepresentation of the overall issue or situation. While these shared stories highlight specific cases, they might not be representative of the broader population's experiences with abortion laws and restrictions.
In my view, It's crucial to consider the broader context of abortion access, including statistical data and research findings. While personal testimonies can evoke emotions, they might not necessarily reflect the prevailing trends or the majority of cases.
Presenting only heart-wrenching stories can work to create an emotional bias, which may hinder objective and nuanced discussions on the topic. Perhaps, It's essential to include diverse perspectives, including those who support abortion restrictions, to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.
Abortion is a complex and divisive topic that involves moral, ethical, religious, and legal considerations. While personal stories can shed light on individual experiences, it is crucial to address the issue holistically, considering the rights and perspectives of all involved parties.
Crafting effective public policy requires a comprehensive analysis of all relevant factors, not solely relying on emotional appeals. Decision-makers should consider evidence-based research, legal principles, and societal implications when shaping legislation.
So yes, Personal stories can be powerful tools for advocacy, but they can also be selectively used to push a particular agenda or narrative. This may lead to an unbalanced representation of the issue, potentially undermining the credibility of the information presented.I wonder how many children of poor women in New York that were aborted and tossed in the biolgoical dumpster were able to tell their heart-wrenching stories?
"I wanted to grow up and be a child but my biological mother decided I was a burden and, since the legislators in New York promote abortion for all, I ended up dead."
No, you never hear these stories. Dead babies do not have a voice."I wonder how many children of poor women in New York that were aborted and tossed in the biolgoical dumpster were able to tell their heart-wrenching stories?"
I similarly wonder what stories will be told by those born by way of State sponsored forced birth? Are we ready for what's to come? Of course many will fair just fine and some may even thrive. But how many will be born unwanted, resented, neglected, abused, abandoned and dumped back onto the state? The drop boxes outside of fire stations may not be enough to handle what may come. The state can force a woman to give birth but they'll never be able to force that woman to bond with an unwanted child. Who will be the voice of these children?
The Republican mantra seems to be "get'em born" but where the programs to prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with? Will they similarly enlarge the social safety net to deal with the aftermath of forced birth? Will we go back to orphanages? Of course we could rename them something more acceptable, maybe Sunshine homes would work. This is a complex issue that has long-term ramifications, as far as I can see none are being addressed. Why? The mantra after you are born..."bootstraps baby!"We have no way of knowing how they will do, however we do know that if we kill them when still unborn that they are not growing to grow up and thrive.
The Democratic mantra seems to be "kill them before they are born". Dead babies do not vote, so killing them to be a way to get more votes."The Republican mantra seems to be "get'em born"
While I do not agree with it, as you and I both know the mantra is actually "You will not kill children". Why is it that liberals always ignore that simple fact?"Why is it that liberals always ignore that simple fact?"
Probably because a fetus isn't a child. If a woman enters an emergency room miscarrying a 15 week fetus, the doctor does not use extraordinary means on that fetus. That fetus would be made comfortable to pass naturally as it is not viable outside the womb. Not a child.You claim that, I claim that, but the conservatives saying that children are being murdered do not agree. Until we can all agree on what is a person the debate and division will never end.
Would it not be wise to acknowledge the difference in opinion (opinion, for there is no actual definition) and go from there rather than simply continue to disagree on that primary disagreement and settle it?
Are we back on the viability of zygotes again, Wilderness?
"Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being."
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti … n%20being.
Just calling a human a zygote does not work to say it is not a human being.
Why not at best admit abortion is killing a human no matter what terminology one uses?
When a woman aborts the human being in her womb is ultimately dead. Whether it be a spontaneously aborted zygote or a full-term baby, it's dead.
When one chooses to abort no matter how far along, she has made the choice to kill that human being. Is that not factual? If one kills a human organism, they killed a human growing in their womb.Unfortunately your link did not "demonstrate" anything at all: it simply made a statement that a zygote is a human being. That is NOT "demonstrating" the truth of the statement.
"The sperm and egg unite in one of your fallopian tubes to form a one-celled entity called a zygote. If more than one egg is released and fertilized or if the fertilized egg splits into two, you might have multiple zygotes.
The zygote typically has 46 chromosomes — 23 from the biological mother and 23 from the biological father. These chromosomes help determine your baby's sex and physical traits."
This stage is short but is recognized as the result of the fertilization of a human being, with the genetic makeup of a human being.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life … t-20045302
The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created. https://acpeds.org/position-statements/ … ife-begins
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto … Id=4857703
"2) Fertilization
Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O�Rahilly defines fertilization as:
"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)
The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)
This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:
"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)
In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis�each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts�each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.
After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn�t become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14
B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact:
MYTH 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."
FACT 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.htmlSorry, but all of those "proofs" include "blobs" which are NOT human beings and do not deserve the label "person". it takes far more than a group of genes/chromosomes to make a person; witness the enormous percentage of miscarriages because those particular gene groupings are NOT viable and will never develop.
In any case, in my mind it is not "human" that matters; it is whether that blob is a "person", something far different.I think I have misunderstood your though, and you may have not understood my comment about what is a zygote. In my comments, I have shared the fact that when a child is conceived and shortly thereafter becomes a zygote again for a short period, it is the beginning of the human species. It is considered a human. It has not become a person, that possesses a personality or has the ability to a fully constructed brain that aids in becoming a unique individual.
However, a zygote has the genetic properties of a human, and even the sex is assigned.
So, to be direct --- what do you think literally about the concept of aborting a human zygote, if it scientifically has the genetics of a human species? At this stage, a zygote has not by any means is not a person nor does it have the characteristics of an organism that has a developed brain. It is a cell that holds a code of a unique human species.If we're going to distinguish between "person" and "human", then legally and ethically they have different rights, or so I see it. Your "human" (a zygote, or even a few million cells) is not a person, whether designated "human" or not, and does not have the rights of a "person".
A part (admittedly a small part) of my concern is that our future may well include "persons" that are NOT human (Cetaceans, great apes, even perhaps an ET some day) but will have the rights we enjoy.
But it's all just semantics, semantics that needs clarified (especially legally) before we can go much further. You, for instance, equate "homo sapiens sapiens" with "human", and that is indeed the common description, but should it be? Not in my opinion. I do not agree, for instance, that every product of two human gametes is human.
The idea above of a distinct EKG, that only "people" have, is an interesting one to me. I'd like to see that developed."If we're going to distinguish between "person" and "human ", then legally and ethically they have different rights, or so I see it. Your "human" (a zygote, or even a few million cells) is not a person, whether designated "human" or not and does not have the rights of a "person".
Does a zygote or fetus have any rights? In my view, ethical rights fall to the mother in regard to the unborn. It's the mother that deals with the morals or the principles of morality when considering an abortion. The woman carrying a human being must use her given ethical rights. Some women due to their individual ethics would not consider an abortion. Due to feeling taking the life of another human being goes against their ethics.
Another woman may not share the same ethics. And consider the zygote, fetus or baby is not a full human being due to not being a person biologically.
However, common sense plays a great part, and ethics is well entwined with common sense and sound decision-making is it not? So a woman who finds herself pregnant might well consider her own physical risk, as well as whether can she can care for or afford the child, perhaps considering she would receive no help from the dad. This mom might have no problem with an abortion. Ethics vary do they not?
Yet in truth, abortion results in a human species's life being taken.
Should a woman have the right to take that life, after all, she has the right to what happens within her body. I guess it all comes down to differing outlooks in regard to ethics. We all have a right to form our own beliefs and live by those beliefs. So, I would not consider passing any form of judgment on a prolifer or a pro-choice activist. I lean toward more sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and feel abortion is a given choice in the case of incest, rape, or the mom's life is endangered.
All comes down to what a given individual feels is ethical, the keyword individual.
" Not in my opinion. I do not agree, for instance, that every product of two human gametes is human."
I am not sure I understand that statement." Not in my opinion. I do not agree, for instance, that every product of two human gametes is human."
I am not sure I understand that statement."
Just pointing out that we are evolving, and one day will be a different species (if we survive as a species - something that seems a little doubtful). Mutations continually happen, and not all mutated creatures deserve the title "homo sapies".
