Burnt Orange Report

Firstly, I just want to think you for the courage to bring this up and tell you that I'm gonna respect you no matter what.

Secondly, regardless of whether we assign any moral weight to the unborn or not, this is not exactly a fun experience for most women, and looking at this as a cost-benefit analysis, it would seem abortion would appeal to some women simply because we as a society have made the costs of birthing and motherhood too high. We're not taking care of our women the way we ought to be and we're not allowing them to take care of themselves. As a matter of rational maximization of utility, reducing abortions must go hand in hand with either supporting parenthood, economically and socially. Vastly increasing the pain of abortions (through criminalization etc.) would of course also reduce abortions but would likely be less effective (since people would avoid being caught) and of course would end up destroying utility.

Now, another way to approach this is from a deontological or natural rights standpoint. Accepting the premise that the unborn are people it follows that they deserve the same moral treatment. Moreover, accepting a retributivist justification for punishment, it follows that there is a duty to penalize women and doctors in the same way that one penalizes murder in the first degree.

Personally, I think that ethical theorizing over abortion has resulted in American society being inflicted with the "paralysis of analysis." Much like the weather, everyone complains about abortions but nobody does anything about it. Moreover, as someone who tends to be fair and balanced with regards to postmodernist philosophy, I think it's worth noting that there's a case to be made that the only thing at issue is the "ick" factor, with all rationalizations thereof leading only to obfuscation, confusion, and conflict.

That said, the debate (as you know) usually turns on person-hood. As I see it there are essentially two major schools of thought, a formalist and a functionalist one.

By formalism I mean, that a person is a person because it conforms to certain physical paramaters, e.g. has a certain flavor of DNA. This seems to be the dominant school on the pro-life side of the debate. My problem with formalism is that I question whether there is a clear bright-line separating human from non-human, with the upshot being that this supposeduly scientific definition essentially strikes me as being effectively like the pseudo-science of eugenics, albeit "very liberal" eugenics.

By functionalism, I mean the ability to "do" something, like think or move or whatever. This essentially does promote accepting differences based upon where one is in a developmental life-cycle, in the sense that development implies action.

Of course, one could argue that since a living being "is" in both the noun and the verb sense (it depends upon what the meaning of "is" is!), drawing such a distinction between formalism and functionalism may be questionable.

Then again, let us not forget the distinction between "living", "human", and "person." Conceptually they are not the same.

I really need to develop this more...

I'm not a philosopher, I just drink a lot (I'm not a playa, I just crush a lot).

The solution is simple--if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

This is a really tough issue, and I don't profess to have all the answers either. I do know that the absolutism express by many people on both sides of the debate has probably resulted in many more abortions in this country than otherwise would have happened.

I believe that your rationale that life begins at conception is probably correct, at least in the basic biological sense, but I don't think things are quite that simple if you take a broader look.

Recent research has shown that up to 75-80% of all conceptions will end in failure before or soon after implantation. Declaring that failure rate a catastrophe would be overkill since many of those failures are because the fertilization did not lead to a viable embryo. Would you regard these naturally rejected embryos as sacred (in the non-religious sense) and worthy of protection as those that pass this stage successfully?

Another way to look at such embryos is as potential human beings (yes, I know, this is not strictly biologically correct) and decisions we make, both before and after fertilization determine if their potential is realized. I say before and after because some people, Catholics for example, that even contraception is denying some child, some person, of the right to a life.

That doesn't mean I have all the answers. I believe that aborting a foetus the day before it's due is unacceptable unless there is some extraordinary circumstance like the baby will die and the mother along with it if nothing is done. But I also believe very early term abortions, within a few days or weeks of conception, are acceptable, since the potential human being is still just a clump of cells, with no personality, no nervous system, no brain, no self-awareness--nothing that we would recognise as something that a being would be deprived of if their life was terminated.

But, and this is where it gets fuzzy, at *some* point between a few days/weeks and full term the foetus begins to take on those attributes that makes us fully human. When that is, I am not qualified to answer. I do know that babies feel pain, they have a nascent personality, and they have basic thoughts, so at some point along the way they started acquiring them.

Currently in places where abortions are legal, they are only widely available up to about 22-24 weeks. After that they are much harder to obtain (or are supposed to be) - this is not something you here about from the hardliners on either side, by the way. I'm sure many people believe that abortion on demand is legal right till full term - and I'm sure this suits the pro-lifer just fine.

That 22-24 week limit, using the criteria I mention above is probably too late. At 24 weeks some foetuses have even survived premature birth. In my opinion that limit should be moved at least a few weeks lower, but I do not have the knowledge at hand to say exactly when.

You touch on the fact that making abortions illegal won't stop abortions. I agree. If you get the chance, go and see Vera Drake - a super film that addresses that very issue. Not only will making abortions illegal not stop abortions, it will unequally punish the poor since wealthy people will always find safer ways (both medically and legally) to circumvent the ban.

I agree that abortions should be as rare as possible, through sex education that is proven to work (not this abstinence-only crap), and by raising the living and educational standards for the poor. Since you mention the Netherlands, you should know that the abortion rate there is over three times lower than in the USA. Progressive states like Massachusetts, which have a higher standard of living, tend to have fewer abortions than poor states like Alabama and Louisiana. This is no conicidence.

Hilary Clinton has already begun to talk about the destructive nature of the current abortion debate, and pointing out that the abortion rate would be lower if everyone started working together on these issues. I think she's on to something, and it will be a big plus for her should she decide to run for President in 2008. Jim Wallis also has a lot of good stuff to say on this issue.

I'm glad you steered clear of religious issues in your piece. For me, the Religious Right's position against abortion is utterly illogical. The bottom line for such people is where you end up after you die - Heaven or Hell. So what is 70 years of life on Earth compared with an eternity in Heaven? Is it not better that these 40+ million innocent aborted souls went straight to Heaven rather than be born and run the high risk of ending up in Hell? Abortion doctors should be heros to such people. (Sorry, I couldn't resist bringing that up.)

Anyway, that's my take on the subject. I hope it helps in some small way.

Andrew, thank you for your well thought out and courageous post. There is much to respond to and I can't do it justice with a brief post, but can at least join the conversation.....

I think you are referring to the Groningen Protocol. In addition to the parent's consent, it also allows doctors to recommend euthanizing the children. Though, it is possible some of these doctors may do more than benignly recommend euthanization.

You also say "…women who would face serious repercussions for revealing the pregnancy should have a safe place to turn to". Building on this point, there is a thriving network of crisis pregnancy centers in this country. Locally, LifeCare Pregnancy Services, whom I financially and prayerfully support, provides amazing counseling and necessary material things for women with unintended pregnancies.

Finally, another angle I encourage you to explore more deeply is abortion’s effect on women. The centerpiece of the recent Texas Rally for Life was the testimony of 4 post-abortive women who gave first person accounts of the lifelong pain caused by abortion, as well as blessed restoration in the hands of Jesus.

Andrew, thank you for your well thought out and courageous post. There is much to respond to and I can't do it justice with a brief post, but can at least join the conversation.....

I think you are referring to the Groningen Protocol (see http://www.azg.nl/azg/nl/english/nieuws/45613). In addition to the parent's consent, it also allows doctors to recommend euthanizing the children. Though, it is possible some of these doctors may do more than benignly recommend euthanization.

You also say "…women who would face serious repercussions for revealing the pregnancy should have a safe place to turn to". Building on this point, there is a thriving network of crisis pregnancy centers in this country (see http://www.care-net.org/). Locally, LifeCare Pregnancy Services (see http://www.austinlifecare.org), whom I financially and prayerfully support, provides amazing counseling and necessary material things for women with unintended pregnancies.

Finally, another angle I encourage you to explore more deeply is abortion’s effect on women. The centerpiece of the recent Texas Rally for Life was the testimony of 4 post-abortive women who gave first person accounts (see http://austinvitw.blogspot.com/2005/01/he-snatched-me-from-spiritual-darkness.html) of the lifelong pain caused by abortion, as well as blessed restoration in the hands of Jesus.

Most on this issue take a dogmatic, one sided view. If the woman has the right to consider abortion and the child does not have the right to life, that is the end of the argument. If the child has the right to life and the woman does not have the right to consider abortion, that is also the end of the argument. I see validity in both of these propositions, and see the issue of abortion as a case of conflict between rights.

I find abortion to be, in a sense, like war: morally repugnant but sometimes necessary. I also find myself quite unqualified to tell a woman what she is allowed to do with her reproductive system, and I consider that if I could somehow be made pregnant against my will, I'd want to be rid of it. Further, I am of the sense that just because something is morally repugnant does not mean it ought to be illegal, and I remember the stories of what women had to go through when abortion was illegal.

In the end, I find myself in the pro-choice camp. However, I still have respect for pro-lifers such as yourself who truly respect life and are not of the sort who seem to believe that life ceases to be worth protecting after birth. A short while back, my co-blogger William raised a small ruckus by coming out against legal abortion. While I disagree with him, I still respect his opinion. I also find it interesting that the Democratic Party later did exactly what he suggested, replacing the pro-choice plank in their platform with a fewer-abortions plank.

Tangentially on the subject: a Netherlands friend of mine has his own strong words on the infant euthanasia laws, which he is in favour of.

Thanks for all of the posts.

Jim, you are freaking brilliant and your analysis is always welcome.

LC- you are regurgitating Lakoff, who I read long before he talked about politics (back when I was a communications major) and even then I regarded him as a hack. I'm curious as to whether you read the post, where I raised serious moral issues. If a fetus is a living human and someone ends its life, we all have a moral obligation to stop it if we are able- just as if you could prevent a person from being murdered, you should. So your argument holds not only no political weight (as those who oppose abortion aren't likely swayed by it), it holds only moral weight of the abominable kind.

Mike- Thanks for the scientific background. I wasn't aware that so many embryos fail to implant. In my studies I came across one school of biological thought that pointed out that since an embryo can still develop a conjoined twin (and thus two individuals) until about the 12th day after fertilization, many regard this to be when life begins. Still a rather philosophical worldview, but I suppose this is where philosophy and science necessarily meeet. As a result, before about the 12th day (earlier in some, later in others), it isn't "living" and thus those that fail to implant aren't the loss of lives, but something else entirely. While there are no "abortions" at the 12 day period- as few people realize they are pregnant by this point- this answers a lot of questions about morning after pills, which I would argue are not abortion per se.

Thank you for your kind words Travis, but I am reminded of a quote some brave man of one sort or another once said to the effect of "In matters where life and death aren't involved, a word other than courage should be used." I tend to agree. It wasn't courageous, it was curious. And while I respect your faith (and share it), I think that when discussing policy, religious standards aren't the best way to judge things. Conceivably, we could ban the killing of all animals as Jains believe all animal life to be sacred. I don't think we would like that restriction. We have to go beyond our religious differences and find bedrock principles- that is the purpose of this post.

And Cecrops, I think you make some good points, but I make the point in the post that a woman's reproductive system becomes subordinate to another's right to life. Of course, one has to ask if we have a moral obligation to trade freedom over our own bodies in order to save the life of another. Morally, I would say probably, politically I would tend to say no. And politics is what we are dealing with here (as you say, the immoral is often legal), so in that instance choice should be our policy. But when we consider that the fetus isn't a distant person, but in fact the woman's child, the obligations to one's family apply. The government can coerce people into giving up significant freedom and property in the name of supporting their children, even when they do not wish to do so. If we recognize the right of the government to prevent people from neglecting their children, surely we can recognize the right for them to compel people not to end their lives.

But finally, the points that have been made about the lack of honest dialogue on this subject are very valid and important. This issue is among the most important of the last generation, and will continue to be so until there is some ultimate empasse reached. We have to go beyond our old way of looking at these issues- "Jesus made that baby" vs. "Keep your laws off my body"- if we are too have a serious resolution. Abortion is an awful thing, and at the very least it must be reduced. But if it is snuffing out a human life, it must be ended.

Thanks, and I imagine there'll be more comments, and I'll respond to these as well.

Andrew,

Excellent post. As is somewhat commonly known, I come down on the side of being a pro-life Dem and the one thing that I think is most encouraging in your post is the still pragmatic question of how to get the number of abortions minimized while still respecting other aspects of a progressive foundation to society.

The issue is not a zero-sum, closed loop question of eliminating abortion and all will be well. Creating an incentive for women and families to choose life over a back-alley abortion is a necessary counterweight and one with no easy answer. But one can start with concepts that ought to be taken more seriously in public debate: that life begins at conception, that we can and ought to help build a society that respects and values life to the point where abortion is diminished as an alternative.

Parts of these problems are simple, good old fashioned economics: create widespread economic opportunities, especially for women ... and you've cut a little from the demand side, for example. Parts of the problem pertain to social policy: to what degree do we, as a society, accept various birth control options, what's the overall value of sex education, etc .... Beyond that, there's a range of issues that get more divisive: should there be a negative consequence for choosing abortion outside of situations such as rape, incest, or endagering the health of the mother. I tend to think there's a range of solutions there that neither the Coburn-esque type (death penalty for the doctors) nor the liberterian hands-off approach. But this is the realm that will always be more divisive regardless of where individuals fall on this issue.

I find it troubling that you are associating yourself with Pro-Life bullshit rhetoric. Pro-Life organizations want you to ask yourself "when does life begin?" and fail to realize that this is not the basic question in the abortion debate. Whats important is to ask yourself "Will making abortions harder to attain (the legislative goal of pro lifers) make abortions something that rarely happens?" and the answer is clearly no.
Lets look at how other Democracies in the world handle this issue...In Western Europe abortions are legal and fairly easy to attain and they have lower abortion rates than we do! Ristricting a woman's right to choose only hurts the poorest and youngest among women. Did you know that 40% of women in America have abortions?
Abortion is not more a horrific act than slaughtering a cow (do you eat meat?) when you think about how frequently they occur. Abortion needs to be viewed as a normal fact of life that had been with us for thousands of years. I guess its like homosexuality then because thats another thing a lot of people have trouble with accepting as a fact of life.
You should read William Saletan's book "Bearing Right:How conservatives won the abortion war". Its about how pro lifers have changed the way they talk about abortion and have masked their agenda behind moderate talking points.
In short....Don't buy into that pro life rhetoric because its based on hate, intolerance and preached by people with their head in the clouds.