Nope. As always, we're on the question of when does a zygote become a person, with the same rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that the rest of us enjoy.
Understood, Wilderness, that has to be decided, but personhood at the very point of conception will certainly not be the answer.
The Republican Party digs it own grave as ballot issues in several states, red included, has shot down this idea of total bans and unreasonable periods after conception to prohibit the abortion procedures. That frustration may well find itself taking a center stage among voters that might otherwise vote for them. Will they get the message? I doubt it.
How is it for me to steer them from a disastrous course?Why do you not mention those states that make the murder of children legal, depending on the whim of the mother (without ever considering the father, whose child it is just as much as the mothers)?
I, too, would hate to see the legal definition be conception, for that is very obviously wrong to me. However, I do acknowledge that it is an opinion, not fact, and not all agree. Unfortunately neither side even seems to recognize that those opinions are NOT fact, and simply ignore any they don't like.Well, Wilderness, it is the mother that has to endure the pregnancy and physical risk and inconvenience to term while the father is an interested bystander.
Roe vs Wade was a reasonable accommodation to both sides, why does the Right have to insist on having everything interpreted its way?
The concept of "conception" is unreasonable and unenforceable.Minor risk and inconvenience is not a reason to kill.
I agree that RvsW was a reasonable accommodation - I liked it. The Right insists that laws be followed; something that when the Left doesn't like the law it ignores it.
Agree that "conception" is unreasonable. But it IS enforceable - the laws of many states now make that clear. Unless, of course, the mother is a murderer and criminal, but then murder would have to be considered unenforceable as well and we should cancel those laws as well. I would disagree with that assessment.Minor risk and inconvenience? Have you ever been pregnant, Wilderness?
Roe vs Wade was undermined and unraveled because of the moral hypocrisy and prissiness of the political Right in this country.
How do you know? You Republicans will not be satisfied until you can have one of your busy bodies in everyone's boudoir as an audience during the coup de gras. That is the only way it truly can be enforceable."Minor risk and inconvenience? Have you ever been pregnant, Wilderness?"
Have you ever been dead?
"Roe vs Wade was undermined and unraveled because of the moral hypocrisy and prissiness of the political Right in this country."
Sorry, but RvW was cut down because it did not conform to the Constitution. Whether I like it or not (I don't), whether you like it or not, that is the fact. Morals had nothing to do with it; it was a purely legal decision.
I WILL submit, however, that RvW was a political call, not a legal one; the right to privacy in deciding to kill someone is NOT guaranteed in the Constitution.
And you will not be satisfied until you, and only you, can set laws.
I am sure that you are familiar with Roe vs Wade. It stated that states no longer have the ability to determine their own laws. Why are people on your side so angry that states are allowed to make laws? If the people of a state want to kill their babies all they have to do is vote for representatives to support that.
Why are you so insistent that a state cannot decide its own laws?The Court ruled that regardless of exactly which provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that protected a pregnant woman's decision whether to abort a pregnancy.
The Court reasoned that outlawing abortions would infringe a pregnant woman's right to privacy for several reasons: having unwanted children "may force upon the woman a distressful life and future"; it may bring imminent psychological harm; caring for the child may tax the mother's physical and mental health; and because there may be "distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.
The above is key. That has not been addressed by the current Court in the Dobbs ruling. Nor has it been addressed by state-sponsored for birth advocates. Again, is the notion that all who are forced into birth will suddenly become nurturing mothers? And what do we do when they are not? Americans aren't lining up to adopt babies from these circumstances. The aftermath and the consequences of forced birth are not being addressed in any meaningful way.
The 1973 Court did discuss the states. The Court held that these government interests were sufficiently compelling to permit states to impose some limitations on pregnant women's right to choose to have an abortion.
"A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.".Your statement that the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that protected a pregnant woman's decision whether to abort a pregnancy is open to interpretation and has been a subject of legal debate for decades. While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 did establish a woman's right to choose to have an abortion based on a right to privacy, the connection between this right and the Constitution's guarantees of liberty is not a universally agreed-upon interpretation.
Critics of the Roe v. Wade decision argue that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to abortion or privacy in the context of abortion. They contend that the Court's decision was a result of judicial activism rather than a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the debate over abortion rights and the extent of the right to privacy continues to evolve, with legal challenges and potential revisions to existing laws. Some individuals believe that the right to life of the unborn should also be considered, potentially conflicting with the perceived right to privacy in this context."While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 did establish a woman's right to choose to have an abortion based on a right to privacy, the connection between this right and the Constitution's guarantees of liberty is not a universally agreed-upon interpretation"
Am I to believe somehow that the court in the Dobbs decision is wiser than the Court's decision in Roe? How do I reach that conclusion?
Let's refresh the memory that the 1973 court was a conservative majority also.
And I have to say that I still don't see Republicans addressing the aftermath of forced birth. How does this shake out for unwanted babies? Neglected and abused children? Those born in bathroom stalls and dumped into fire station drop boxes? I'm just missing a complete plan here."And I have to say that I still don't see Republicans addressing the aftermath of forced birth. How does this shake out for unwanted babies? Neglected and abused children? Those born in bathroom stalls and dumped into fire station drop boxes? I'm just missing a complete plan here."
What does any of that have to do with the constitutionality of a low? Hint: the answer is "Nothing at all - it is no more than an attempt to "interpret" the our Constitution according to the feelings and political leanings of some of the people.
States Rights are not absolute, Doc. There was a war fought 160 years ago that made it clear that individual states were not free to skirt federal law.
As the Bill of Rights make clear certain rights are not free to be abridged by any state, period.
Think about it, Doc, you got a patchwork of states allowing abortion while others do not, we are going to have our own 21st century version of the "Underground Railroad" for women to get the procedure done outside of restrictions within their own states. That can be nothing but a mess, for a matter of fact, it already is.Point taken per the civil war. I agree it is a mess, which is why the murder of unborn babies should no longer be an option for the convenience of women.
An absolute restriction to the availability of abortion is politically unpalatable and will never happen.
You saw what happened in red states when Republicans tried to impose bans against state citizen ballot measures.
Are you one of those that want to enforce the personhood of a zygote at conception?Do I believe that fertilized eggs inside a human are human? Yes. According to the morals followed in Christo-Judaic religions, destroying human life is wrong. That is what murder statutes are all about.
Do I think that the abortion laws are going to be overturned? No, I agree that it is not going to happen. Not everything that is right is going to happen, but I am not going to believe in something that I know is wrong just because most people want to accept it.
About 40% of abortions in the US are performed on young black girls. Why does the black community not consider this significant?Well, Doc, there are many that have abortion available anyway. The problem with the Right is there are too many things they want to consider are a given and should apply to everyone. Not everybody subscribes to Judeo-Christian principles. So, the reality is, if you don't want an abortion don't have one.
Our throughly modern maidens will not accept anything less.
The women choose to have the abortions, nobody is twisting their arms. But, I can't say that I approve, I don't. But I don't want the government interfering since they are not willing to care for the children once they get here, but are so insistent that these women should carry to term."According to the morals followed in Christo-Judaic religions, destroying human life is wrong.
"Not everybody subscribes to Judeo-Christian principles."
Neither do an awful lot of Judeo-Christians; there has likely been more blood spilled over those same principles (and edicts from the Christian God) than any other reason in the history on mankind.Based on that last paragraph I guess they have decided that it is better to be in a dumpster somewhere than grow up poor.
I know a lot of poor adults and children. I am sure none of them would have chosen the dumpster option.There are only 2 choices in your mind? Be aborted or grow up poor? Republicans got what they wanted in an activist court's that ignored precedence and removed a constitutional right. Republicans often make the case for abortion bans based on morality.
I would think that the same sense of morality would extend to those who will be born of state-sponsored forced birth. The same morality should include programs to address the neglected, abused, abandoned and dumped into the lacking state system.
The states that have enacted forced birth are among those with the highest maternal and infant mortality rates yet nothing is done to address those rates. Republicans "morality' seems a bit like hypocrisy. When they pick and choose how it's extended.
I'm an American that expects more than black and white options and thinking from my political candidates.