P.S.
If men could get pregnant there would be abortion clinics on every city block - they would be like 7-11s.

What frustrates me the most about this issue is that the Republicans throw abortion around as though it is the only important moral issue of out time (and I think you may be falling into the trap also, Andrew, from want you said in your second post).

It's become a massive stick which GOP uses to bash Democrats over the head with and all too successfully drown out any of the other equally important moral issues of our time. In some ways I think the GOP would be quite happy for Roe vs Wade to continue as the law of the land. Again, I urge you to read Jim Wallis's new book.

It is *a* big moral issue, but it is not *the* big moral issue. Fighting poverty at home and abroad, cleaning up the environment, foreign policy (preemptive wars, etc), are all equally important (if not more so) and, in the long run will probably cost more lives than legal abortions if nothing is done to halt the slide in these areas that Bush seems to have precipitated.

I believe that Karl Rove has cynically used the abortion issue (and gay marriage) as a rallying cry to ensure social conservatives helped get Bush re-elected. Those people are feeling a little sore right now since Bush has done precious little to advance their narrow social agenda.

I'm English and lived there for 30 years before coming to Austin. While the issue of abortion does rear it's head from time to time - especially regarding the time limit for legal abortions - it has never been the headline hogger it is over here. For better or for worse, the large majority of people in the UK accept the current law without much objection. Of course, there are always the controvertial cases - last year a woman had a late term abortion because the baby would have had a cleft palate which would have been easily corrected after birth - the doctor should not have performed the abortion in that case - but these are the exception, not the rule.

But, back on topic, I'm curious that you say the morning after pill is okay. Is it okay because you believe that fertilization doesn't occur first? If so, I guess your stance is consistent, but if there's a chance that fertilization happened would that not be abortion at least in some cases?

I also see very little difference in whether the pill worked five minutes after the sperm entered the egg or five minutes before - the end result is the same, you have prevented a life from coming into this world (assuming the foetus would have been healthy). Yes, technically in one case you allowed the DNA to merge and cells to start dividing, but I don't personally believe that those few cells have yet earned the right to be considered a person.

If you choose to believe that some form of ensoulment happens at the point of conception then maybe the equation is different (yet that can bring up all sorts of other thorny issues you are wise to want to avoid at this point!)

When I first meet you you were making your way around from being a socialist who celebrating the nasty and brutal(and also overtly anti-religious) communist revolution in Russia. You decided you were a Green apearently then a liberal democrat. you then moved from being a moderate to a conservative democrat. You have pretty much come full circle to a conservative republican(regardless of what you call yourself). Its clear you have no moral principle, so its no surprise that you are now a man of faith who is anti choice. That anyone would ever bother to expalin to you why you are wrong means they dont know you enough to know that they should just stand back and let move on to nazism. Then slowly make your way back from German camps to Russian ones.

Auto correct my poor spelling and gramar as you read... I'm dysexic or maybe just illiterate, whatever you wanna call it.

This past July I was 5 months pregnant, excited for my ultrasound appointment so I could learn whether I was having a boy or girl. Sadly we learned that my baby's head was so deformed he would not survive outside the womb. There was no hope whatsoever. So my choice was to wait until I was full term, have a c-section and wait for my baby to die or terminate the pregnancy. My husband and I chose the latter. We made the best decision we could for our unborn son, for our 2 yr old daughter, for our family. It was devastating.

Because of Texas laws signed by George W. Bush, if we had found out 1 week later, I would have had no choice. There was no risk to my health. I was not raped.

I never thought I would have an abortion. I certainly never thought I would have a late term abortion. But I did, and it was the right thing to do.

( this comment has been edited due to its lack of meaningful content on any level )

I'm not sure whether to congratulate Andrew on being courageous or to scoff at him for being foolish. Abortion must be the numero uno Internet subject where folks love to talk but not listen. And it doesn't take long before someone drags out a gratuitous comparison to Nazism. (Thanks a lot, Julian.)

One of the big problems here is trying to force fit the facts into our meager terminology and our preconceptions (sorry!) and then sit back in triumph as though all were settled. The common pro-life stance assumes that there is a distinct moment that marks the beginning of human being. Most pro-lifers define conception as this boundary point. And why not? It's conveniently distinct. Also, it's reasonably safe (in the sense that a human being almost certainly does NOT begin any earlier than the union of egg and sperm).

But there are lots of problems with equating a fertilized human ovum with a human being. When asked to justify this equation, I've heard folks offer lots of arguments and handwaving about potentiality and genetically completeness and such. Granted, the product of conception is human, is living, and is genetically distinct. But that does not answer the question of why it must be considered to be a human being.

Furthermore, the "personhood begins at conception" thesis leads to some paradoxes. In the case of identical twins, there is one conception but (apparently) two persons. When did the second one begin? In the rarer case of chimerae, there are two conceptions that fuse into (apparently) a single person with two distinct set of genes. And I think that scientists have evidence of a single conceptus dividing into twin embryos and then reuniting into a single fetus. In each case, is there one person or two? Why?

Let me offer an alternative. To define the beginning of personhood it only makes sense to study how we determine the other end, when a person dies. Our best understanding today is that brain activity is essential for a human life to exist. After all, you can take away any other organ of the body and the remainder will still be a human being. Without a brain, however, it's not, even though it may breathe, eat, excrete, reproduce, and otherwise resemble a complete person.

If we accept that personhood is inextricably tied to brain activity then one could argue that a fetus really becomes a human being sometime during the second trimester of pregnancy. Oddly enough, that roughly corresponds to the Roe decision which allows states to impose firm restrictions after the second trimester. True, this point of development is not as easy to identify as conception. That's unfortunate. But it does fit better with our understanding of what is a person, from all sorts of standpoints-- legal, scientific, and practical.

I appreciate how Andrew has addressed this subject, without the venom and hateful name calling that one often sees in discussions about abortion. I'm a Christian who firmly believes that human life is sacred and that it deserves our respect, starting well before conception and continuing beyond the final breath. But I'm also pro-choice, humbly recognizing that the real world presents us with difficult choices that should be left to the individual.

I do not believe the abortion issue should focus on 'personhood' at all. It should focus on the question of whether or not a woman has a right to autonomy over her own body. There are many instances in life where one person needs something from the body of another person in order to survive. However there are no laws which force anyone to donate a single drop of blood, bone marrow, skin, or an organ to keep another person alive. Even a corpse has rights in this regard and must leave permission in advance or permission must be obtained from a family member in order for any part of that corpse to be used to benefit or preserve the life of another.

If a child needs a bone marrow or kidney transplant and a parent or sibling is a perfect match, the parent or sibling must freely CHOOSE to use their body to preserve the life of the person who needs them.

A pregnant woman should have no less right to choose than a corpse.

Last year over four million women chose to use their bodies to bring a new life into the world and to support that life until it could support itself. I am all for promoting conditions that will encourage more women to make that choice. I also strongly support programs to effectively educate young people about the responsibilities of sexual activity including how to prevent unplanned pregnancies. But I can never support legislation that would take away a woman's right to autonomy over her own body.

Susan Culp

I'm not camparing the anti-choice movement to Nazism, I'm simply commenting on Andrew's fickle movement through political ideologies. It's simply to tell you that posts that attmept to make an intellectual argument against his not-so-intellectual claim (and Jose you tried really hard to be intellectual) are a waste of your time. Anyone that can go from being a communist to a conservative republican and everything in between has no principle. I was only half joking when I said he was on his way to nazism (he has already celebrated Russian communism and its death camps [hence his AIM name]). Andrew's posts are not courageous so much as they fit in with his ever-continuing quest to be louder and more obnoxious then before.

I believe life is inextricably bound to its environment. Therefore, fundamentally no fetus is "alive" to a mother who refuses to give it birth or refuses to care for it after it is born. Any woman determined (even to the point of suicide ) to see that her fetus or infant does NOT live WILL find a way to end that life in 99.99% of the time.

Would I force my belief on others, though? Machine gun down anti-abortion rights activists? Assassinate Frank Corte? Of course NOT! I can compromise and accept restrictions in late term abortions for the sake of social peace and welfare.

Likewise, the vast majority of anti-choice folks do not support assassinations of abortion doctors, fire bombing of clinics, etc. This is a tacit acceptance on their part that the personhood of the mother is fully developed, whereas the personhood of the fetus is not -- and that reasonable compromises must be made for the sake of the public peace and welfare.

The problem is that most anti-choice folks have never thought this out completely and come to that understanding. They are distracted and deluded by religious issues which can never become effective law. They need to be asked the hard questions -- but unfortunately no one asks them these questions because the pro-choice crowd has been too "nice". We have to be much more aggressive.

Whenever I discuss abortion rights I always start out by asking, “Was John Brown was justified in his attack on Harper's Ferry. Did the personhood of black slaves justify his violence? Did the personhood of the slaves justify the slaughter of our civil war?”

If my listener says, "yes", then I ask them if the personhood of a fetus justifies the killing of abortion doctors or other violence against abortion providers. If they say "yes", then I ask them if they wouldn't mind listing their name and address at www.revenge.com. They look at me oddly, and then I tell them that there is a website where people with such views are listed so that disgruntled women and families who have suffered from their policies can target them for retribution. When then tell me I'm crazy, I say, "Well, they hanged John Brown, didn't they? And our southern brethren killed hundreds of thousands of righteous northern soldiers, didn't they? What makes you think your advocating violence will not have personal repercussions?"

In the vast majority of cases, of course, my listener says that they do NOT advocate violence against abortion providers. In that case I allow them to agree with me that indeed the personhood of the mother holds precedence over that of a fetus – and that all everyone is looking for is a reasonable compromise on this issue. I immediately follow-up with, “What REALLY irks us liberals, though, is how the radical right has all you so called “pro-lifers” so tightly bound to them by the abortion issue that you turn a blind eye to all the conservative policies that actually INCREASE the number of abortions, etc., etc.”

Then I start asking them other questions such as:

What do they plan to do with the extra children? While we force women out of welfare roles, where are these children going to go? Is it foregone that they must give them up to "good Christian homes"? Group homes? The streets? Or will we begin to see many more women and children living in cars?

Will we establish a miscarriage police? And what about the right to privacy between a doctor and patient? If we lose confidentiality in regard to abortion, then will we have all of our medical records accessible by the courts?

Shall rape victims be imprisoned and forced to give birth? Is a husband bound to support a child that is a product of a rape? Does the rapist retain parental rights?

Are parents of teenagers forced to raise grandchildren in their retirement years? Can they recoup losses from the family of the teenage father?

Should women be placed at risk of lost wages, livelihood, rental status, or health-related risk while she is pregnant and is it lawful to write any laws that place put any burden on pregnant women?

If each miscarriage is investigated, how many innocent women will end up in jail or prison?

Are the poor and downtrodden, the independent, and the uneducated to become babymaking machines for this new vision of America? For the Evangelical masses, for a new "Christian government?" Are their forgone offspring to be given up into the glory of a new super Army, for a war without end?

Can we presume to protect the rights of one woman who may die if she continues a pregnancy, and not protect the woman who acts out of irresponsibility?

If we suspend the rights of one, don’t we in error suspend the rights of all?

Julian - Please remember that early adulthood is a time when a lot of people spend time re-evaluating their positions on things. It's a time when a lot of people have knowledge but not wisdom. I have to say that statement applies to myself.

Thanks for getting my back, Jim. Indeed, I once believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I grew to question those positions and changed them. People grow, particularly when they are in their early 20s and are learning a lot more about the way the world works. As for being described as "fickle", it certainly beats being an ideologue. I don't make any choices based on pure ideology- I based them on what the evidence suggests would be best for our society as a whole. If abortion is in fact murder, then it must be outlawed.

I think that some of you have neglected to read what I said- first off, I didn't say that I am now pro-life. I am just starting to ask questions, and have been for some time. I wanted to get your take on things so I could make a more informed decision. Those of you (not Julian) who have said something substantive have helped.

Secondly, I said very clearly that we must couple this policy change with a support for greater social services for young mothers and children. Please read everything (I know its long) before attacking me for things I already said I don't agree with. Most of you are still making great points.

Thirdly, for those who say it isn't a matter of "life" it is a matter of "choice", I think that that is pretty disgusting. If it is a life, and we allow people to electively end a perfectly healthy and innocent human life, that is repugnant. If it isn't "alive" but merely a biological feature of a woman's body, you make an excellent point- it is choice. But the primary question must be "is this alive?" and the subsequent answer will then decide the debate. That's why I asked the questions, to understand what I should think about this.

Finally, I went out of my way to avoid pro-life rhetoric. I am trying to dive into this intellectually. And to the woman who had to make the awful choice, I understand where you come down and I understand your thought. I'm not going to argue with your choice and I respect you and your choice. God bless you and your family.

So thanks for the comments (with a few exceptions) and let's keep the debate going.

I am curious about your stance on the death penalty. If we are talking about abortion and its legality, then what about killing that is not only legally supported by our government but actually enforced? Like I said, I'm just curious, not trying to send this into an unrelated direction.

Andrew - I too have evolved in my position on abortion. When I first developed a postion on the issue, I opposed abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. I have since greatly increased my understanding and respect for women, and have come to realize that I, as a man, will never be able to understand the moral questions that a woman will face - something that has led me to a 100% pro-choice position. For that reason, I've decided that what a woman will do regarding her pregnancy is not a question for me -- it is a question for her, her partner, her doctor and her God.

Having said that, I agree with the phrase that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". Too often, Democrats forget about the latter - taking steps to make abortion as rare as necessary. While I oppose anything that would punish women for having abortion, I do think that incentives should be given - perhaps educational or housing incentives for women who choose adoption. Furthermore, sex education programs should stress proper use of contraceptives and conditions that promote unwanted pregnancies (notably poverty, etc.) should be addressed seriously.

Unfortunately, for all their talk against abortion, Republicans have little to show for their talk. What has the Republican government of the past years done to actually reduce abortions? In reality... just about nothing. They talk a lot about it, but rarely do Republicans actually promote policy that tries to prevent pregnancy or discourages pregnant women from choosing abortion. Democrats can obviously do better on this topic, but Republicans clearly deserve the most blame. They do almost nothing to decrease unwanted pregnancies and abortions yet win so many votes on the issue. It's a disgrace.

First of all, I would like to say that everyone should think about abortion as much as you have and should do as much research as you clearly did. Nothing annoys me more than people who jump into the debate with no more information than “the Bible says it’s wrong.” or “it’s my damn right to an abortion.” That being said, I have to say that I come down on the side of pro choice.

I believe that sex ed programs should be altered to include better information about the various forms of contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I believe that women considering abortion should try their level best to find a way to keep the baby or to put it up for adoption before choosing to have an abortion and that more government money should be spent in providing information and services to these women to help them find ways to keep the baby or find an adoptive home for it. Everything should be done to help these mothers see that abortion is not the only or easy choice.

However, I don’t think that the government should pass any stricter laws than the existing ones to regulate abortions for the following reasons. One, the current laws that limit abortions to the first two trimesters unless the mother’s life is in danger fall in line with when the fetus’ brain has a recognizable EEG pattern. Without a recognisable EEG pattern, a patient is considered dead. This makes a very logical line for the state to draw in when a fetus is considered alive and when it is not. One can debate when a fetus becomes alive in God’s eyes, but I am a firm believer in separation of church and state and do not feel that the debate about when a fetus becomes alive in God’s eyes has a place in the debate about abortion legislation. I believe that it is up to the mother, not the government, to reconcile her decision about whether or not to have a an abortion with her faith.

Two, like you said, if abortion were to be made any more difficult to obtain, the practice would simply go underground and without government oversight to maintain standards more women’s lives would be at risk and some attempted abortions would instead result in simply damaging the fetus so that when it is born it is less likely to survive and more likely to have injuries or defects that would hinder its life. Personally, I would like for women under 18 to be able to get abortions without their parents’ permission or notification of their parents for this reason. If a young girl is scared that her parents may turn her out or otherwise harm her if they find out she is pregnant or had an abortion, she may turn to unsafe methods of aborting the fetus which would put her life in jeopardy as well.

Third, like it or not, the burden on the mother is far greater than the burden on the father. Laws may mandate that the father pay child support, but if the father does not live up to other parenting responsibilities, there is little the mother can do about it. The judicial system does not force a criminal to serve both his and his accomplice’s sentence if the police are unable to find his accomplice. It’s unjust to force one person to bear the sole responsibility for two people’s mistake, which banning abortions would effectively do in many cases where the father abandons the mother and new child.

In relation to my previous point, there is no punishment for mothers that endanger their baby’s health by drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking, or otherwise engaging in behavior that could harm the fetus. If you’re arguing that a woman should not be allowed to terminate her pregnancy because the fetus is a human life, how do you justify not punishing the mother for other behavior that might endanger the fetus. Also then, would it be fair to only impose these restrictions on the mother (not drinking, not smoking, etc) when the father is just as responsible for the existence of this fetus? Ultimately, by enacting further abortion legislation, you start heading down a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line on laws to protect the fetus? Do you impose legal restrictions on the behavior by the mother that may harm the fetus? How exactly do you hold the father to the same standards that a mother faces when he does not actually carry the baby? It’s not practical or even, in my opinion, possible.

Finally, I believe that the woman must ultimately weigh all the factors such as her faith, her ability to keep the child, the possibility of adoption, and medical conditions that may threaten the life of the fetus or the woman and make her own decision and then deal with the ramifications of those choices.

But let's keep talking about it. There's a temptation to say that abortion is a silly debate because (for many people) it is highly symbolic and often disingenuous. And I think there's a tendency among many progressive liberals to not want to talk about something that isn't purely an economic or "public sphere" adjudicatory right. Afterall, goes the logic, if Thomas Jefferson didn't talk about abortion, why should we?

That has tended to be my view, but I have come to regard it as wrong. First, because of what essentially amounts to the critical feminist critique of liberalism - glossing over issues like this does a disservice to women by ignoring the differences between men and women.

Secondly, because given the historical perspective and the stakes involved, this is actually a more substantive issue than many of the debates in America's history. Regardless of whether you disagree with the proposition, opponents of legal abortion can argue that abortions have killed millions of unborn children. Overblown? You decide. But even a questionable claim to millions of lives ought to recognized as an assertion that the stakes in this debate are much, much higher than the stakes over, say, prohibition of alcohol, which was a major social debate for 100 years, resulted in two Constitutional amendments. Or freemasonry, which actually was a major political issue in the early-to-mid 1850s. I'll even go so far as to say the stakes in the abortion debate are higher than those in the gay marriage debate.

Many millions of people think abortion is an important topic, and given the sort of things Americans have thought relevant in the past, it definitely is.

I hear a lot of people say "all human life is sacred," but almost no one behaves as though they actually believe it.

If you support the death penalty, you don't believe life is sacred. If you support the Iraq war (or really, any non-defensive war), you don't believe life is sacred. Not really. Not in any way that actually matters. Such a sentiment routinely gets tossed out the window the first moment it's convenient. File it under the category of "lies we tell to ourselves."

Scott - A more accurate phrasing would be, that "human life is inviolable." Death-penalty supporting anti-abortionists (the pro-death pro-lifers), get around the issue by adopting a retributivist scheme for justifying capital punishment. In other words, the question isn't about the inviolability of life but over the justification of killing. We execute people because they deserve it, so goes the logic of that camp.

But that said, most people are probably in favor of justification and/or self-defense as an affirmative defense to murder.

Justification, moreover, plays a role in permitting the "rape, incest, life/health of the mother" exception that more moderate anti-abortionists espouse.

You could say that pro-choicers are essentially in the same boat ("it's justifiable if the woman thinks it's justified!"), but have allowed the exception to swallow the rule. At least for those who do believe abortion is killing a valuable human life (not all pro-choicers do).

Again, justification creeps in because there's a difference between holding life as sacred (which I take to mean "generally worthy of veneration"), which might be considered a rebuttable-presumption that life cannot be taken; and inviolable, which is an absolute assertion of unassailability. For what it's worth, I am drawing a distinction which I think is useful in understanding the politics of abortion, not one which you will necessarily find in the dictionary; Merriam-Webster's says "sacred" and "inviolable" are synonymous. My contention is that the terms are not synonymous when they are actually used in this context.

One of the problems with defending the "pro-choice" position is that there is no one, single, pro-choice position. As suggested above, ultimately for me, this comes down to a gut-check/"blink" decision that abortion ought to mostly be legal, at least in the first few months of pregnancy. There's a case to be made that this is sometimes the best way to come to a decision (See for example this book.).

I put up my take on the abortion question a while back. I had come to similar conclusions, with more detail.

It's the detail which gets to you.
My article.

It's intellectually brave to think out loud like this on such an important question.

I'll leave the longer comments directly above alone. Just want to underline the fact that, as you can see, it all depends on your premise. If you believe human life begins at conception, all of your conclusions will flow from that point.

If that's the case, this position makes no sense:

The solution is simple--if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Yet if I threw this commenter off the top of a building, it would not be satisfying to say "If you don't like murder, don't commit one."

There is virtually no difference in the value or status of a fetus whether it's five seconds before or after birth. That being the case, stretching back into time, there is only one way to make sure you are not, shall we say, accidentally killing an innocent person. And that's to recognize human life as beginning at conception.

My only other comment is about the role of religion. Fortunately our Constitution spares us from the travesty of a state-run church--but in the public square, religion has neither fewer rights nor more than any other worldview. Religion is not required to be silent in such a discussion, certainly not in the political sphere, though you personally may find secular or strictly scientific arguments to be the most valid.

Good luck.

I learned to do my US dating,etc at an abortion clinic.Although not an Ob/gyn I probably did a few hundred deliveries in med school and residency;so I have a good background on the subject.I'm not competent to address whether Roe v. Wade was good law ,so I won't comment on it,but some of the pro choice people do strike me as about as intelligent as the creationists.Specifically,with regards to the partial birth option.Sissela Bok,a philospher at Harvard posited a tmie frame during which abortion was legal and acceptable-which she felt could be arbitrarily set as the time the fetus could survive ex utero.(I think this was without mechanical support;i.e. a ventilator).Most screening US's are done at 20 weeks,so gender can be identified if the parents want to know.If we take 28 weeks as the time a preemie can survive ex utero(and a neonatologist would need to give an expert opinion) that leaves plenty of time for an elective proceedure if desired.But,and it's a big but,I can think of no medical reason ,in terms of health why a partial birth should.More to the point,neither can my father and a colleaue of his who have 15-20,000 deliveries between them.When I took medical ethics we were taught to differentiate between fundamental and absolute rights.While I think choice is the former ,it is not the latter(and please don't trot out the tired canard abiut the patients mental health being better if the abortion is performed.Since that is an unmeasurable statement it is about as scientifically rigorous as "phlogiston" or "cultural bias".Anyway here is my position on Ab's.

This is a commendable intellectual journey you are taking, Andrew, no matter what conclusion you ultimately obtain.

In my opinion, any decision about abortion rights must be founded on a solid decision about what consitutes the personhood of the fetus: that is, under what conditions should the fetus be considered a separate human being with rights equal to that of the mother? For convenience I will call that state of equal rights "personhood."

For a fetus that obtains personhood, the question of abortion is equivalent to the question of murder: it should be legal only under the same circumstances under which it is legal to kill another human being (e.g., self defense). And it also justifies the intrusion of society upon the pregnancy process, because the fetus is entitled to basic protection of its life and general health that we give to all children. Just as we do not permit parents to physically abuse or kill their born children, we would be compelled to extend that protection to unborn persons as well. It is no longer just "the mother's body, the mother's decision"---there is another person involved.

Now to be sure, pregnancy is a unique circumstance, indeed. But again, once the fetus is given equal rights, the perspective is fixed, if not the answers. For example, once a fetus obtains personhood, even the justification of abortion in cases of rape and incest go away. Both are wicked crimes to be sure. But what gives the victim of any violent crime to intentionally kill an innocent bystander? As callous as that may sound, it is indeed the only logical conclusion if a fetus is to considered a fellow person. And it also means that we as a society would truly need compassionate maternal care and, if desired, adoption support in such cases as an alternative to the status quo.

On the other hand, before a fetus obtains personhood, the mother's rights as a person necessarily trump the rights of the non-person fetus. This includes her right to seek any sort of legal medical treatment, including abortion. It is still a separate life, and we may want to insist that abortion be done in a "compassionate" way (e.g., by anaesthetizing the fetus), but that need not be feared as an erosion of the abortion mindset---we have no difficulty demanding such compassion for animals, after all.

But one cannot assume the conclusion without establishing the premise, and all too often that is exactly what pro-choicers do. I see it in this thread: it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a person, it matters whether a woman should have control over her body. Well, the answer to the latter depends on the former! All pro-choice arguments are irrelevant if the fetus is a person of equal status, so first it has to be credibly established that it does not. That doesn't mean you have to convince the other side with your views on personhood, it's just that you have to actually address it.

When that is done, the only difference between an intellectually complete pro-choice argument and an intellectually complete pro-life argument is the disagreement about when personhood begins.

As for me I find myself largely, but not completely, pro-life. I say that because I do not believe that personhood begins at conception, so I don't find myself concerned about such things as anti-implantation contraceptives, IVF, etc. But I do feel that fetuses become persons far earlier than we are willing to acknowledge as a society.

Well, when I took the same approach, I came to the conclusion that, as things stand now, the best definition I could come up with was the reverse of the standard for death. If the fetus has brain waves, then it is indeed alive. This typically occurs, as far as I could find, near the end of the first trimester which gives a "window" when, again IMHO, abortion would not be killing a human being.

At the other end of the process, I'm strongly against abortion in the third trimester save for dire necessity (mother's survival, etc.). This is rooted as much in this male's personal experience as anything, I was eight weeks premie back in 1951 and I know of folk born twelve weeks premie and living.

Just a bit on the religious perspective. There is a very interesting passage in the Bible that is relevant to the personhood question. It is Ecclesiastes 11:5. The NIV versions says,

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things."

Now, as this was originally written in Hebrew, the English is not a perfect translation, and there is a footnote for this verse that clarifies the meaning of the italicized portion: "how the life (or the spirit) enters the body being formed in the mother's womb."

Other translations capture this nuance. For example, the Amplified version states "how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a pregnant woman".

Anyway, I've always found that fascinating, because of its insight into the Judeo-Christian notion of a separation between spirit and body, and how it suggests that the formation of a person is indeed a process and not an event (conception).

I admire your piece on abortion. But your arguement loses credibility when you state that "sex education should start in the schools" Pardon me? Why is it that Democrats think that the morality of the pledge of allegiance should be outlawed in schools, but yet somehow the morality of sex education is fair game? Sex education should start and END in the home.

1. (to earlier person) If you don't like slaves, don't have one. If you don't like infanticide, don't do it. Etc.

2. I was there when my child was aborted. If I were a politician, I would never vote on abortion, pro or con. I do beleive it is an issue that should be settled by legislators. But I don't have the right to be involved any more.

3. Sometimes I have these wierd thoughts. Is murder really "wrong"? Animals kill each other. and we are animals. If you don't beleive in God, maybe that is the way it should be. And lying is ok too if you get away with it. But I struggle. sometimes I feel the reverse and think I should be a vegetarian and that eating meat is murder.

----

These things are hard...

For the previous post: If murder "isn't wrong", why do we feel bad when it happens? Why do people feel guilty after they have commited it?

To go further, why do women feel guilty after they have had an abortion? If they don't believe it is murder...then why the guilt?

"... life begins at conception ..."

This is a slogan, unconnected to scientific reality - but probably not in the way you think I mean it.

Life in the womb does not suddenly come into existence when two non-living things get together. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and the fertilized zygote is alive. Life does not begin at conception: it was there before conception and it continues after conception.

In other words, I think both sides are arguing from a false premise. More science, please.

"Safe, legal and rare."

Think about that. If we believe they should be safe and legal, why should they be rare?

Isn't that a tacit admission that, way in the back of our minds, we think there's something wrong with having one?

"If you don't like abortions, don't have one."

Great. If you don't like slavery, don't own one.

Congrats, Andrew, for figuring out that this is a moral issue. There's nowhere else to go with it.

This is a wonderful discussion. I had thought our society had lost the ability to have civil, reasoned discourse. Maybe there's hope.