If you're a candidate and you support forced birth, you better show a comprehensive plan that covers prevention and also how you're going to deal with the aftermath. If not, I don't want to hear about that politician's morality. He or she is nothing more than a hypocrite at that point.Why are you trying to malign me by making false statements? Were you not able to read previous posts for some reason to understand the conversation or are you just trying to make an inflammatory comment?
His comment was that young black women chose to kill their children because they do not have the economic means to care for them. Your point seems to be "address the neglected, abused, abandoned and dumped into the lacking state system." As I clearly pointed out, I know many poor people and none of them, to my knowledge, would choose the option of being tossed into a dumpster. None of them would choose to become wards of the state either.A very blunt question --- Do you ever consider the end product of abortion to be the killing of a human organism? It would appear you feel that if it would be born into circumstances that are not let's say favorable, and the mother feels she should abort it is fine to kill.
So, does the fact of killing a human organism even come into play in your view? Perhaps you look at this form of killing as mercy killing."It would appear you feel that if it would be born into circumstances that are not let's say favorable, and the mother feels she should abort it is fine to kill."
This would probably be your inference but was not the point that I made at all. I am certain that the reasons for abortion are varied. Some of the babies born out of forced birth will fare well. I'm certain some will thrive as some will be born of stable financial circumstances and then others will not.
My point was specifically to legislation in states that piggybacks off of the abortion bans. If abortion comes down to morality then certainly we would see that same morality extending to programs to address the needs of the portion of these babies, who now have full personhood, if they are abused, neglected, abandoned. Unfortunately I am not seeing that. Or do those that have imposed forced birth believe that every mother will somehow transform through the process into at least an adequate parent?As I said the other part of your view is clear.
Again my question --- A very blunt question --- Do you ever consider the end product of abortion to be the killing of a human organism?A human organism and a person are not the same thing, in my view. If the Republican party is supporting forced birth on moral grounds, then there is a whole lot that morality would compel you to demand after those births and I'm not seeing it.
I think morality should be consistent and not applied only when it meets an agenda. That rings hollow. A fetus below the point of viability has not reached personhood. Brain waves that indicate awareness does not occur until 25 weeks. Again I ask, is it murder when a doctor doesn't use extraordinary measures to maintain the life of a miscarried non-viable fetus?
Ultimately I am not one to enter into a debate based on emotional factors . For me, abortion was a constitutional right for decades and was taken away by a court that ignored precedence. Bottom line for me, I don't like to see rights being taken away.Being in the profession put me in close contact with spontaneous abortion. I don't distinguish a person from a fetus. I can assure you actually from about three months on the fetus can not be mistaken for anything else than a human being.
I can see,(and you are not alone) a a supporter of abortion you can't bring yourself to commit to answering my question. Is abortion ultimately killing a human organism?I am not arguing that a fetus is not human. It is a given that it is human. My distinction is between human and person. As I had stated before a corpse is surely human but no longer exhibits traits we give to personhood, such as consciousness, awareness and brain waves linked to such. Conscious life ends when brainwaves cease to exist but life begins before these brain waves? Again, it's a given that we were talking about a human life form but we are talking about it in a particular stage of development.
Why aren't doctors criminalized for saving the lives of 15, 16, 18 week old fetuses? It's because they're not viable. My bottom line is that Roe made sense. It left states with the power to make decisions on timing.
I support the right to bodily autonomy. I do not necessarily think abortion is a wonderful act to be exercised willy-nilly.
This is an issue of rights that I think people need to be very concerned with. It opens the door, such a precedent to limit or take away other types of rights. I absolutely in no way, shape or form think forced birth is okay. Especially since those who want to force these births have no plan for the aftermath other than 'get your bootstraps up baby".
If the Republican Party makes the argument for forced birth based upon morality then I need to see their morality applied in other ways also not just to score points.
Doc, is it not ironic how this dance goes on? When one comes out the other end puts a dead human being in a red hazard bag, that just minutes before did have the chance of life if left in a womb --- I call it killing. This is the concept so many just can't get. Hey, when one decides to abort, they have put a death sentence on a living organism.
I just don't understand how this fact can be ignored. Yes, one can choose abortion, but they should really face the facts of their choice. There really is no way to get around the killing aspect of abortion. A mother chooses to kill her offspring.Question, would a doctor then be liable for "killing" the 15 week fetus of a mother miscarrying when that doctor does not use extraordinary means to maintain the life of said fetus? Or is it okay that that doctor puts that fetus in the red bag
No, the doctor is not responsible for a miscarriage, if the fetus is dead it is sad but yes it goes into a red bag unless the parent chooses to have the fetus that is late-term buried. If a fetus can not possibly support life it as a rule is dead the birth, if the fetus is live it depends such as a late-term birth and can be helped to sustain life it is given every means of medical help,
A fetus that's undeveloped is kept comfortable for its few moments on earth. I don't think spontaneous miscarriages can be considered as a mom making the choice to abort.I said nothing about the doctor being responsible for miscarriage. Additionally, the mom or the fact that she's having a miscarriage is not relevant to the question that I'm posing.
I'm speaking directly to the doctor's responsibility when she/he has been met with the birth of a fetus under 20 weeks.
If I follow the logic of those that support forced birth, how is the doctors inaction to impose extraordinary measures on this fetus not also considered "murder" (using the term of many here and elsewhere).
In reality you have a doctor purposely and willfully choosing not to intervene. Hospitals setting policy not to intervene.
A woman makes a choice to abort before viability and a doctor makes a choice to not intervene due to lack of viability. What is the difference here?
I'm trying to move away from the hyperbolic rhetoric and emotional arguments and attempt to get to the reality of the issue.Here is what you said.
"Question, would a doctor then be liable for "killing" the 15 week fetus of a mother miscarrying when that doctor does not use extraordinary means to maintain the life of said fetus? Or is it okay that that doctor puts that fetus in the red bag"
My answer which certainly answers if "would a doctor then be liable for "killing" the 15 week fetus of a mother miscarrying when that doctor does not use extraordinary means to maintain the life of said fetus?"
No, the doctor is not responsible for a miscarriage, if the fetus is dead it is sad but yes it goes into a red bag unless the parent chooses to have the fetus that is late-term buried. I followed up with what is done if the fetus is alive. It is not cut and dry. If a fetus is viable and can be helped medically to survive the doctor would be up for malpractice if he did not do everything he could to save that newborn individual.
Babies born after only 20 to 22 weeks are so small and fragile that they do not survive, due to their organs are not developed to support life. They are made comfortable if alive due to miscarriage. The doctor has no real option but to let them die. Spontaneous miscarriages are not a choice unless a doctor is making an attempt to save the mother.
In my view, if a doctor does not put the mother first he is not ethical. The case you offered in regard to the young 13 year old that was raped and could not get help with the abortion --- she should sue the hospital, the doctor had every right to help her due to rape. The doctor was at fault.The question has to do with the doctor withholding life-saving measures to a fetus under the threshold of viability. It has nothing to do with a doctor causing miscarriage. I'm actually not talking about miscarriage at all. That would just seem to be the impetus for a doctor coming in contact with a fetus below 22 weeks.
The Crux of the question: Is the doctor liable for murder for withholding care? Why will society let a doctor withhold care at this point but abortion is morally wrong?
Does anyone else see the point I'm making here?
It is acceptable for the doctor to withhold care at this very same point we are denying abortion. Can someone please tell me the difference? We've heard all the rhetoric about "murdering babies" but on the other end why aren't doctors saving them?
"Babies born after only 20 to 22 weeks are so small and fragile that they do not survive, due to their organs are not developed to support life."
I think this says it for me. A doctor can choose to let this fetus die but we must prevent a woman from abortion at the very same point."The Crux of the question: Is the doctor liable for murder for withholding care? Why will society let a doctor withhold care at this point but abortion is morally wrong? Does anyone else see the point I'm making here?
It is acceptable for the doctor to withhold care at this very same point we are denying abortion. "
I doctor will not withhold care if the baby has any chance of survival. As I said at 20 - 22 weeks a spontaneous abortion is an issue that was unavoidable unless the Mother did something to bring it on. The baby that is voided is as a rule dead or dieing. If a doctor found a baby to for any reason breathing alive the baby would be assessed if its organs could in any respect support life outside the mother's womb. Not sure of your logic. Abortion is performed to have results of dead remnants of an embryo or fetus. The person doing to the procedure is being paid to do the job of abortion.