I respectfully submit that there's a whole branch of science that has been omitted from the discussion so far, and that is forensics. I think we can agree that few abortions happen minutes after conception. They tend to happen at four months, and forensics has a lot to contribute at that stage. The "entity" which is the target of the abortion has, at four months, not just DNA, but fingerprints, ethnicity, gender, height, weight, blood type and hair color. For those of us who watch "Law & Order", "CSI" and "NCIS", that is enough to establish identity. We can be certain that whatever we want to call the "entity" at that stage, it is forensically distinguishable from the Mother. The rubric that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, which I fully support, clearly does not apply to the "entity", which is forensically "someone else's body".

Bottom Line: If we take forensic science into account, we are not discussing a woman's right to choice about her own body; we are discussing the right of Mother to kill Not-Mother.

Other than the occasional moronic soundbite from some of the commenters, this is one of the best discussions of this issue I've read in a long while.

Science will never finally answer the question of whether life begins at some point before birth, because whether life has "begun" is inescapably an issue of what we value. And figuring out what we value only gets us half-way through the analysis. The rest of the puzzle is: what is the proper function of government? It's a singularly thorny issue - as issues of intense moral significance usually are.

All around a fine piece, Andrew, and a superb discussion by thoughtful people of goodwill on both sides of the issue.

[i]"Think about that. If we believe they should be safe and legal, why should they be rare?

Isn't that a tacit admission that, way in the back of our minds, we think there's something wrong with having one?"[/i]

Very glib, Dave, but wrong. Abortions are often performed when a woman gets pregnant by mistake. All but the most ardent pro-choicers would agree that it would have been better for those women not to have become pregnant in the first place. Just because someone thinks something should be safe and legal, doesn't mean that person believes it should happen all the time.

Oh and congrats Dave on completely missing the fact that we [i]are[/i] all treating this issue as a moral one already. Do you really think that anyone who is a pro-choicer is completely incapable of seeing that?

It's your kind of argument that is responsible for the deadlock in the abortion debate that has lasted for decades. I guess for you the principled stance against all abortions is more important than getting abortion rates down to the level they are in Europe (i.e. up to 3 or 4 times as rare).

"... life begins at conception ..."

This is a slogan, unconnected to scientific reality - but probably not in the way you think I mean it.

Life in the womb does not suddenly come into existence when two non-living things get together. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and the fertilized zygote is alive. Life does not begin at conception: it was there before conception and it continues after conception.

In other words, I think both sides are arguing from a false premise. More science, please.

A person does not exist until a sperm is united with an egg. Nor can it--there are only nearly countless possible persons until then. Every human being consists of the union of a sperm and egg, but nothing less than that.

You can read "life begins at conception" as "human life begins at conception," but since it is human life we are concerned with, I think the shorthand is fair.

Andrew, I am noticing a dominant theme in these posts. And that is "WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?" The pro-life crowd believes life begins at conception. That is and has always been their position for decades. To me that stance is quite clear. However, the pro-choice crowd has never stated when they think life begins. They don't have a position or have chosen not to take one. It seems to me that if want to be a part of the abortion debate, shouldn't you comit to a belief on when life begins? The pro-lifers have stated their position on when they think life begins. I challenege the pro-choice crowd to come to a unified stance on that crucial issue. Until they do, no rational debate on abortion can move forward.

Science will never finally answer the question of whether life begins at some point before birth, because whether life has "begun" is inescapably an issue of what we value.

I agree, except for the terminology. I do believe that science is basically unanimous that life begins at conception. There really is no disputing that a new, unique organism comes into existence within a small interval of time surrounding fertilization.

Having said that, I agree with you that we must decide what it is about life that we value, and therefore what constitutes what we call "personhood." We seem to have an easier job of having that debate on the other end of the life timeline, Terri Schiavo notwithstanding. We are all reasonably comfortable with the notion of "brain death", for example. If we were not, then we would have a great difficulty in allowing doctors to proceed with organ harvesting for transplantation once a person has entered that state---would we be taking their life?

So I would agree with your statement 100% if you would replace the term "life" with "personhood." Indeed I think that some efforts to claim that we don't know when life begins is an attempt to obscure the biological fact of it, as if out of fear that this would make it harder to win a debate about when "personhood" begins. (Though I am not accusing you of that here.)

The rest of the puzzle is: what is the proper function of government? It's a singularly thorny issue - as issues of intense moral significance usually are.

Hmm, but indeed, you make it sound like that's a large piece of the puzzle, when it is but a small part of it. Deciding when the government recognizes personhood is really the largest challenge. If we decide that a fetus is a "person" in the same sense you and I are after a certain number of weeks, then frankly the governmental role falls into place, for the most part. That person must now be granted the same rights as, say, a post-born child. That includes a certain bit of parental autonomy but excludes physical abuse or murder.

I don't see what is "thorny" about the question of government involvement---that is, once the personhood question is settled. Perhaps an example would be helpful.

Offered without comment, except to disclaim any endorsement of Peter Singer whatsoever.
Abortion, by Peter Singer

I essentially agree with Mike Walker's take on the subject, way back up there in the comments. It's interesting that the policy prescriptions that flow from this newfound absolutism touch on peripheral issues: sex-education, the desirability of adoption, etc., but fails to address the coercive element of the equation.

Namely, if protected life begins at conception, and any extinguishing of that life, will women who secure and use a day-after pill be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder, and doctors/pharmacists who acquiesce be treated as accessories? After all, terminating a one-day old pregnancy would have to be treated the same as terminating a 28-week pregnancy, since the viability argument (glossed over with a strawman in the initial argumentation) no longer applies.

You know, this is a great example of the Right's disconnect with reality, and Democrats purpose and view of the world.

Dave says, "Congrats, Andrew, for figuring out that this is a moral issue."

This type of dumbspeak used to amaze me.

Andrew:

I was impressed with your essay until I came upon this statement:

Democrats must take the lead, as only Democrats can protect life before it is in this world and after it is born. It is time for politics to leave this discussion and for level-headed and honest people to debate the issues with themselves and others in a respectful way.

What a bunch of crap.

You go on and extol, quite rightly, the fact that the abortion debate should be centered on the rights of the nascent child, but then follow it up with that damnfool statement.

First: If it is true that only "Democrats" can protect life before birth and after, then you have ipso facto injected politics into the discussion. However, your very next sentence asserts that it is "...time for politics to leave this discussion." Pick one and go with it, bub.

Second: Are there no Republicans or Independents or Libertarians whom you would consider "level-headed and honest people?" Remember - you used the capital-D "Democrats." That says politics to me. Further, you assert that only "Democrats" can discuss this issue in a level-headed and honest and respectful fashion.

With all due respect, sir, you've been in Austin too long.

I respect you for publicly writing your thought process on it - it is, so far, fairly well-reasoned, but it is still filtered through the Donkey-colored glasses that you continue to wear. Not every Republican is what you see and hear under the Dome. Nor is every capital-D Democrat capable of discussing abortion with themselves or with others in a respectful fashion.

Keep at it. Maybe, just maybe, you will get your enlightmentment sooner than you think.

I agree with the previous post by Gloria. Why haven't the pro-choice advocates ever commited to a position on when they think life begins? Isn't that the main issue of this debate? How can you argue a point that you're not even sure of yourself?

The difference between pro-life and pro-choice coudn't be more drastic. It is about nuance. Listen to a pro-choice advocate defend abortion and you will hear someone disect reason into a thousand pieces. Witness the previous post that now believes that "life" isn't the point anymore....it is now about "personhood"...whatever that means. Next, they will tell you that "personhood" is bogus and claim some other definition. They will "nuance" an arguement to death until they don't have to defend themselves anymore. Stick to the point. Please.

To "a REAL [sic] feminist":

"Did you know that 40% of women in America have abortions?"

You are conflating miscarriages - medically called spontaneous abortions - with elective abortions.

Andrew opened the original post with allusions to the Groningen Protocol in Holland, a policy developed by physicians that allows doctors to perform infant euthanasia if they see fit. The following two posts discuss this awful policy in more detail:

• The Groningen Protocol Revisited by medblogger CaliforniaMediceneMan, chronicling a doctor's point of view on this issue.
  
• Euthanasia for Newborns--Killing in the Netherlands posted March 14 at crosswalk.com goes in to detail on the Groningen protocol and its 'slippery slop' potential.
  

First, great post. If more people on both sides took a look at the actual science, we'd at least have a rational debate.

Secondly, as someone on the right, I find it hard to believe that such a rational examination of the issue can be followed by some of the ridiculous comments you made politically. Only Democrats can behave rationally? Only Democrats care about the well-being of their fellow Americans? I understand we disagree on many issues, but that doesn't make all Republicans reptilian, greedy, heartless bastards, anymore more than being a Democrat automatically makes someone a secular blame-America-first pacificst.

As for the idea that teaching abstinence is fundamental to reducing the number of abortions, I agree whole heartedly. I'm glad you're a democrat saying that, because if you were a republican, the Howard Dean wing of your party would be laughing at you for saying the word abstinence. For that matter they probably are, while they process the paperwork to throw you out of the party for your pro-life stance. Ask Roemer about the prospects for a pro-life democrat. Nevertheless, I hope your willingness to examine such a controversial issue signals a change for your party. It's a better country with two strong parties debating the issues.

Mike Walker says the religious right is illogical. Abortion doctors should be heroes to these people because the aborted souls went straight to heaven. I suppose a murderer should also be a hero to "these people" if he were to kill Mike or me today on the assumption we would end up in heaven. (Let's say a very optomistic murderer.)

But I don't think Mike or I would feel it was entirely fair if it was about to happen to either of us, no matter what the "religious right" would think. Maybe that's why God mentioned that suggestion about not committing murder. (One of the Ten Commandments, I think.) That one trumps our well-intentioned desire to hasten someone else's journey to heaven, whether an adult, a new born, or even someone just about to be born.

Andrew, if you're interested in hooking up with other pro-life liberals, you can check out:

The Consistent Life coalition - http://www.consistent-life.org/

Democrats for Life - http://www.democratsforlife.org/

Pro-Lifers for Peace and Justice - http://ppj.bravehost.com/

LeftOut - http://prolife.liberals.com/

I also have some discussion of liberal pro-life issues on my blog - http://lamom.blogs.com

When I was younger (I'm now 57) there used to be lots of unwed mothers' homes run by Catholic nuns who not only took care of the mothers but found homes for the babies.

I've always said I'd feel better if pro-life folks were for life after birth as well as before. Then they wouldn't be so anxious to execute people or would be interested in providing a quality education and health care.

And I'm tired of being accused by, I assume Republicans, of behavior because I'm a Democrat. Just as I'm sure Republicans are tired of being caricatured as unfeeling robots.

Let's try to keep the conversation civilized.

For the record, I chose to have an abortion many years ago because emotionally, financially, and spiritually I couldn't afford to raise another child. My regret isn't the abortion but that it was the only realistic choice open to me.

Having said that, I agree with you that we must decide what it is about life that we value, and therefore what constitutes what we call "personhood."

Actually, the pro-life position is a lot easier to defend than proving personhood. Logically, if you want to take some sort of irrevocable action, you must accept the burden of proof to establish that the action is an acceptable one.

In other words:
1) It's simple fact that human life begins at conception.
2) It's also a fact that each of those newly-conceived embryoes will eventually become a "person" if allowed to survive (i.e. not aborted or miscarried).
3) Therefore, it's logical to assume that personhood must be attained at some point during the born/unborn child's life.
4) If we cannot be sure when personhood is attained, then we should err on the side of caution and not kill any possible people.
5) Since personhood could be attained at any point back to the moment of conception, it is logical to start protecting life at that point.

In other words, if you are pro-choice, you should be required to prove conclusively that the unborn child is not a person at the moment of abortion.

We would prosecute a deer hunter who shot another hunter because he "thought he was a deer".
We oppose the death penalty when there is any possibility that an innocent person could be executed. (For me, that means I oppose the death penalty all the time.)
We expect our military to exercise great care to avoid killing any innocent non-combatants.

Yet, somehow, we are expected to accept the killing of a possible person simply because we can't prove that he/she is a person yet? 40+ million dead so far, and we're still not sure.

I've always said I'd feel better if pro-life folks were for life after birth as well as before. Then they wouldn't be so anxious to execute people or would be interested in providing a quality education and health care.

Well, feel better. Lots of pro-life people (including me) are also opposed to the death penalty.

We also care for the child after birth. Admittedly, there are different ways of doing this:
* Progressives push for a stronger public education system; I advocate school vouchers, so that our schools improve through competition.
* Progressives advocate an increase to the minimum wage; I support cutting taxes and letting a growing economy increase everyone's wages.
* Progressives advocate a range of government programs to help the poor and downtrodden; I support charities and community action to do the same thing.

Conservatives want to help people just as much as progressives do, we just don't think that more government is the solution. Don't impugn our motives just because you disagree with our policy ideas. Don't confuse mainstream conservatives with Ayn-Rand-worshipping Objectivists.

It is good to hear someone who has come to understand the truth about life. Forget all those hateful comments from the pro-abort/murder/death lovers.

A couple of thoughts:

First, one can protect life and support the death penalty. The fact that the leftists can't see that makes my skin crawl. (I can be one who loves fruit, but destroy a bad apple out of a bushel before it corrupts and destroys all the other apples.)

And as for supporting the full cycle of life. The leftist arguments are equally as foolish. You are not leaving one to the "wolves" if you support conservative ideas. Progressive ideas are freedom denying. Enslaving the masses to do some seemingly good things for the few is progressive, but it is not good. Laws that apply to all equally and fairly across society is just. Special laws for this group, whether persecuting some through higher taxation, or setting up others for whatever reason (past grievances, economic status, skin color etc.) is patently and by definition unjust.

The fact that the leftists can't see that is a testimony to their blindness to what is good, right and just.

Frankly, it shows spiritual blindness.

Anyway, I encourage you to keep reasoning about the merits of progressive policy vs. conservative policy and I am confident that you will also see the truth in the future.

Signed,
Glad to find a thinking leftist.

The thing that I found shocking when I was on the Left was that although people all spoke about choice, when a woman got pregnant there was only one choice. No one spoke about adoption, or regarded it as a serious option. It was assumed that one would abort.

And because of this culture, prospective parents who want to adopt domestically rather than seeking babies overseas often have to wait 1-3 years to become parents.

Meanwhile, young women have abortions because termination is the "only" choice.

The NARALs of the world have pretty much completely abandoned the argument that a fetus is not a life. The argument has prety much completely shifted to a woman's autonomy. This is not without reason as medical science has exposed Roe v. Wade for the tortured piece of logic that it is. Even many people who are pro-choice acknowledge what a horrendous piece of judicial legislating it was. The reason pro-choicers will never stake out a position on when life begins is becuase it would argue for a limitation on abortion at some point, a position which is totally untenable with absolute sexual autonomy.

As for whether this is an issue for legislators and government, is there any issue that is more crucial than protection of life? The entire working theory behind liberal democracy is basically that when we leave the "state of nature" (or whatever you like to refer to it as)that government's first job is to protect life.

I may have missed something along the way, but it doesn't seem that the issue of sex has come up much. Abortion results from sex (and rape though it accounts for a minsiscule number of cases). Is it completely unreasonsbale to suggest that people not have sex if the possibility of a resulting pregnancy looms? The hard line feminists who support abortion on demand believe that sexual autonomy for women is the most important issue in the world. It is the only thing that "levels the playing field" with men....the lack of consequences from promiscuity. It is also why almost all of them are atheists, otherwise they would have to blame God for the difference between men and women. Curious that they believe that the worst trait of men is something to be emulated among women.

Also, you should not feel conflicted about whether this makes you a "real" Democrat. I get the same shit as an anti-death penalty, anti-war Republican and it is nonsense. The day you resign to let any political party do your thinking for you is the day you should give up entirely.

At the very least, this post should be instructive that Americans have much more to agree on on this issue than suggested.

Late to the party, but just had to say this, from another former liberal turned much less liberal:

Anyone who is confused as to why the Democrats are fading away just needs to read Julian's posts and "REAL feminist". Shrill? You betcha. Ignoring the thoughtfulness of the advanced argument and focusing on name-calling? Yep. Says way more about the writer than about the target of the post? Oh my, yes.

As a mother, I can tell you that there is nothing in this world that is anywhere near as precious as a child. As a christain, I can say that I am absolutely outraged at your own moral corruption. You sir, claim to have great faith, and you are a hypocrit. How can you proclaim the sacredness of all human life, and claim to be a man of faith, yet continue to say that when an adult wants to end his/her life, It is your opinion that it is their right. That sir, is morally repugnant.
No man or woman, has the right to take their own life for any reason. If you were a man of faith as you have clearly stated several times,you would know that suicide is a sin, not to mention selfish and, well, stupid. I will pray for you sir, because you need some clarity.
I will continue to say that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is not the buisness of anyone other than her and whomever she wishes to tell. I respect your opinion on this matter sir, but as a man, I do not respect you. You do not speak with wisdom, you instead speak with criticism.
I put it to you sir, to inquire as to why some women choose abortion, instead of manning the picket lines and pushing the fences. You may learn something. I am further, in no way, justifying abortion or criticising it. I am merely expressing an opinion, with the knowledge required to announce it.

"LC- you are regurgitating Lakoff, who I read long before he talked about politics (back when I was a communications major) and even then I regarded him as a hack. I'm curious as to whether you read the post, where I raised serious moral issues. If a fetus is a living human and someone ends its life, we all have a moral obligation to stop it if we are able- just as if you could prevent a person from being murdered, you should. So your argument holds not only no political weight (as those who oppose abortion aren't likely swayed by it), it holds only moral weight of the abominable kind."

Yadda, yadda, yadda...I have no idea who this Lakoff person is. By the way, where's the moral outrage against GUYS who think it's okay to pressure girls into having sex with them??? It takes two to create these embryos, y'know, and until MEN learn to take some responsibility, abortions should be safe & legal.

"P.S. If men could get pregnant there would be abortion clinics on every city block - they would be like 7-11s."

You're so right, Real Feminist! Safe, legal and available 24/7 on a corner store near you! :)

I'm a former leftist/liberal. (It was a long time ago.) I supported a woman's right to choose abortion because I didn't think a fetus was a person. One of my arguments was that you don't see people having funerals for miscarried fetuses.

I now see how shallow that thinking was. I agree completely with Naaman that one should have to prove conclusively that unborn children aren't human before sanctioning abortion. And I see no way that can be proven, since there is no way of determining at what point we become human. Surely the burden of proof should be on the killers rather than the defenders of the victim.

Like others who have posted I also have some reservations about using the death penalty because of the possibility of executing an innocent person.

As a mother, I can say that there is nothing more precious than a child. As a christian, I can say that I have never been more outraged at a fellow "believer". You sir, are clearly confused. You stated several times that you are a man of faith, but you sir are a hypocrit. Being a man of any faith, you would believe that a person who willingly takes his own life, is a sinner and therefore condenmed. You would not believe that suicide is ever ok, as you stated and I quote: "If a grown person seeks to end their life rather than suffer a terrible illness and the subsequent loss of dignity, it is my opinion that such is their right." This sir, is morally repugnant and corrupt.
Furthermore sir, you speak only with criticism and opinion, but you lack the knowledge required to state such an opinion. Therefore I put it to you sir to speak to women who have had abortions. Ask them why, and keep an open and clear mind, something which I can forsee as rather difficult for you. You may learn something.
For the general public and all others who will read this notice, I am in no way criticising or supporting abortion on any level. I am simply speaking with understanding and compassion for all people. I further apologize to any offended readers.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

If you don't like murder, don't commit one.

If you don't like pollution, don't pollute.

If you don't like logic, don't try to engage in it.

*cough* LC *cough*

I grow weary of the "slippery slope" argument regarding moral issues like the death penalty and euthanasia, especially if the start of that slope is considered to be the putting to death of minors.

Give people more credit than that. The only time there has been the danger sliding down such a slope was in totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia where there were no checks and balances on what those in power could do. Such problems are extremely rare to non-existant in democratic countries.

Take cloning, for example. Theraputic clone has been permitted by some governments after much soul searching, yet reproductive cloning is firmly banned by all, and is likely to remain that way for the forseeable future.

Another example. A woman in the UK recently had late-term abortion because her child would have been born with a cleft palate It was illegal because the deformity is not serious enough and would have been fixable. There was a huge outcry about it in the press, and calls for the arrest of the people involved approving in the procedure. Abortion has been legal in the UK for nearly 40 years - where's the slippery slope? If there is one then the slope is barely noticable.

The list goes on. A number of American scientists in the past performed highly unethical experiments on mental patients. Do we see research labs stocked with such unfortunate individuals today? Of course not. The violations were uncovered and stopped.

In general people, religious and non-religious alike have a much better moral compass than you seem to realise. Only in societies where a few deviants can operate with impunity will you see any form of slippery slope that a whole nation is likely to fall down.

Being a man of any faith, you would believe that a person who willingly takes his own life, is a sinner and therefore condenmed. You would not believe that suicide is ever ok, as you stated and I quote: "If a grown person seeks to end their life rather than suffer a terrible illness and the subsequent loss of dignity, it is my opinion that such is their right." This sir, is morally repugnant and corrupt.

Er, people end their own lives all the time, quite legally and, in my opinion, quite morally. Many ALS sufferers choose not to go on a ventilator when they can no longer breath unassisted. They are of sound mind and they could live weeks, months or even years longer if they chose to go on to the ventilator, yet they choose not to prolong their suffering. Many of these people are deeply loved and cared for, but still they choose to end their lives rather than struggle on.

To force anyone in that or a similar position to prolong their lives is what would be morally repugnant.

It's curious to see how many Republicans have made the trip over to this little discussion. It's also a little curious to see how many are congratulating Andrew for being "open-minded enough" to debate abortion. It's funny though, to most of them (not all) being open-minded means jumping right across any possible middle ground and accepting that all elective abortions should be illegal. Yeah, a real and meaningful debate.

Maybe this is why the abortion rate has been rising ever since Bush took office after years of decline during the Clinton years? Maybe you should read Kristof's piece in Wednesday's NY Times - though I'm sure the title will put a lot of you off..{http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/opinion/16kris.html}

Mike,
Kristoff is incorrect in asserting that abortions have increased significantly under Bush. No one knows how many abortions have occurred throughout the enitre United States in the last 4 years so it's impossible to claim that abortion have gone up when no one is sure of how many abortions have actually occurred.

He is probably referring to Glen Stassen's horrible analysis of state abortion statistics that has been completely debunked by national right to life and bloggers. He doesn't mention a source for his assertion - but then again - it's the NY times.

Valuable thinking, thank you all. This is a tough issue that I've also grappled with in a blogessay, 'the AmbivAbortion Rant' -- two parts of a planned three are already posted.
part I: http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2005/01/note_this_essay.html
part II:
http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2005/03/the_ambivaborti.html

Emotional as well as logical, since I've HAD an abortion and bitterly regret it. I make the same comparison as Cecrops: "I find abortion to be, in a sense, like war." My post is reluctantly pro (early) choice but anti-abortion; my goal is to persuade women to take the issue much more seriously and do everything in their power to avoid getting into the situation, but if in it, to make the better choice. I hope you will come and read my post too and make it part of this discussion. Many thanks.

Andrew,

Great post. I encourage you to do some research about the "back alley abortion" myth. Most abortions before 1973 were performed by licensed doctors in their offices. Illegal abortion deaths were high, until antibiotics came on the scene. One of the ex co founders of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson talks about how they pull numbers out of the air to scare people into the new pro abortion agenda.

Children concieved in incest are still human beings. I'm not saying that incest is okay, just that the human being who was concieved still has a right to life. Back in the day weren't people born into royal families supposed to marry in the family? Maybe I'm wrong on that.

Thank God our society regulates morality: to the poster who said don't believe in murder, don't commit one. Are you saying that it's okay for people who believe in murder to go ahead and commit murder? I'm not following your logic.

M

I'm...I dunno. A little creeped out by some people here.

Thanks to Andrew for bringing this up, though.

I come at this oddly.

See, years ago, in 1983...I was a preemie. I was born 94 days early.

I should not have survived. I did, but with disabilities.

Which concentrates the mind.

Way I see it:

1. We have had babies born far, far before the point where abortion becomes illegal....And survive, and be mostly normal a few years on (though the initial weeks are touch-and-go). Which makes abortion at such a time creepy.

2. This said...I like the British approach where there's basically a rollback of WHEN abortion ceases to be legal. As technology advances, we should re-evaluate the status of abortion generally. When you can see babies at 20 weeks of development, through 4D ultrasound, do something that looks an awful lot like walking...Then I think a rethink is in order.

3. That said, abortion should (after jumping through hoops) be POSSIBLE after the cut-off date. BUT, it should not, not, not, not be something the mom gets to propose. No. It should be legal only in the case that diseases such as (for example) Tay-Sachs disease are discovered, or similar situation where the baby might live outside the womb, but not for very long. We may not be able to explain it, but I think most know it when they see it. Moms should have to have it PROPOSED by doctors, approved by doctors...AND THEN Mom consents or does not consent to it.

Why?

Well...If it were me. With modern tech, a baby can survive and do damn well, with little to no long-term effects, after premature birth at very early points.

I might not be the mom...But, once, I was that baby.

As far as when, mechanical support, etc:

Newsflash, all. EVERY PREEMIE NEEDS SOME MECHANICAL SUPPORT.

I *was* that preemie. I spent 45 days hooked up to machines to keep me alive, and I spent the first bit after birth in an incubator.

For those who say it should only be a baby if it doesn't need mechanical support, screw you very much for killing me off (in theory). You bastards.

As far as when: This is non-scientific, but..When does a fetus become recognizably human?

Michael Howard, the leader of the UK Conservative Party, is calling for 20 weeks to be the cut-off point.

That seems useful, for argument's sake.

Me?

The fetus becomes a baby when I can tell it's going to, eventually, become a human being. So long as you get the hint of recognizable features (which happens damn early)...That's a baby, not a fetus.

The issue becomes diseases like Tay-Sachs, etc. Truly horrible diseases, where a nasty death is certain. There, we have argument space.

Jivin: Ok, so it appears that the only national figures available under Bush are for 2001 where the abortion rate was basically flat at best.

I haven't read all that there is about all the stats available but it seems that the problem is that there is enough variability in the reporting of the numbers from the states that both sides can inject a heavy dose of spin into the results.

Newman: Maybe that's why God mentioned that suggestion about not committing murder. (One of the Ten Commandments, I think.) That one trumps our well-intentioned desire to hasten someone else's journey to heaven, whether an adult, a new born, or even someone just about to be born.

I preface my comments by stating that the following is not a justification for abortion. It is simply to point out how illogical it is to be pro-life if you believe in the doctrine of Heaven and Hell (as defined by Bible literalists anyway).

On the face of it, the "thou shalt not kill" commandment would seem to be a good reason for believers not to kill babies or have abortions, but if you dig a little deeper, the case is not so clear cut.

Think about it. Most of us will spend about 75 years on this planet and a few of us will enjoy it in relative comfort while the rest struggle every day to survive. Compared to that, what is the prospect of spending an eternity in paradise - that's millions, nay billions of years in absolute bliss (certainly compared our lives on earth)? But wait, there's even more. What if the alternative to enternity in paradise is eternity in hell? To spend for ever in unimaginable torment and anguish - that's billions of years of the worst torture you could possibly imagine and worse.

If you truly believed those to be the choices, you would do everything in your power to end up in Heaven. And how much more do parents want the best for their children, even if it means sacrificing their own well being, even lives, in the process. Even if you are lucky enough to live in the USA, your kids have probably about a 50-50 chance of being "saved" before they die. In places like Saudi Arabia it's probably 1% at best. So what is a Saudi mother (who somehow became a closet Christian) to do? Let her little baby grow up and almost certainly become a muslim, die and spend an eternity in Hell, or have an abortion and guarantee them a passage, right there and then, to Heaven?

So what if she commits a sin to do it? She can always repent later, and even if she doesn't and still end in Hell herself, she can at least take comfort from knowing she spared her child from the same appalling fate - a fate worse than death.

This is not a choice between peanuts and pretzels, nor even life and death. If you believe in heaven and hell you should want to do everything in your power to ensure your flesh and blood gets there, even if it means aborting them. All you are depriving the child of is a few short years of struggle here on Earth which would be scant compensation for risking an enternity of the worst imaginable torments in Hell.

There are many much more rational arguments you can make for being pro-life.

BTW: According to fundamentalists, as a non-believer I would end up in Hell not Heaven, so my murder would deprive me of any further opportunity to be saved. So, for the sake of the arguement above, murdering adults is not the same as having an abortion.