A doctor caring for a woman that has a spontaneous miscarriage job is to make sure the Mother survives, and that the expelled baby is asserted for viability, and all is done if the baby is viable. A doctor can not choose to let a baby die, in most cases, a 22-week-old fetus's vital organs are not developed enough to support life outside the womb. The baby will be characteristically developed in regard to features, but the lungs and heart won't sustain life.
In my view, you are diverting to the physician's part in two different issues, an abortion provider needs to produce a dead fetus. A Doctor that is treating an emergency miscarriage is trying to save two lives, that of the mother, and the offspring.
I can understand that some people want to kill their babies for their convenience. If society says that murder is okay I will have to accept that. (I hope it does not happen here but since we elected a socialist president who supports this I am sure he is trying to get young women here to kill their children too.) What is ludicrous at this point is that they use all sorts of excuses to claim that it is not murder.
Why do you insist that people are killing "babies"?
A single cell is not a "baby". A small collection of cells is not a "baby". Somewhere in the development those cells will become a "baby" (if it survives), but it is not at conception, it is not at 1 month gestation, nor 2 months.
Sharlee has made her thoughts known (a fertilized egg is a "baby") buy you have yet to address the question. So...what is a "baby" and why do you consider it one?Whether or not you choose to accept it, when an egg is fertilized it is a baby human. It may not have the features that a newborn has, nor do you or I. That does not make us less human, and it does not make the unborn child less of a human.
You did not give any "why" of your opinion, which is what I'm really interested in.
Why do you consider it a "baby" when it has no heart, no brain, no brain waves, no limbs...nothing whatsoever to distinguish it from millions of other cells. It does have exactly the same DNA as a muscle cell, a stomach cell, a nerve cell, etc., but none of those are a "baby", so why is that one cell considered so?No, it does not have the same DNA as a muscle cell, a stomach cell, etc. It is a living and growing independent new creation. Why? The DNA of a man combine with the DNA of a human and create a new human. That is a new life.
Sorry, all your cells have the same DNA. DNA does not magically change itself into something else depending on where it is in the body. Your DNA can be used to identify you whether collected from blood, from a cheek scraping or anywhere else.
Human, yes, meaning a member of home sapiens sapiens, but the term was "baby", not "human" and not a "new life". A "new life" would include that tumor growing on a lung.A child has 50% of their DNA from their mother and 50% from their father. They do not therefore contain the same DNA as a muscle cell or anything else you were using as an example. They are a unique individual, both medically and morally. They are NOT just the mother, as humans do not give birth through parthonegenesis.
The term baby is a phrase referring to a young human. (No, not everyone agrees with that. Pianos are also called babies.) Since you are accepting that it is a human, and it is young, it is a baby.
And no, a tumor is not the same thing as a baby. They contain the same genetic material as those cells already in your body and are not new creations. (They may be mutated slightly but are not a new life.)Your "baby" was just as new, created inside the mother's body, as a tumor. It just doesn't have the same DNA.
But enough semantics; you understand the question. What makes a "baby" rather than a "blob". Why does a single cell (that will probably be naturally aborted) deserve the rights and privileges of a person. It may have human DNA but that does not make it a person; that designation comes from a variety of determinations including, but not limited to, brain waves specific to people, general appearance (with LOTS of specific differences), general construction (again, with lots of differences), etc.
So why is a single cell, without any attributes of humanity outside of a specific chemical inside all living organisms, considered a "baby" with inherent rights?As well you could be asked why do you think a living and growing human deserves less rights? Do pro-abortion people consider it less than human just because there has not been time for development?
How can you consider a human a "blob"?The focus keeps coming back to humaneness. Yes the blob is human but personhood is something else.
The theory that I have recently read resonates most for me. Human life ends when brain waves cease. Personhood for me, may very well begin when brain waves that indicate awareness are evident. In one report, scientists and physicians approximated this to be around 25 weeks.
How can you consider a blob without a brain to be a human being, a person accorded the rights, responsibilities and duties you have?
Am I right in assuming that your determining factor is that a combination of two human gametes, regardless of viability or mutations, is a person that has rights? That is the ONLY requirement; that the blob is the product of two human gametes?
Am I also right in that, having decided on that definition, no one else's opinion matters to you? That others do not find a single cell to be a person means nothing as YOU are making all the definitions? Or do those other opinions give pause that, just maybe, your definition is not all-encompassing and there might be better ones out there?Dan, do you consider a human species in a mother's womb to ever have rights? Or do you feel it has no rights until is born and alive outside the mother's womb?
I note that the conversation is stuck on a very early gestational period of a zygote. If we are still talking about abortion, one must consider fertilization is a very short period of time, a Zyoge is formed within the first hours of fertilization and is only a zygote for about four days. A woman certainly won't discover a pregnancy in the first four days. So abortion would not even be considered at four days (Yes, many women take medication after sex to avoid a pregnancy, and won't take the chance of becoming pregnant). However, my point --- a woman as a rule would not know they were pregnant at the zygote stage of a pregnancy.
So, now I ask, when do you feel a fetus has rights or do you feel a fetus has no rights until born and a viable human being?My opinion, my thoughts;
A zygote is not a person. A full term fetus, whether inside or outside the mother, is. At some point in between that fetus becomes a person in its own right, and should be accorded what rights we can reasonably convey given its status as totally dependent on the mother.
It is the timing of that point that is debatable. I do like the suggestion here that distinctive brain waves develop (specific to people and only people), and that should signal the advent of "personhood". It is far better than anything I've heard or come up with myself.
I don't, however, care for the 25 weeks thing much. I would prefer that it be set earlier, if only as a "safeguard", an "err on the side of caution" kind of thing, if that makes sense.
It sounds like you have been taking lessons from the anti-gun factions.
Why in the world do I have to accept that your incorrect assumptions are so correct and more sound than my own? Just because I see human life as sacred from the time of conception I need to say "Sure, it is okay to kill your children as long as they are not old enough to survive."
Do you not see that is what the gun haters are telling you. "Come on, Wilderness, just accept our definition as our opinions matter too. You should not be the one making all of the definitions here. Why dont you just admit that our assesment of guns causing violence are correct?"
You are using those same tactics to try to get me to tell you that abortion is okay.
It is not. You were a cell at one time, as were your children and grandchildren. Murder for the convenience of the mother is still murder.Didn't ask you to accept my definition. Did ask that you consider other opinions as valid as your own, and allow others to have those opinions. And, of course, act upon them.
You don't have to have an abortion if you don't want one, but those that DO want the procedure should not be constrained by your opinion of the beginning of "personhood", for it carries no more weight than their own.You did not ask me to accept your opnion? This is a direct qoute "Am I also right in that, having decided on that definition, no one else's opinion matters to you? That others do not find a single cell to be a person means nothing as YOU are making all the definitions? Or do those other opinions give pause that, just maybe, your definition is not all-encompassing and there might be better ones out there?"
So I am asking you, what makes you think that your opinion is superior to mine? Why do you insist that it is okay for people to kill their children if they are not yet lucky enough to be born?
It is murder.
A person only thinks murder is wrong if they have morals."It is murder."
No, it is not murder as no person was killed.
Now, we have two differing opinions, but while I am more than willing to have you use your own definition in your own life you do not return the favor, instead insisting that everyone use your definition as theirs is wrong.
Do you now understand the difference?If society wants to accept murder I will have to accept that.
It is still the extinguishment of human life. It does not mean I am going to consider the destruction of a human life okay and accept it just because you think I should "take the knee".
I do not think destroying life is just like exterminating an insect.You needn't accept it at all...for yourself. But when you attempt to force everyone else to accept your opinion that it is a person being murdered you cross the line, or at least in my opinion.
I asked you for your thinking, your reasoning, that abortion is murder, but all I've heard is "it's murder" with no underlying reasoning. That simply is not good enough (IMO) to force everyone else to accept it.
(exterminating an insect IS "destroying life". So is cutting out a tumor or removing a tapeworm. So is slaughtering a cow to eat it. But that isn't the question, is it?)Okay, take this back to the gun control argument. You are saying that I have to accept that it is okay for others to kill their children, but if one of those "progressives" gets a law passed and destroys your gun rights you have to accept it too? Not exactly the same thing but if you try you can understand the similarities.