Andrew,

I want to congratulate you not only on your conclusion, but more importantly on the fact that you walked through the reasoning process on this issue very carefully and deliberately.

It does not surprise me that you ultimately did reach this conclusion -- abortion is a homicide. That is what reason and science dictate.

But more importantly, I almost never witness someone opening his mind, applying logic and science, and turning away from deeply ingrained prejudices. It is very encouraging.

A few comments on your specific points:

I also figured that I should use logic and science and not propaganda, so I decided to stay away from anti-abortion groups and their rhetoric.

It's a bit disturbing that you blithely dismiss all anti-abortion groups, but understandable. The media has done a spectacular job of discrediting the anti-abortion position. They portray it as populated entirely with freaks and whack-jobs. This is intentional, and is done as a propaganda tool for the purpose of discouraging the impressionable from even considering agreeing with the pro-life position.

There are many anti-abortion groups that have nothing to do with religion. Libertarians for Life (www.l4l.org), Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (www.plagal.org), Feminists for Life (www.feministsforlife.org), Democrats for Life (www.democratsforlife.org), etc.

These groups have only seen the light of day thanks to the Internet. The mainstream media of yesteryear tried to deceive us into believing that only kooks were pro-life.

life as beginning at fertilization. The pre-birth period is as much a part of life as infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age this seems to say.

I think you are asking the wrong question, or perhaps the right question in slightly the wrong way.

Of course zygotes are alive! Your skin cells are alive. Your sperm cells are alive, even before they fertilize anything.

And they are all human. If not, then what else would they be? Lizard?

So, post-fertilization, the entity (whatever you call it) is clearly both alive and human. That is not the real question.

The proper question is whether this living thing is a person. You can do with your skin cells what you wish. But you can't treat other persons except according to the law.

The response to this is: it's obvious that a zygote is a person!

Why isn't it a person? It is (a) is alive, (b) human, and (c) a distinct entity.

That's the kicker: a zyote is a whole, single entity. It is point when the thing (which we all were at one point) comes to exist as one, single entity.

It has all the material that it needs for its entire life, requiring only nutrition and protection from harm (more on that later). The same can be said for you and me. There is no reasonable basis to deny a zygote its humanity.

It seems that the fact that fetuses aren’t developed isn’t a good excuse to allow for abortion.

Yes. And the fact that they are dependent makes no difference either. Infants, the elderly and the disabled are all wholly dependent on others. The fact that they are dependent does not make them less than fully human.

If anything, their dependence creates a GREATER duty on all of us to do MORE to assist and protect them.

but leave it to the wolves after it is born

This is the point when I knew you understood. There was an ancient Roman practice of leaving unwanted babies on a rock near the forest, presumably to be eaten by wolves. It was called "exposure."

The moral rationale for this abominable practice was that the fate of the infant was in the hands of the gods. The parent left the infant to the whims of fate, but by doing it passively, could claim to be innocent.

Of course, this is horrid.

The reason it is horrid is very simple, and is the one point that the pro-abortion crowd will NEVER address: parents have the affirmative, open-ended DUTY to nourish and protect their children.

It is affirmative, in the sense that you must take steps to provide for them.

It is open-ended, in the sense that you must do whatever is necessary to see that the child is nourished and protected. You can't just go through the motions. You must do whatever the situation calls for.

If you don't want that duty, you have to transfer the obligation to someone else who acknowledges that he/she is assuming them for you (e.g., adoption). Until then, the parent is fully obligated.

Exposure is the moral equivalent of the "viability" test of Roe v. Wade. The moral rationale of that awful decision is this: "If it needs me, and if I leave it in a place where it can't live on its own, I am not at fault because it is not my duty to make sure it lives. If it dies, it dies."

Again, this rationale ignores the affirmative, open-ended duty that all parents owe to their children to provide whatever nourishment and protection then need.

We as a country have more or less decided that abortion is a right.

Maybe in Austin. If it were decided democratically, instead of via the Supreme Court, many jurisdictions would not call fetal homicide a "right."

Anyway, I was deeply moved by your post.

Perhaps I can encourage you to visit www.mises.org, and read some foundational texts (Theory of the Trade Cycle, for starters). If you apply that same vigorous reasoning process to economics, you might find yourself reconsidering that whole "Democrat" thing.

George Gaskell
UT, 1987.

LC, "Don't like abortions? Don't have one!" makes the assumption that women going into abortion clinics like what they're doing. Do you really think they're dancing in there saying, "Cool! I finally get to have an abortion! Lucky me!"

Recent research has shown that up to 75-80% of all conceptions will end in failure before or soon after implantation.

We need a quick logic lesson. Each individual human being's life began when he or she was concieved. But it does not logically follow that every time the sperm hits the ova, a new human being results. Sometimes what you get is a hydatidiform mole or other abnormal product of conception. The fact that these non-viable tissue conglomerations sometimes happen is a reflection on pathological processes, not on the value of individual human beings.

Catholics for example, that even contraception is denying some child, some person, of the right to a life.

Actually, that's Mormons, not Catholics, and it's that they believe that souls are queued up in Heaven, waiting for their scheduled bodies, and that contraception leaves them stuck. It's not the same as believing that it kills them.

Catholics oppose artificial birth control not because they see it as denying any particular potential persons their right to live; it's because they view sexuality as part of a bigger picture of family life, and that by trying to separate sexuality from parenthood, you're tampering with the big picture of how God integrates the aspects of our lives. It's hubris, or pride, that is the sin involved in artificial contraception to the Catholic, rather than murder.

I also believe very early term abortions, within a few days or weeks of conception, are acceptable, since the potential human being is still just a clump of cells, with no personality, no nervous system, no brain, no self-awareness--nothing that we would recognise as something that a being would be deprived of if their life was terminated.

Well, babies are not particularly self-aware!

Check some embryology web sites and check on when the nervous system develops. You might be surprised.

I see validity in both of these propositions, and see the issue of abortion as a case of conflict between rights.

What if this is an illusion?

If you speak to prolife women, they don't see any conflict. They see abortion as a desperate or ignorant act, a decision made in a time of intense stress, often without adequate information.

The common view is that women are strongly prochoice, and that prolifers are unsympathetic men. But the reality is that women are more polarized. They're more likely to be at one end of the political spectrum, and to be firmly there. And I can tell you as a prolife woman, we see no conflict between an unborn baby's rights and a pregnant woman's rights, because we see that the thing that goes right to the core of hurting a mom is hurting her child.

I remember the stories of what women had to go through when abortion was illegal.

I wish I could awaken that compassion for the weeping women walking into "safe and legal" abortion clinics!

Since my specialty is abortion malpractice, I'll avoid the issues of informed consent and just point out that there are plenty of nasty, nasty places out there benefitting from the perception that legal equals safe. There are places out there, operating openly and apparently "safely" where the equipment is not sterilized; it's only washed off and re-used. Where the medications are past their expiration dates. Where the person administering anesthesia has no training. (In one case it was the janitor!) Where the doctor is either unreliable, drunk, or just gone so the other staff are passing themselves off as doctors. It's appalling. And the prochoice movement looks the other way because to them, "legal" equals "safe," so they don't even bother.l

One, the current laws that limit abortions to the first two trimesters unless the mother’s life is in danger fall in line with when the fetus’ brain has a recognizable EEG pattern. Without a recognisable EEG pattern, a patient is considered dead.

Brain waves have been identified in fetuses at 40 days. Divide by 7: That's just under 6 weeks.

Jessie, what I have trouble with when it comes to the prochoice stand is that they say "We don't know when life begins," then they proceed with the assumption that what is in the womb is not human life.

A deer hunter sees something in the woods. He thinks it's a deer, but he's not sure. It might be another hunter. Should he figure, "Well, my need is for a deer, because I need the meat to feed my family. So I will err on the side of it being a deer and go ahead and shoot."? Or should he err on the side of "Let's not kill anything until we're absolutely sure what it is."?

You're driving along. You see what looks like a pile of clothes on the road. It might be a person lying there. It might be just a pile of clothes. Do you swerve to avoid it? What circumstances make it okay to just work on the assumption that it's not a person?

How about the Quecreek mine flood? Were there nine live miners in that mine? Gee, it's a major amount of time and expense to drill down there. We might be drilling down to nine corpses. We don't know what's down there. Do we act on the assumption that there are nine live miners down there, and drill? Or do we assume there are just nine corpses, and go about our business?

Why is it that in abortion, and only in abortion, it's okay to say, "Well, we don't know if there's a person there, so we'll go ahead and act as if there's not."?

Attilla Girl, I think you're hit on something with abortion being the only "choice" offered.

I have a friend who is a Lutheran, and prochoice. I showed him a pamphlet put out by the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, called something like "A Litergy for Making a Reproductive Choice." It had suggested prayers and meditations (and new-age things like visualization) for choosing what to do when faced with a difficult pregnancy.

Then it had a liturgy for dealing with abortion.

There was NO liturgy for continuing with a difficult pregnancy! The unwritten but clear presumption was that the natural result of going through the "decision making" process with a difficult pregnancy was a decision to abort! The only question was WHY and HOW one would choose abortion, not that one would choose it!

This friend, who is as I said strongly prochoice, called this pamphlet "the most evil thing I've ever seen." It used religious language to convince women that the only answer when facing financial challenges, health challenges, relationship challenges, fetal diagnoses, et cetera, was abortion.

This can also be seen in some statements made when an abortion clinic closes in a town. The local prochoice activists will say, "Now if a woman wants to choose, she has to travel out of town!" Well, not if she chooses to continue to term! Why this assumption that once she's pregnant, if there's any problem of course she'll abort?

I disagree, LC. If men could get pregnant, childbirth would be a competitive sport. We'd have bookie joints taking bets on how long Joe would be in labor. And they'd never tolerate being treated as second-class citizens and offered something as miserable and degrading as abortion!

M, might I add that some required reading for folks contemplating the "back alley" angle would be:

"The Search for an Abortionist," by Nancy Howell Lee

"When Abortion Was a Crime" by Leslie Reagan

"Jane" by Laura Kaplan

These are all prochoice books, so no one need fear they're full of "antichoice propaganda."

Also I recommend, though it's tough, getting a library to get you a copy of the proceedings of the 1955 Planned Parenthood conference on abortion in the US.

To Mike Walker: You may have just given the strangest defense of abortion I've yet heard:

"All you are depriving the child of is a few short years of struggle here on Earth"

Buddy, if that is your view of the world, you have larger issues than wether you are pro-choice or not.

For myself, I am in the 32nd year of my "struggle" on this earth and I have to say that it sure beats the hell out of being crushed and jabbed with sharp metal objects while I'm still in my mother's womb.

The anti-abortion rights posters above generally have no idea what "personhood" means under our laws. Personhood entails intelligence, self-awareness, and moral responsibility.

Brain dead individuals lose many of the rights of personhood under our laws. In like manner human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses provide another example of beings with human DNA that lack personhood under the law.

To claim that simply containing Human DNA confers personhood is logically and morally equivalent to arguing that whites have special moral standing merely because they are white. Just as racism in morally objectionable, so is the "speciesism" promoted by those who want to confer moral standing to zygotes.

"Getting close" to personhood doesn't "count" as well. Somewhere in a fetuses term it develops a number of mental capacities, among them perception, memory, and susceptibility to pleasure and pain. What anti-abortion rights advocates fail to notice, however; is that these capacities don’t elevate the moral status of the fetus above that of a typical farm animal, which is clearly not a person. Indeed, on account of there greater intelligence, mature farm animals resemble persons more than fetuses do.

Not being persons, fetuses are not endowed with the same extensive rights as persons.

And potential doesn’t’ “count” as well. A potential person is not a person. Just as a 5 year old who has the potential to become 21 years old does NOT have the right to consume alcohol, a fetus does not possess a right to life even though it is a potential person.

As I mentioned at the beginning, typical opponents of abortion rights do not explicitly acknowledge the crucial distinction between personhood and humanity, and instead regard these concepts as synonymous. Their attitudes towards abortion in cases of rape and toward anti-abortion violence betray an implicit commitment to this distinction. The vast majority of anti-choice advocates agree that a woman should not be forced to give birth to the result of a rape and that violence against abortion providers is unjustified.

Given the logical and moral inconsistency of the anti-abortion rights position it is inevitable that reasonable compromise on this issue shall prevail and that abortion shall remain legal, safe, and equitably available to all classes of our society.

Buddy, if that is your view of the world, you have larger issues than wether you are pro-choice or not.

Pat, you need to read my post more carefully. I don't personally believe any of that - I was just trying to explain (and failing apparently) why the Christian fundamentalist's opposition to abortion is illogical when you consider their literal reading of the Biblical doctrine of Heaven and Hell.

Personhood entails intelligence, self-awareness, and moral responsibility. Brain dead individuals lose many of the rights of personhood under our laws.

This is a fallacy. A person who is asleep, unconscious or comatose is not intelligent or self-aware. It is still wrong to kill such a person. The reason it is wrong is that the law (and our moral precepts against murder) take into account what the future is likely to hold.

An act is right or wrong based on what we can expect the future to hold. This is a fundamental principle, both in and outside the abortion context. The whole of the criminal law is based on what was once called "intent," but which in more modern terms is expressed as the degree to which one is aware of what the future consequences of one's actions will be.

As for the sleeping or comatose person who exhibits no signs of intelligence or self-awareness, experience tells us that these conditions are temporary, and that the future holds such traits for them. In fact, we must assume that it will, until medical science tells us, with almost perfect certainty, that a person will not gain (or re-gain) these faculties. As Christina said (about the deer and pile of clothes), when the present or future facts are unknown or uncertain, then we must presume the set of facts that preserve life, not the set of facts that justify taking action that may take a life.

Your point about "potential" personhood is therefore specious. I will concede that a sperm cell or unfertilized egg qualifies as a "potential" person, to the extent that term is at all useful. These cells will not have any sort of human future ahead of them, no matter how much nutrition and protection you provide them. Unlike a zygote, neither is a human entity. For this reason, they are wholly unlike a person at ANY stage of his life cycle, from conception until death.

First of all, please STOP calling the pro-choice crowd "pro-abortion." I don't think I know a single pro-choicer who would ever encourage someone to pick abortion over adoption--they realize that abortion is serious and often has consequences. But mostly, they wouldn't presume to know enough about someone else's situation to make that decision for them. Just as you prefer the term "pro-life" to "anti-choice," the other side doesn't like to be labeled as something it's not.

Secondly, quit blaming the news media for all society's ills. Trust me, it isn't the media's fault that pro-lifers have a bad rap. No, I think the murdering of abortion practitioners pretty much secured them that stereotype. Do you really believe there's some huge liberal conspiracy at work behind the scenes at America's news organizations? Do you imagine all the newspaper editors and TV producers having weekly meetings in smoke-filled rooms, discussing how to most effectively screw over the right? Please. Journalists live and die by the mantra of objectivity and accuracy. Journalists even crucify their own whenever there's a lapse in ethics--just ask Jayson Blair or Dan Rather. So please, leave the poor overworked journalists alone. They mean well.

And finally, Dobbs, I'm disappointed in the conclusion you've (tentatively) reached, but I'm glad you aren't an intellectual slave to your party, like some admittedly "shrill" voices on both sides of the debate. It's also encouraging to read the comments of so many anti-death penalty conservatives. Overall I would say this discussion has been very civilized and reasoned, and I'd like to see more debates on the subject of abortion carried out in this manner.

First of all, please STOP calling the pro-choice crowd "pro-abortion." I don't think I know a single pro-choicer who would ever encourage someone to pick abortion over adoption--they realize that abortion is serious and often has consequences. ... Just as you prefer the term "pro-life" to "anti-choice," the other side doesn't like to be labeled as something it's not.

AJ, what you fail to understand is that the term "choice" is itself offensive. To a person who understands the anti-abortion position, it sounds exactly like advocating the "right" of a slave-owner to "choose" kill his slave, or a man to "choose" kill his adulterous wife (both of which have been recognized as technically legal rights before). The humanity of the unborn fetus (just like anyone's humanity) is superior to and supercedes the right of anyone to make such "choices." "Choice" is demeaning and denies the fetus his fundamental human dignity.

So, yes, in this context, I am perfectly satisfied to call myself "anti-choice," just as I am anti-choice when it comes to whether someone has the right to stick a fork in your head, or anyone else's.

And I have absolutely no problem with being called "anti-abortion." You could even call me an "abortion abolitionist." I find the term "pro-life" to be too generalized to encompass my position. I am as pro-life about fetuses as I am about everyone. It's like saying I'm "pro-human" -- it states the obvious and therefore says nothing specific.

Likewise, even the term "abortion" is slanted toward your position. To "abort" something is to interrupt a process before it reaches its conclusion, the way you would abort a military mission before the objective is achieved. This connotation, of course, begs the question, since the central issue is whether the fetus is a person in his own right. Killing a fetus is no more "aborting" something than if someone were to "abort" the process of blood flowing to your head by severing your carotid artery. That blood flow is just a "process," after all!

Imagine for a moment trying to argue with me when the primary term of debate in the media is this: whether "fetal homicide" or "infanticide" should be legal.

An excellent post and discusssion.

Forgive me if this has already been addressed in the comments, I'm pressed for time, but I have one comment regarding "Before abortion was legal women got abortions and if it were made illegal again today it would still happen. With illegal abortions come unsanitary and unprofessional practices which threaten the life not only of the unborn child, but of the mother as well. It is a dangerous thing to do."

Will there "always be some abortions" even if it's again made illegal? Yes. But for 140 years before Roe v. Wade, that was the case, and it still doesn't justify the 43 million deaths and the millions of women whose lives/fertility/health have been damaged.

Here we gave the true stats on maternal deaths from illegal abortions pre-Roe: http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/04/ellen-goodman-boston-globe-syndicated.html

"...maternal deaths from illegal abortions had reduced from 1,231 in 1942, down to 133 deaths by 1968 because of better medical care and antibiotics."

That means that the great majority of illegal abortions then were done by doctors, in doctors' offices or hospitals, surreptitiously. No one ever gets antibiotics without a doctor involved.

I still don't want to see even one woman die from a so-called "coathanger abortion" (which no one to date has ever given proof of anyway), but even 133 maternal deaths (1968 numbers) vs. the loss of 43 million human lives? How does that compare?

And "In 1972, the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics recorded 39 deaths from illegal abortions and 25 deaths from legal abortions." So even if you add those two #s, it's 64 maternal deaths vs. 43 million human lives destroyed, and counting. And that's just the U.S.

Margaret Sanger and her eugenicists-in-sheep's-clothing have been "winning" what they set out to win., sadly.

Sorry, couldn't resist more commenting!

Jose, regarding your statement, "it doesn't take long before someone drags out a gratuitous comparison to Nazism.

We who can see the similarities in such a comparison do not have any disregard for the many millions who died so horribly at the hands of the Nazis. But considering that the Nazis eliminated about 18 million living human beings, including 6 million Jews, and U.S. abortions alone have eliminated over 40 million, in very painful and torturing ways for the babies and for the mothers, the comparison is indeed warranted.

We discussed the Holocaust similarities in the comments to this post about Milgram's Experiment, here: http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/01/milgrams-obedience-experiment-stanley.html

A commenter there berated us for bringing up the Holocaust/abortion comparison. I pointed out how at least in part, both genocides came about from the same mechanism of obedience to authority from which Milgram devised his original experiment.
Elsewhere, someone got almost unhinged about calling abortion “wholesale slaughter.” I wrote that since the Holocaust is rightly called wholesale slaughter at 18 million human lives murdered, then so should abortion be called that, with 40+ million lives lost.

Certainly the Holocaust was “legally sanctioned” by the government of Nazi Germany to torture and kill all the people they killed, whether they had a law on the books “allowing it” or not. It was still sanctioned.

So is abortion en masse. One can deny that “the product of conception” is a human being, but many world-renowned scientists certainly don’t.

Laocoon, re: "The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and the fertilized zygote is alive. Life does not begin at conception."

The egg and sperm are alive, but they are cells of two other distinct human beings. They are not "human beings." Read a bit of this: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdf/courses_pdf/hsc0308.pdf , about John East's 1981 Report of the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee [S-158], 97th Congress, first session:
“In addressing a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on April 23-24, 1981, Dr. Richard V. Jaynes stated: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous” (see East, 1981). Those hearings were carried out to determine the question of when human life begins. Accompanying Dr. Jaynes that day was a group of internationally known geneticists and biologists who conclusively reiterated that life begins at conception—and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony. One of those giving testimony during that hearing was Landrum Shettles, often called the “father of in vitro fertilization.” Dr. Shettles noted: “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind” (East, 1981). Interesting words from a man who helped fill in vitro fertilization clinics with embryos—embryos that already have been fertilized and thus, in all aspects are human.”

Keith L. Moore, mentioned again below, also wrote in his well-known med-school textbook: "The cell (a single-celled zygote) results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of human life." (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 2nd Ed., 1977).

As for the violent and hideous nature of what the Nazis did: about 78% of U.S. abortions occur after 6 weeks, and medical experts have written in the NEJM and testified in court that “the fetus develops pain receptors six or seven weeks after conception, and by 20 weeks can feel pain from head to toe” and that “a fetus likely feels pain more intensely than a newborn baby.” http://www.wset.com/news/stories/0304/130394.html

As for "personhood" (addressing those commenters here who argued for that disqualifying single-cell zygotes from being persons), 6 world-renowned scientists said that the life of a new human being begins at conception, under oath in 1981 in front of the Senate committee mentioned above. The personhood argument is that of those who subscribe to the Peter Singer School of Thought. He also believes that infanticide is ok and sometimes monkeys are more of "human persons" than young children are.

This is among the best discussions I've read on this (quotes/paraphrases from the article by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, for the American Bioethics Advisory Commission):

Imposing philosophical terms such as sentience or personhood on scientific data is illegitimate. The brain--supposed by your theories to be the physiological support for both "rational attributes" and "sentience," isn't completely formed until young adulthood. Quoting [noted embryologist Keith L.] Moore: 'Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. [medical textbook _The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology_, Keith L. Moore, 2nd Ed., Philadelphia W.B. Sanders, 1977; http://www.cslifecenter.com/truth.htm ]

"... if a 'person' is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of 'rational attributes' or of 'sentience,' what would this mean for these...adult human beings with diminished 'rational attributes:' the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, drug addicts, alcoholics - and for those with diminished 'sentience,' the comatose, patients in a 'vegetative state,' paraplegics and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons?

"This is the position of bioethics writers such as the Australian animal rights philosopher Peter Singer, the recently appointed Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer argues that the higher primates (dogs, pigs, apes, monkeys) are persons - but that some human beings, e.g., even normal human infants, and disabled human adults, are not persons. Fellow bioethicist Norman Fost actually considers 'cognitively impaired' adult human beings as 'brain dead.' Philosopher/bioethicist R.G. Frey has also published that many of the adult human beings on the above list are not 'persons,' and suggests that they be substituted for the higher primates who are 'persons' in purely destructive experimental research. The list goes on."

The above is from the article, "Abortion and Rights," in a special edition of the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, edited by Doris Gordon and John Walker of Libertarians for Life (Vol. 19, No. 3/4, 1999).

One can try to turn the world on its ear with convoluted "personhood logic"--which is all just mental masturbation--but it still doesn't make the truth go away.

I just wanted to address the comment about "pro lifers sealing their fate when they started killing abortionists." The pro life movement that I know has nothing to do with these horrible acts, and does not support them in any way.

I heard a speaker once talk about how men have no say whatsoever (as was addressed previously) when it comes to trying to save their child. We have some angry men out there, who've lost their children. I aborted a child, the father didn't want me to. I marched down to have the abortion. Years later I hear that he's in prison for life, for violently raping someone. I wrote him, and apologized for all of it, all of it. How will I ever know that it wasn't my decision that had a part in his being in prison now? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Those men that try to harm an abortionist might be so hurt, by personal experience with abortion, that in anger they resort to this. Don't men's emotions often show up in anger, before anything else? I'm not saying that's it right. Just more food for thought.

Pardon me butterfly, but I think that anyone who would commit "violent rape" deserves to be in jail, no matter what it was that whipped him into a frenzy. And no, men do not necessarily react first with violence--at least not the men I know, possibly because they were raised to respect women and abhor violence. So I think it's quite a stretch to assume that those who committed those crimes were anything other than crazy and homicidal, and deserved to be in jail.

To clarify--I'm not saying that it's right that pro-lifers have an (increasingly small) bad rap. I'm just saying that the public is quick to form biases, and even though we all know most pro-lifers would never be so hypocritical as to murder someone for killing a fetus, the stereotype sticks.

As for your comments, Mr. Gaskell, this is becoming simply a discussion of preferred terminology. Obviously it would be biased for the media to call abortion "fetal homicide," because using that term means you already accept the premise of the pro-life side's entire argument: that the fetus is a person. That is the definition of homicide, after all--the killing of one person by another. For the media to take up this term would mean that for them, the argument is effectively over. Using "infanticide" is not just biased, but inaccurate as well, because I think everyone can agree that a fetus is, biologically, not an infant. Here's the media's reasoning for using the word "abortion" over all the other options: it's a term used commonly by both sides of the debate, and it defines an extremely volatile issue as fairly as possible.

I understand that you think the "choice" the pro-choice side advocates is offensive, but you can't deny that we do advocate allowing a woman to make that choice. Therefore calling us "pro-choice" isn't innacurate, whereas calling us "pro-abortion" is, since many, if not most, pro-choicers want to make abortion as rare as possible by means of better education and less poverty. I myself doubt that I would ever choose to have an abortion, but should the unthinkable happen I don't want the decision made for me by someone who has never been in my position.

The point of all this is that, before the debate ever proceeds, the terminology should be agreed upon so that no one can twist semantics to distort the argument. I'll call you whatever you want to be called--pro-life, anti-abortion, whatever--if you'll call me pro-choice. Deal?

Obviously it would be biased for the media to call abortion "fetal homicide."

My point is that it is biased for the media to call fetal homicide "abortion."

To call it "abortion" is to concede that you are merely interrupting an incomplete process. It therefore assumes the validity of your entire position -- that the fetus is not yet a person.

Incidentally, the term "pregnant" has much the same connotation -- the original, non-scientific meaning of that term denotes something with a hidden or unrealized potential. A "pregnant phrase" is a phrase with hidden meaning that would be revealed later. The whole gist of the term implies something that has not yet happened.

This attitude comes from the non-scientific misunderstanding of what reprodution really is, from a time before medical science when the act of childbirth was viewed as the all-important decisive moment in the human life cycle.

We still count our age from that date, even though we now know that the delivery (from the child's perspective) is merely a "change in environment," as Dr. Irving was quoted above.

Now that we have the benefit of reproductive medical science, we know that we are not talking about "potential life" at all. Instead, as of the moment of fertilization, all of the important events have already occurred -- a living human entity is created.

So, once we understand the terminology, it is easy to see how people who are taught such phrases as "aborting a pregnancy" are led to think of reproduction as consisting of nothing but "process" and "potential," rather than concerning the life and death of complete, existing, realized human beings.

In short, the terms of the debate are the debate. There is no such thing as mere semantics or terminology. These disputes are the very heart of the debate itself.

Your predecessors selected the term "choice" because it sounds like a noble, virtuous thing to protect. I agree. It is a variant of the word "liberty," which could not be more important.

In fact, I believe that all government and law should be evaluated only by whether it increases or decreases liberty. You will not find a more staunch defender of liberty than me.

But the one legitimate limit on liberty is the prohibition against using aggressive violence toward others.

In this context, the fetus is the "other." His rights are violated by the use of aggressive lethal force against him.

That is the one fact that would merit my support of any criminal sanction -- when someone else's rights are violated. No one is free to "choose" to do that.

So, no. No deal. Killing helpless people is not a legitimate "choice."

In short, the terms of the debate are the debate. There is no such thing as mere semantics or terminology. These disputes are the very heart of the debate itself.

Yeah, in a way, I agree. If the pro-life side succeeds in relabelling abortions as homicides then the pro-choice side has lost.

I'm not sure this debate is worth continuing any more. In the past few days more and more pro-lifers have come into the discussion and it is clear that there they have no interest in compromising one iota with the pro-choice side. Life begins at conception, therefore abortion is murder, period.