I did explain to you several times why I believe that destroying human life is murder. You do not want to accept it so you choose to ignore the fact that I already pointed out that you and other pro-abortionists are destroying a creation of God.
I thought you understood that this discussion was about human life. If you do not I can go back and alter that last line to read "I do not think destroying human life is jsut like exterminating an insect." Removing a tumor is not the same thing as destroying a human life either, nor is killing a cow.Ok, Doc, I am not going to tell you that you are all "all wet". Your perspective in this matter is simply not going sell. You are free to believe whatever you like but that is as far as it goes in this country under the current political climate. And from what I have seen over the last few months, that is not very far.
Your perspective will and cannot happen anywhere to emcompass the entire country.
I respect your view. I don't share it, and most the country does not as well."I don't share it, and most the country does not as well."
That remains to be seen, doesn't it? If you are right (and I hope you are) we will soon see these radical laws cease to exist. If not they will remain and likely spread.Well, Wilderness, if it can't sell in Kansas, where can it be sold?
The GOP legislatures are trying to discourage plebecites on this issue even in conservative oriented states, it has been shown to not work. The electorate has been putting "their foot down".I hope you're right. As I said, "Time will tell".
Yes, I realize that many people there do not share my views. That does not mean I am going to change them.
Just because most people supported slavery do you think the abolitionists should have just accepted that it was okay as long as it was someone else keeping slaves? According to the argument here I am told that I do not have to condone abortion but I should allow those that think it is okay to have abortions. The same thing could have been said for slavery "Well, if you are against slavery just do not own any slaves. You certainly do not need to pass laws to make something illegal just becuase it is wrong."Doc,
"I think they protest too much". Your view on abortion was very clear many pages ago. You have shared your thoughts, values, and very clear opinions that life begins at fertilization when a zygote has developed and holds the code of a human organism.
This is clearly your view, and this view is intertwined with true science and your individual morals.
This is where it appears Cred, and Dan have different views, which appear to entail when a human organization becomes a person. It would seem they are for abortion up until the fetus becomes a person. The unfortunate fact about this view, some states have abortion laws that in some respects allow abortion up to birth.
I personally feel if one chooses abortion at any stage they need to understand they are going to be killing a "human organization". At any stage from conception to 9 months, abortion is taking a life. Just because pro-abortionists bring in terms like "person", this does not take away the scientific fact a human organism was killed. If one chooses to believe otherwise they are not really facing facts.
In my view, it seems many who condone abortion have the need for some terms to rely on that will in some sense make the act of abortion more plausible.
I don't believe in abortion, I consider it killing at any gestation --- but it is here to stay. I would hope when states make laws they make sure to limit the weeks when one can obtain an abortion. It's morally wrong, in my view. However, this is where we have evolved as a society.Another false equivalency, Doc?
Slavery involves one person owning a completely distinct and separate human being whose life does not intertwine with that of another.
A zygote is a clump of cells, not another thinking human being who has the right to determine his or her life, independently.
It is a standard conservative argument that IS all wet.
-------
I will work with compromise that was Roe vs Wade, recognizing the right of women to control their own bodies while protecting the fetus particularly from the point that it is viable beyond the womb.
I am not going to change your views nor are you going to change mine. Neither of us are woman, what do they say. They say that the feigned moral outrage from conservatives over this issue is BS. You folks accommodate the most amoral and immoral man of this generation while trying to turn women's bodies into incubation chambers? I think that conservative angst is more about power and control over others and not this so called moral code that they violate daily, in rank hypocrisy.
Whew, that was mouthful....It is NOT a false equivilancy just because people refuse to accept it. My point was that those abolitionists that opposed slavery were faced with the same arguments that have been put up in this forum.
A newly conceived child is a life. Some of them are unfortunate enough to still be inside of a woman who consider them an inconvenience but they are a completely distinct and separte human being.
I realize you do not agree, but I also see "If you do not accept abortion just leave us alone and let the rest of us have it." That is as fundamentally wrong as saying "IF you do not accept slavery just leave us alone and let the rest of us have it."True, Doc
The arguments of pro slavers during the anti-bellum period and that of Stephen Douglas in debates with Lincoln used the same argument.
I don't dispute that, I just don't think that that is what this debate is about.
There cannot be a sadder States of affairs for zygotes, embryos, etc. than being in the body of a woman that does not want it. Do you really think that you can control that from the point of conception? I would see it as a fool's errand.I agree that this is not what this debate is about. My point was I am being told "Just accept that the rest of us want to do this. If you do not agree with it just dont do it."
I can use your last argument and twist it just like the pro-slavers did. "Slavery has existed for all of known human history, and probably long before, so only a fool can think that they can destroy this basic part of human civilization."
Is trying to stop a wrong a fools errand?I can use your last argument and twist it just like the pro-slavers did. "Slavery has existed for all of known human history, and probably long before, so only a fool can think that they can destroy this basic part of human civilization."
But slavery was abolished in America based on definitions of citizen ship and equal Rights extended to all as part of the national creed, let us see how that can be applied to a clump of cells within a woman's body that she can destroy simply by having too many drinks.... Outside your religious dogma, what rights are given to a clump of cells?Not many rights are given to unborn children based on US laws and moralities, although some individual states respect human life more than others.
I think that is why so many people were appalled at the Roe decision that said that no states were able to make laws that stopped women from killing their unborn children. Did the US Supreme Court make a law stating that no state could make a law outlawing slavery since some states thought it was okay?Yes, it is true that some states allow women more control over their reproductive choices than others.
Slavery was legal and considered part and parcel of States rights. The Supreme Court during the Ante-bellum time had no authority to deprive people of "property". Northern states abolished the practice as they had no real economic benefit in maintaining it. So, the moral arguments against it prevailed.
That seem well to be where we are in the abortion question. There is a danger of a rightwing, radicalized Supreme Court declaring that "life begins at conception", effectually outlawing abortion across the nation.
Hopefully, the current rightwing tribunal would recognize the downside of the approach. Even the Supreme Court would have to pause in regarding to legislating from the bench. Otherwise, Congress would have to attempt to issue a national ban. That is dead on arrival as you could never get enough of the states to agree. The magnitude of such a declaration may require a change in the Constitution itself just as what occurred with the 13th Amendment in 1865 used to abolish Slavery. But that is quite unlikely and It is as the ladies say, "we will not go back"
"I realize you do not agree, but I also see "If you do not accept abortion just leave us alone and let the rest of us have it." That is as fundamentally wrong as saying "IF you do not accept slavery just leave us alone and let the rest of us have it."
Very true...except that it isn't about comparing killing children to keeping slaves. It is about what is a person and when does the change occur from a single cell (non-human on the face of it). Killing a collection of cells that is attached to and a part of the mother vs keeping people as slaves then.
Your statement is that a cell is a human being, a person, with all the rights of others. Unfortunately the best evidence you can provide is "Because I say so" and "It has a soul I cannot show you". That is most certainly not adequate to control actions of others.
I will grant you that a few, a tiny minority, claimed black slaves were not "people", not human beings, but that was a pretty stupid statement given the interbreeding that went on. It was nothing more than a rationalization to produce the desired conclusion, much like "it has a soul that I cannot show exists".Your last paragraph sums it up. You point out that those people were making a stupid statement because you do not agree with them.
Neither do I. Neither do I agree that an unborn human is just a mass of cells with no soul."You point out that those people were making a stupid statement because you do not agree with them."
No, I did not agree with them because the physical, observed and proven evidence said they were wrong. You, on the other hand, have no evidence whether physical, observed or proven. Just your own statements given without any supporting data at all.
(If you disagree and have observable evidence, show the soul.)You either have faith or you do not. It is not something you put in a test tube and hold up to show.
If you are an atheist, have not faith, and do not believe in the soul and the sanctity of life that is your problem.On this we agree. We just disagree that your "faith" (unsupported opinion) should be used to control what others do. And that makes it your problem as it is illegal in this country to do that. It is something called "freedom of religion", which includes the freedom from religion as well as the freedom to participate in the religion of your choice.
"I did explain to you several times why I believe that destroying human life is murder."
Yes you did. What you did not explain is why a single cell is considered a person, with all the rights of you and I. Steadfastly refusing to explain that, you simply insist that it is so and therefore killing a fertilized egg is murder.
And yes, a tumor is human life, as is a diseased appendix, a uterus that must be taken out or a limb that must be amputated. Now, you can claim that none of those are a human life, but the simple fact is that all are collections of cells of human life. They just aren't a person and that makes all the difference, doesn't it?So you think an unborn child is nothing more than a collection of cells? No, the collection of cells known as a tumor is not a human life. Why can a person have the cells of their gall bladder removed and still remain alive?
Humans are more than just a collection of cells. They have a soul. If you are an atheist and do not understand that distinction I cannot help that.
Murder only occurs when a separate life is extinguished, even if it is still inside the mother."They have a soul."
Proof, please? You do not have the right to force your religious beliefs on anyone else, not in this country.
Is that where your insistence that a fertilized egg, without a heart, brain, limb or liver is a human being comes from? The belief that there is soul in there somewhere, although you have zero knowledge (as opposed to opinion) that it is actually there or, if it is, when it enters?
"Murder only occurs when a separate life is extinguished, even if it is still inside the mother."
Sorry, you are again making definitions that aren't true simply because they are convenient. A fetus is certainly not a "separate life" from the mother; it is firmly attached via the umbilical cord. It is fed by the mother's body and cannot survive without the mother. It is hardly a "separate life" with that organic attachment and the need for a uterus to contain it.As I mentioned above, if you do not think that children have souls and are a seperate being from their mothers there is nothing I can do about that. A child inside the mother is a separate life, even when it is too small to survive outside of her.
As medical sceince has progressed children are able to survive outside of the womb even younger than before. Using your argument a baby that is 26 weeks old was not a separate life in the 18th century but now that they can survive they are?
Do you think the government was okay to pass laws against slavery? After all, the slavery proponents used the same argument you do: If you do not believe in slavery just do not own one. Let the rest of the people in this country decide if it is okay for them.
It is okay to pass laws against things that are wrong, even if much of society thinks it is a convenient thing and should continue."It is okay to pass laws against things that are wrong, even if much of society thinks it is a convenient thing and should continue."
I guess that's where we really differ here. It is NOT OK to force religious beliefs on others - that's a very firm part of our Constitution as well as both our ethical and legal systems. When "wrong" stems directly and solely from religious beliefs and a handful of definitions created specifically to support the conclusion, well, that is what is "wrong".
Mark, I have asked many people for their reasoning on the question of abortion (and will continue to do so), and very nearly all of them present the same kind of thing you have. "It is human", but without accompanying facts. "It has a soul", that cannot be detected and may not be there "It is a separate life", while affixed to the mother by biology and sharing nutrients.
It all boils down to "Because I say so and that's good enough to force others to do as I think is right". But, to me, it is NOT "good enough" for you have offered no real data, just unsupported opinions and false statements. But I will continue to ask, searching for just such a gem as was offered here in the brain wave concept."But I will continue to ask, searching for just such a gem as was offered here in the brain wave concept."
It would appear you would not condone abortion after a brainwave is present.
"When does a fetus have brain activity?
The first synapses in baby’s spinal cord form during week 7 of pregnancy. By week 8, electrical activity begins in the brain — allowing your baby to coordinate his first (spontaneous) movements that doctors can even see on an ultrasound!
Your baby’s brain continues to develop in the coming weeks, endowing him with a remarkable range of involuntary movements like stretching, yawning and sucking by the end of the first trimester and more coordinated movements in the second trimester.
That said, the brainstem, which controls vital functions like heart rate and breathing, isn’t mostly complete until the end of the second trimester, ( 13 weeks to 27 weeks) and the cerebral cortex doesn’t take up its duties until the third trimester.
In fact, the cerebral cortex — which is responsible for voluntary actions, thinking and feeling — only starts to work around the end of pregnancy, with simple electrical activity detectable in regions associated with senses (like touch) and motor skills in premature babies.
Brain development timeline
There are five different regions of the brain that develop, each responsible for different functions:
Cerebrum: The biggest part of the brain, and it's responsible for thinking, remembering and feeling. This is where the cerebral cortex and its various lobes (including the frontal and temporal lobes) reside.
Cerebellum: The area in charge of motor control.
Brain stem: The engine driving many of your baby's most vital functions, including heart rate, breathing and blood pressure.
Pituitary gland: This pea-sized gland releases hormones into the body that are responsible for growth, metabolism and more.
Hypothalamus: This area deals with body temperature, hunger, thirst, sleep and emotions.
With the biology lesson out of the way, read on to find out how and when these various parts start developing."
https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/ … 0pregnancy).-,When%20does%20a%20fetus%20have%20brain%20activity%3F,even%20see%20on%20an%20ultrasound!
Would you consider it killing if the abortion is performed when the fetus has brain activity and exhibits human senses?Would you consider it killing if the abortion is performed when the fetus has brain activity and exhibits human senses?
------
Even if we could agree on that, conservatives want to consider conception as the point life begins, a completely different argument.
Humans are more than just a collection of cells. They have a soul. If you are an atheist and do not understand that distinction I cannot help that.
--------
There are many people who are, why should your perspective have any more weight than theirs?My question to Wilderness was why do I think their perspective is more valuable than mine?
Is it that I should just accept it? I already pointed out the similarities to the abolitionists and the slavery issue. Were they just supposed to accept it because there were so many slave owners that said it was okay?
Dan,
Dan, thus far I have not used the term baby. Although, is not the word baby just a word that gives humanization to the growing human organism? Example "We are having a baby". "I can't believe I am having a baby". In nine months our baby will arrive"...
I have checked my comment. I have been careful of my terminology and took care to make an attempt to stick to scientific terms. Using terms like zygote fetus, human being, and human organism. I also tried to share that I agreed with your view about the difference between a zygote and or an early trimester fetus as to when I feel they are a "person". I feel that is possible when the fetus's brain is fully developed, and they have all senses.
In regard to my view about terminating a human organism at the early stage of even a zygote, my logic tells me I would be killing a human organism that has the ability to grow into a fetus, and if born a baby. Just my view.
I certainly understand that this issue is very controversial, and I do not have the right to judge others' beliefs on the issue. I have many friends and even a sister that chose abortion just because they did not want the child at a given time in their lives. I did not in any fashion judge them or stop respecting them. So, hopefully, this clears up my thoughts and feeling on abortion.
Dan, you seem very admit in your view, I can respect your view. Can you respect mine?
Abortion is not a pleasant option for anyone, I would have an argument against it if me or immediate members of my family considered it. The difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives do not take their personal views and want it mandated for everyone.
You are talking about a return to a world of whalebone corsets and Virgin Marys. It simply does not exist anymore, why should women have to bear the risk of sexual intercourse every time? Are conservatives in as much of a hurry to hold men responsible in your world of personhood at conception? I don't see that. I bet that you are against contraception, too? This the 21st century, the world the rightwinger prefers and pines for will never be accepted today.
The Republicans would deny poor children any benefits, even to the point of making grade school children work for their lunch, based on some silly moral code of theirs. Pro life has to also be pro child or its pro-hypocrisy.
This Handsmaiden's Tale crap will be and is being defeated across America over the minority of conservatives that may favor it. And, you are seeing it.That first paragraph was so strange that it threw off the rest of the argument. "The difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives do not take their personal views and want it mandated for everyone." Oh, you mean like those progressives that are shoving the trans ideology down the throats of children through school boards?
Get real. Yes, conservatives are trying to mandate morality. Progressives, however, are not enlightened beings that are not forcing their ideology on the other side.Oh, you mean like those progressives that are shoving the trans ideology down the throats of children through school boards?
Well, Doc
So, it has to be solely the ideology of white people and white supremacy as its foundation that is acceptable, anything else has to be shoving something down someone's throat?
ME and Mine have a history, a part to play in America, and there was a time not so long ago where my very existence was considered controversial, but regardless, my right to exist and be recognized was not going to be ignored.I am not sure what you are reaching for here but until you started it this had nothing to do with white supremacy.
Some in our society choose to ignore the fact that when a child is conceived it is the beginning of a human being. This is a scientific fact. Yes, in the first weeks, one would not recognize this being as a baby, a human --- but it is a human being. Many that believe otherwise need to be educated in the conception, and development of a human being.
If one chooses an abortion they are factually killing a living organism. Period.
It is very apparent many women are on board with abortion. They have accepted the right they feel they have to abort a pregnancy. This is where we have arrived, is it not? It is clear to me, that those that feel they have this right are willing to kill. That is where our society is --- again, is it not?
I don't think they are ignoring "You will not kill children" In my view, they have come to believe they have that right if they feel they don't want to carry a pregnancy to term. In my view, the killing part is pushed deep into their subconscious.The question for me: Where are we as a society that many have come to accept and even welcome State sanctioned forced birth?
For me and many others, this comes down to rights. Abortion was a constitutional right, removed by an overreaching court. To all those who believe it's murder, you're in luck because your right is protected in terms of not being forced to have one. My concerns also continue to be with the women who are being unintentionally harmed, physically and emotionally by being caught up in these bans. We have doctors out here now that are letting women reach the brink of death because they are too afraid to act out of fear they will be prosecuted or lose their license to practice. I hope everyone remembers that abortion procedures aren't just used for reckless teenagers. Horrifying stories from the states that have banned abortion demonstrate the medical crisis that now grips nearly half the country. A woman in Wisconsin experiencing a miscarriage was turned away from the hospital and sent home to bleed without medical supervision. In Arizona, a 14-year-old, caught in the crosshairs of abortion restrictions, was denied medically indicated medication she had taken for years. A woman in Texas had to drive 18 hours to receive care for an ectopic pregnancy. I could go on but I won't.The question for me: Where are we as a society when we decide that it was okay to murder children just because they were unfortunate enough to not yet be born?
I understand your concern in regard to some of the horrendous stories that have been reported as of late, and your concerns that Doctors have been put in the middle of this controversy, and now feel fearful of performing an abortion. Even when the state, such as in the Mississippi case you shared. This issue is very contractual and has been for decades.
In the end, the sentiment you've presented here touches on complex issues of individual rights, personal social values, ethics, and the role of a given state. The debate around state-sanctioned forced birth is likely to continue, with various perspectives and considerations playing a role in shaping the discourse.
Consider, opponents might argue that the state's interest in protecting the potential life of the unborn child should take precedence over an individual's autonomy, and could also assert that unborn fetuses have a right to life that should be upheld by the state. ( my own view is that states need to vote on the issue, and the majority should rule, due to our society does seem to feel abortion is a right.)
Those against your sentiment might contend that there are ethical and moral considerations surrounding the termination of pregnancies. They might argue that there should be limits to when and under what circumstances abortion can take place.
Some individuals might believe that a society's values and cultural norms should play a role in shaping laws and regulations, including those related to abortion. Hence, some state citizens may value stricter laws when it comes to abortions. They could argue that state intervention is warranted when the majority of society holds certain beliefs about the sanctity of life and the family unit. In my states that are pro-life also have rights. The majority should rule.
I think states that have these stricter laws should put more emphasis on providing support and resources to individuals facing unplanned pregnancies, such as access to healthcare, education, and social services.I appreciate this well thought out post. It immediately brings my mind to the issue of personhood.
I've read quite a bit from scientists, physicians and scholars of various religious faith postulating on the beginning of personhood. For me I've settled on the theory that states that personhood begins when the fetus acquires the human specific electroencephalogram pattern. Morowitz and Trefil, two Yale biologists physicians said, "In our usage, we say that our species acquired humanness when the enlarged cortex develops, and the individual fetus acquires humanness when the cortex begins to function." So when does it begin to function? Data suggests that, "We are able to identify specific patterns and track changes in the fetal brain activity starting at 28 weeks of gestation." Even then, those are sleep EEGs. There's no indication of fetal awareness. So if loss of EEG pattern is considered human death, even though the heart is beating, cells are aspiring, et cetera, then acquisition of the EEG could be considered human life, when you receive a personhood.
Just my take and I am not saying that based on this specific data that 28 weeks should be an upper limit of abortion. But 20 weeks seems a very logical compromise.Everything you've presented is scientifically valid in relation to the point at which the human species attained attributes of humanness, personhood, and the essential qualities associated with being human.
However, some individuals believe that at the moment of fertilization and formation of a zygote a human being has been created, and if all goes well in nine months a baby will be the result of that zygote that possessed
The typically 46 chromosomes — 23 from the biological mother and 23 from the biological father. The very chromosomes that will determine the baby's sex and physical traits are shared by the mom and dad. This stage is short but is the result of the fertilization of a human being, with the genetic makeup of a human being.
This is where views totally go in different directions. This is where mindsets clash, due to an individual's established set of attitudes, cultural beliefs, values, and religious beliefs.
Certainly, your convictions are completely rational from your perspective, and it's evident that you've invested considerable effort into shaping your stance through thorough contemplation and research. The emotions surrounding the abortion debate are intense among both pro-life and pro-choice advocates. The issue persists without definitive resolutions that could genuinely appease both sides.
I held the hope that individual states would bring this matter to a vote. I believe that, at the very least, this approach could lead to some form of advancement on the issue."I held the hope that individual states would bring this matter to a vote."
In this case I would disagree, for such decisions can serve only to further divide our already divided country. We need a federal law on the matter - something which I generally abhor. But then this is not an ordinary matter to be decided.You as always offer a very logical view. However, I feel the issue of abortion is an issue that defies logic, due to being a very humanistic problem. The emotions it evokes are strong, and with prolifers religion is part of the mix.
I equate this problem to Solomon declaring his judgment: the baby would be cut in two. And one woman came to her senses and said "Let her have the baby". Would a majority vote work using this logic? Could one side finally take on logic, and drop the sword to finally have some form of resolution, a fair resolution come by using the majority rule?
Yes, we would end up with some states having stricter abortion laws and some with very lenient laws. The citizens would have the final say, not any current Government because as we know ideologies are totally split
, and in my view. If Dems were in we would have the very lenient law passed. If Republicans we in, we would have laws that would not be acceptable to those that are pro-abortion. I don't think a Federal law would do anything but deepen the divide.A difference of opinion here, for I see 50 states with some banning any abortion and some allowing up to perhaps 6 months as dividing the country badly, not bringing it together. And then we have some states criminalizing travelling to another state to do something illegal in the first one - just more division yet.
No, we need a national agreement, whatever it might be.
"However, some individuals believe that at the moment of fertilization and formation of a zygote a human being has been created"
Yes a human, but a person? A corpse is also a human. For me, the debate does center around personhood. There are of course many lines of thought as to when this occurs.I have offered a couple of comments on the subject, and actually my thinking on Zygote versus person. I agree there is a big difference. The debate I was having with Dan, was in regards to a Zygote being a human being. I feel when the fetus has a fully functioning brain it is a person. A fetus that is capable of thinking, has senses.
I feel factually abortion kills a human being. If that fetus is over 26 weeks I feel abortion killed a person that had a functioning brain, although would not live outside of the womb.
Not sure of your logic for comparing an unborn human to a corpse.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/358 … ost4303794
"For me I've settled on the theory that states that personhood begins when the fetus acquires the human specific electroencephalogram pattern."
"So if loss of EEG pattern is considered human death, even though the heart is beating, cells are aspiring, et cetera, then acquisition of the EEG could be considered human life, when you receive a personhood."
This is a most interesting concept, and worth while (IMO) to develop further. I could also err on the side of caution, going for 3 months rather than 6 or 7.
"Abortion was a constitutional right"
You will have to quote that document for me, because it is not and never was.On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) holding that women in the United States had a fundamental right to choose whether to have abortions without excessive government restriction and striking down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional.
The Court introduced the concept of a constitutional "right to privacy" that it said had been intimated in earlier decisions such as Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which involved parental control over childrearing, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which involved the use of contraception. The Court ruled that regardless of exactly which provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that protected a pregnant woman's decision whether to abort a pregnancy.
You need only to read that courts ruling and opinions. I also have to note that this was a conservative majority Court.
They stated:
"A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/Yes, the RvsW was based on privacy, which the court determined included the right of an abortion.
A court machination which resulted in what was (IMO) an acceptable compromise, but one based on current political ideals rather than fact or science. It didn't even address "personhood" which (again, IMO) is the crux of the matter. RvsW was a great solution to a modern problem, but only by twisting the Constitution into saying what it did not.
"This is a scientific fact."
Then you will have to show me all where "science" declares that zygote to be a person in it's own right. You and I have disagreed here before, and your basic answer was "It's a person because I think it looks like one" - an answer that is completely without merit IMO.
"If one chooses an abortion they are factually killing a living organism."
Same thing applies to a cancerous growth, a tapeworm, or a cow. All are acceptable to kill...because none is a "person".
"It is clear to me, that those that feel they have this right are willing to kill."
Just so. You define the killing of a single cell organism as "murder of a human being, a person"...while ignoring that not everyone shares your opinion.
Hello,
It is crucial to listen to and empathize with the personal experiences of individuals when discussing issues like abortion. Each person's situation is unique, and hearing their stories can help us better understand the real-life implications of restrictive abortion laws.
Abortion decisions are complex and deeply personal, often involving various factors such as health concerns, financial stability, family situations, and emotional well-being. By sharing heart-wrenching testimonies, PayMyDoctor these women shed light on the challenges they faced and the impact that restrictive laws had on their lives. Their stories can challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about who seeks abortions, illustrating that abortion access is an essential issue for diverse individuals from various backgrounds and circumstances.
Listening to these personal experiences can lead to more empathetic and informed discussions about abortion, fostering a better understanding of the realities faced by people seeking access to safe and legal reproductive healthcare. It can also highlight the need for policies that prioritize the autonomy and well-being of individuals, ensuring they have the freedom to make decisions about their bodies and lives.
As we engage in conversations about abortion laws and access, it's essential to approach the topic with compassion and respect for the lived experiences of those directly impacted. By doing so, we can work towards creating a society that respects individual choices and provides comprehensive reproductive healthcare for all.A 13-year-old Mississippi girl, a victim of rape, was just forced to give birth by the state of Mississippi. In a few weeks she will begin 7th grade.
Is this not child abuse perpetrated by the state of Mississippi? Forced birth. This makes absolutely no sense. Any type of critical thinking has been thrown out the window in favor of "ideology"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 … ged-13-12/Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch on Monday certified the state’s 2007 trigger law banning abortion except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or rape has been reported to law enforcement.
I noted the police were notified by the hospital.I think I read a bit back one can get an abortion in Mississippi for rape or if the mom's life is in danger. Was this a case where a Doc would not do the abortion out of fear of legal problems?
At any rate, this is a very sad situation this young child should not have had to endure. Hard to beleive she received no help.Apparently doctors wouldn't touch her for fear of repercussions and the mother was unable to reach a clinic at 600 miles away.
It would almost seem at one point Doctors will be sued for refusing to help in rape cases. The law is on the books. But then again, I don't think one can force a doctor to do a procedure. This is a very sad issue. Hopefully, some doctors will step up to help, especially in the case of rape of a child.
Doc,
You've aptly pinpointed the issue at hand. At what point did we transform into a society that could casually accept the idea of ending life? Actually, ending the lives of our own flesh and blood. Doesn't this signify a regression for our species? It would seem to be a true deterioration of morals and empathy, not to mention conscience.
SharThis instance was a 14-year-old rape victim. A mere child herself just entering the 7th grade. The state of Mississippi forcing her to give birth is the epitome of a lack of empathy, reason, ethics and morality. It's unconscionable. The poor girl's mother stated that the child really didn't even fully understand where babies even came from.
In terms of other women choosing to terminate a pregnancy within their state guidelines, I don't find it my right or the states duty to regulate morality on this or any other issue. The government does not have the mandate to do so. I can find 10 things straight off the top of my head that others do or partake in that directly conflicts with my personal sense of morality. I don't feel that gives me the right to want these people reigned in by the government.
A regression? I don't feel so, there's historical evidence for abortion back through biblical days. Infanticide was common in ancient Greece and Rome. Female infanticide in parts of the world still happens today. If anything, we've progressed from such a horrific past.
The annual number of U.S. abortions rose for years after Roe legalized the procedure in 1973, reaching its highest levels around the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. Since then, abortions have generally decreased.
I feel pretty certain that the reasons for seeking an abortion very from person to person. I'm not ready to label every woman who seeks an abortion as cold, reckless and immoral. No doubt that some could be considered people who lack empathy but how does a forced birth change that? Now we have a woman who lacks empathy and we somehow think she's going to make a good mother? Or maybe she lacks consciousness and empathy so much that she abandons the baby, or abuses it, neglects it. Maybe she hands the baby back to the state. This is where I really struggle with this push for forced birth. There's no plan or seemingly any care for what comes afterward. Because then, you really do have a fully aware, fully functioning child. The same women who are vilified and have their character assassinated for choosing abortion somehow seamlessly transform into a caring parent? I don't know, I'd have to ask how happy were you with the last choice that was forced upon you? And I say that as a general thought.
When conservatives talk of morality and care and concern for the life of a child as a reason to force birth, it rings hollow for me because I see so very little in the way of concern after that child enters the world. What would I say to conservative politicians? Put your money where your mouth is. We all know full well that anything that requires funding is an uphill climb. Abortion bans are free.
Nowaays, abortion is a very complex question in every country of the world. To prevent abortion, men and women need to comply with modern family planning methods to prevent pregnancy. Critically, with the exception of a rape, or a dead fetus, I don't see the need.
There's a crucial glitch at hubpages that I'm not seeing some posts being made to add my comments.
Abortion is virtually entirely illegal in Alabama.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R obviously) argued in a court filing Wednesday that he can file criminal charges against people who assist those getting abortion care outside the state. Really??
Marshall argued that people who organize travel for those leaving Alabama to receive an abortion, for example, will be participating in a “criminal conspiracy,” because abortion is illegal in the state.
Let's remember that abortion is illegal in Alabama in nearly all circumstances, including those of rape or incest. State legislators are considering, but have not passed, a law that would allow those who have abortions to be prosecuted with murder. Last month the attorney general, explicitly threatened to investigate providers on felony charges if they aid a person in receiving abortion care. What do you think? Good stuff or a no-go? What's next for women, a tattooed Scarlet letter? Does this have fascist overtones?
https://www.apr.org/news/2023-08-08/ala … rtion-care
Related Discussions
- 55
Is It Ever Right To Take The Life Of Another Human Being?
by Thinkaboutit77 16 years ago
What gives us humans worth and value? Is It Ever Right To Take The Life Of An Innocent Human Life?Is the unborn baby a human life? If it is, why is it right to take it's life?What say ye?
- 2
What age can a child choose which parent they want to live with in the state of
by Mysterious-lee 14 years ago
What age can a child choose which parent they want to live with in the state of mississippi?
- 29
Kansas referendum makes it clear: The Right gets a "right cross"
by Credence2 2 years ago
https://www.ksnt.com/elections/kansas-v … -abortion/Great news from the Kansas television station. Would Dorothy say, " are we still in Kansas?A resounding no over a yes against the anti-choice forces by so many voters in a state as conservative as Kansas, should have the Rightwingers...
- 58
The Right to Abortion vs The Reality of Abortion
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
Those who are protesting and fighting for the right and the freedom to abort an oopsie, know that it is more than just than oopsie. It's a human life. Abortion is not good for the soul of the child, the mother's psyche or the mother's body.Yet protesters scream, yell and carry on. However, there...
- 84
Republican National Coalition for life PAC views on Abortion
by Stacie L 14 years ago
on a more serious note, it's is alleged by the writer that "the Republican National Coalition for Life PAC, where they rate GOP candidates on their anti-abortion purity, and my jaw is on the floor at how many of these candidates support the cruelest and most extreme anti-abortion positions...
- 198
Are you a moderate on abortion?
by promisem 9 years ago
The abortion debate is dominated by two extremes. On the one side, "pro life" extremists insist that abortion is murder. On the other side, "pro choice" extremists insist that abortion is a personal choice.I have met quite a few people who think they belong to one or the other....