While I agree that there are many completely unyielding pro-choicers around, I think just one of the comments above has reflected that view, while many others have expressed a willingness to be open to ideas and debate. But it is clear that the other side posting here is unwilling to discuss anything other than the complete banning of abortions, with all arguments simply made to reinforce that position.

This is exactly why many pro-choicers become so hardline on abortion. They may concede some ground - maybe agreeing to tougher parental notification laws or supplying pamphlets with additional information about adoption etc. - but when they look to the other side for some reciprocal action there is none. Thus pro-choice people begin to see that compromising with pro-lifers is essentially a one way street - so they see that all they are doing by being accomodating is accelerating the day when all abortions are illegal.

I have said this before, but it is worth repeating. If pro-lifers are unwilling to compromise their hardline stance and don't start working together with pro-choicers to get the abortion rate down by other means than simply banning it, then the excessively high abortion rate will continue.

Western European abortion laws are similar to the USA and yet their abortion rate is around 50% to 60% of America's. And that liberal bastion conservatives love to hate - the Netherlands - has a rate almost 3 times lower. There is no reason why American abortions should be much more common than in these places. But until there is some give on **BOTH** sides, this sad state of affairs will continue ad infinitum.

Not enough attention has been paid to the physical and emotional toll that women experience after having an abortion. I wanted more information. But I made the mistake of going to the PLANNED PARENTHOOD website to find information on this topic and this is is what they believe. Taken directly from their website:

"How do women feel after an abortion?"

"It is normal for a woman to experience a range of emotions after an abortion, such as relief, sadness, happiness and feelings of loss."

"Happiness"??!!!....."Happiness"??!!! You're joking, right? I admit that my knowledge of abortions is scant. But does anyone believe a woman would be HAPPY after aborting her baby?

Who is Planned Parenthood kidding?

AJ,

I never in anyway said that the father of of the child that I aborted (against his wishes: he begged, pleaded and cried) should not be in prison for what he did (many years after I knew ).

So what you are telling me is that men who resoet to anger or violence are just carzy and homicidal.

What you are also telling me that you know precisely what makes a person snap and go out and commit a crime. I hope you are using this extraordinary talent to do good in the world.

I never in anyway said that the father of of the child that I aborted (against his wishes: he begged, pleaded and cried) should not be in prison for what he did (many years after I knew ).

So what you are saying is that men who resort to anger or violence are just crazy and homicidal. What you are also saying is that you know precisely what makes a person snap and go out and commit a crime.

I'm not sure this debate is worth continuing any more. In the past few days more and more pro-lifers have come into the discussion...

Doesn't a "debate" require people to disagree? It sounds like you're getting ready to leave the debate simply because it's a debate.

... and it is clear that there they have no interest in compromising one iota with the pro-choice side. Life begins at conception, therefore abortion is murder, period.

Yes, that is an accurate summary of the pro-life position. Why is that wrong? Wouldn't it be more wrong for us to compromise on allowing some murders for political advantage? If you truly believe that the unborn child is deserving of life (as I do), then there is little meaningful compromise with those who wish to allow the killing of such children to continue. To compromise would indicate either 1) an acceptance of the anti-life claim that a fetus does not deserve to live or 2) moral hypocrisy.

Frederick Douglass did not compromise on wanting to abolish slavery. He could have argued for "slave protection" laws, or more ethical slaveowners, or any number of half-measures. Douglass did not do so, because he saw that the fundamental problem of slavery was not mistreated slaves or unethical slaveowners. The fundamental problem of slavery was treating a whole group of people as if they were property. In this respect, abolitionists and pro-lifers have a lot in common.

If pro-lifers are unwilling to compromise their hardline stance and don't start working together with pro-choicers to get the abortion rate down by other means than simply banning it, then the excessively high abortion rate will continue.

This is untrue. As has already been mentioned on this thread, pro-lifers are supportive of a wide range of measures to lower the abortion rate. In fact, because of the formidable barrier that the Roe and Doe decisions pose toward any meaningful legal restrictions, the non-ban methods are all that we have right now. Pro-lifers encourage adoption, help with crisis pregnancies (suporting the mother & child well after birth, by the way), abstinence training, and more. In fact, I don't know any pro-lifers who advocate banning abortion and nothing else, as you have claimed.

But until there is some give on **BOTH** sides, this sad state of affairs will continue ad infinitum.

If you really want to seek a legislative compromise, then you have to be willing to jettison the Roe and Doe decisions. With those two decisions, the Supreme Court has created a legal climate that is totally inflexible. For example, Britain is currently embroiled in a debate over whether the maximum age for abortion should be dropped from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. Such a debate could not happen here because of judicial coup d'etat.

Witness what happens to partial-birth abortion bans, which enjoy wide popular support and would only affect a tiny number of abortions. The bans pass overwhelmingly, both in the states and (recently) at the federal level. Then a court overturns the ban, based on the precedents of Roe and Doe. The unelected, unrepresentative branch of our government overturns the will of the people and our elected representatives.

Overturn the Supreme Court and allow the legislative process to function. When that happens, I think you'll see that a fair amount of compromise will become possible.

Have you ever meet anyone who had an appointment with an abortionist? Well, I am that person---and I'm not female. This world would be a much better place if others would get the chance to live like I did.

Andrew, at the risk of being abrupt, insensitive and obnoxious, I "skimmed" through your mental debate with yourself. I skimmed because I've heard it all before. Bottom line is you're arguing with something you inherently, though perhaps subconsciously, know to be true and you're having trouble admitting it.

It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to determine that life begins at conception. The only question is whether we as adults recognize that life and give it protection or if we deny that life personhood and protection based on arbitrary criteria--not unlike the arbitrary criteria used to determine that a human being with dark skin was subhuman based on "features" or that a woman is subhuman based on "features". It's called vested interest. When we as individuals have a personal and vested interest, we find some amazing ways to cloak that self-interest as altruism and public good. The abortion debate is a prime example of this.

It's been said that a woman chooses abortion the same way a animal caught in a trap chooses to gnaw off its own leg. At the time it seems like to only way out. (Go to www.feministsforlife.org)

As Travis stated there are numerous ministries, homes and organizations who are offering women (young and older) hope, healing and real options instead of fear. What's the difference (figuratively) speaking between a woman choosing a "back alley abortion" and a woman feeling trapped or forced to choose a "legal abortion?"

The debate is really simple: life begins at conception. We need to offer women and their children real, positive, and life-affirming options (which pro-lifers have been doing years despite and besides the overt and caustic debate that the media loves to display on television.) How many stories have you seen about "abortion clinic protesters" versus the news stories about pro-lifers volunteering at pregnancy centers and homes where young and older women get practical help like shelter and caring counseling? A pregnancy center may be the first place a woman talks about the abortion(s) she's had and the feelings she went through or about a relationship she's not sure how to end if it's destructive. These are real-life stories about women who overcame fear and obstacles to offset any back alley abortion story designed to scare an increasingly "anti-abortion" public.

Lastly, abortion has a "spiritual" aspect. You may call it religion, but there's really no way to escape it as you found in the opening of your debate. We may choose to ignore it, deny it's there, or put it in it's "proper place" (i.e. the closet) but we only deceive ourselves--which is a thing adult human beings are really good at. Every law we have is a "moral" determination of what is right and wrong. The very fact that we (adult humans) consider there to be a thing called right and an opposite thing called wrong leads to the question of morals and religion, as in where does the concept of morality even come from. What is that morality based upon?

I do applaud your willingness to be open. I hope you don't get bogged down in the "details" which can obscure the forest for the trees. We exchanged one wrong (classifying women and children as ignorant and only good for certain things) for another wrong (classifying an unborn child as insentient and subject to a legalized death sentence.) Instead of elevating motherhood (for those who can and choose it before conception), we've criminalized the child.

It's really about how we "choose" to handle and deal with the basic facts as science and medicine and medical equipment like 4-D ultrasound are finally bringing to light.

Andrew, it's really been there all the time like the side of a barn. I pray you don't miss it.

I'm sorry, but reducing to this to an argument about personhood is a facetious and fallacious argument.

We don't know if a union of sperm and egg will result in a life. Anything can happen between the time of conception and when the pregnancy ends as nature intends. A significant percentage of pregnancies end up as miscarriages. That's a fact. Many that make it from the first term don't make it to the second, and so forth. On that basis alone, a pregnancy isn't a person. It is a POTENTIAL life.

However, what we do have at work at the same time is a life that IS there, it does exist. Maybe you want to get into some Wittgenstein-type debate about the meaning of 'exist,' but I believe those who are in the reality-based community understand that a potential life vs. a life already here do NOT compare.

Making abortion illegal will NOT save lives. It will take as many as abortion does now, and shatter far more. Too many people have forgotten too much about life before Roe v. Wade. It was, after all, a very long time ago. But many do remember.

Orphanages? Where are those now? Don't find many of them do you? The mothers who abandoned their children to them? Well, we still have some of those women to kick when we run out of other targets. But at least most kids born to these women are getting adopted, not growing up unloved and unwanted in orphanages.

And what about the disparities between the rich and the poor--rich women who had perfectly safe, though still illegal, abortions in hospitals, thanks to some hefty cash slipped to the right doctor? The rich can have abortions, but the less-fortunate must be baby machines? Some democracy, that.

What about the women who died or were permanently scarred when abortion was illegal (which it wasn't, always)? Look for the septic ward at the nearest big-city hospital. Didn't find it, did you? You won't. That's so much a thing of the past that we might as well put them in a museum alongside polio wards as quaint trends in medical history. Anyway, of those women who took the risk of trying to abort, despite the law (which they always have and always will), how many unborn were saved? And how many women, often women with already-born children, died unnecessarily? How many women who might have been able to continue living ended up dying because they could not abort a child that was killing them? How many people lost friends, daughters, wives and mothers to this insanity? The answer is far too many. How the hell is it valuing life to let people die just to save a life that may or may not come into existence? It's madness is what it is.

Does this mean that a potential life has no rights? No. But the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the child as its personhood becomes more likely must be considered and allocated. I believe Roe was right to set up the trimester system, which gave the mother the greater rights in the first trimester, mother and child have just about equal rights in the second, and the child gets greater rights in the third. This is fair, and it is ethical.

And beyond that, the real problem with the anti-abortion movement is the subterranean plot against sex-ed and birth control. Hillary is right to say that we need to reduce abortions. But the way to do that isn't by telling kids "JUST SAY NO!" It's teaching them what sex really means, and giving them the ability to manage that aspect of their lives. You don't have to scratch many anti-abortionists to find someone who doesn't believe in contraception. And very few of them are removed from being flat out anti-sex, especially the idea of the wimmen folk having sex. Their very language gives them away: "Well, SHE shouldn't have been doing THAT." Never mind the man who impregnated her. No, that succubi went and stole his precious body fluids out of thin air. Every single time, this virulence to female sexuality is what it boils down to. Get a grip on that, then you might get what this is about.

LJ said "Orphanages. Where are those now?"

The children who used to go to orphanages now end up in foster care. That's the result of changed welfare policies, not abortion.

Also, just calling a fetus a potential life or a pregnancy instead of a human life doesn't make it so. At some point in its development it clearly becomes a human being. We don't and can't know when that is. How can we just arbitrarily assume when it is okay to kill (first trimester) and not okay to kill (third trimester and after the birth of the baby)?

In fact, there are plenty of abortions during the second trimester and even some during the third trimester (so-called partial birth abortions) which are rather gruesome. That doesn't sound as if mother and child have equal rights during the second trimester, and the child gets greater rights in the third.

I was planning to wade through all the posts but there are just too many. It is wonderful to see that most are respectful of other's opinions.

This issue is very complex with lots of competing interests. That of the feotus is obvious and often the only interest ProLife folk talk about. It is also important to think about the interests of the the pregnant woman. And, to a much lesser degree, the interests of society.

Now, when you start thinking about the interests of the women invovled, you find this issue is all tangled up with Women's Rights, the amazingly harsh status of Women in the world, poverty, the right to control your own life. If you don't consider these other issues then you have not completely thought out the problem.

Keep thinking!! :-)

Does this mean that a potential life has no rights?

"Potential life" is a meaningless concept. The cells exist, and they are alive. Life has been in continuous existence for many hundreds of millions of years -- one long, unbroken chain of self-perpetuating biological processes. The unfertilized egg is alive, too.

Thus, the real question is not whether it is alive, but whether the egg is a part of the mother (the way her skin and kidney cells are part of her), or whether it a unique, distinct individual.

If it is part of the mother, then answer this question for me: On what basis does anyone have the right to tell her what to do with cells from her own body? How the hell can people like Hillary take the contradictory (and for her, a typically strong-arm statist) position that engaging in safe and legal procedures should be "rare" or not? If it is safe and legal, then it is nobody's business whether there should be more or fewer of them. That's what it means to be free.

The point, of course, is that it is not "safe," because there is, by definition, always a victim of homicide in every abortion.

Every single pro-abortion position depends on some vague, fuzzy notion that a fetus becomes a person at some arbitrary point in its life cycle. The Roe decision based it on trimesters, but that is still arbitrary. The truth is that this arbitrary distinction is the result of the fact that people are squeamish about killing things that LOOK like babies. It is primarily an aesthetic reaction.

But logic and science tell us that the fertilized egg, while aesthetically unlike a more mature human being, still is a human being, i.e., a human that exists. It is the same, actual, physical thing that grows into the older baby you can recognize.

It is both sad and disgusting that an issue as all-important as life and death can revolve on arbitrary distinctions like trimesters or a person's aesthetic appearance.

George,

Do you consider abortion murder or something "less" than murder?

This issue is very complex with lots of competing interests. That of the feotus is obvious and often the only interest ProLife folk talk about. It is also important to think about the interests of the the pregnant woman. And, to a much lesser degree, the interests of society.

With all respect, it is only complex because we don't like the simple, obvious answer. We all know that killing children is wrong, so we have muddied the philosophical waters with women's rights, debates about personhood, and so on.... Abortion is not as complex as all of that. Intentionally killing an innocent human being is wrong. Period. The only time the issue becomes complex is when the pregnancy would pose a threat to the mother's life, at which point abortion would become a tragic (but acceptable) alternative, just as we allow people to kill in self-defense.

The simplicity of the issue does not come from ignoring women's rights, or the interest of society, or whatever. Those things are all important, especially the woman's right to control her own life and body. However, those competing interests cannot overwhelm the primary right to life. Pro-lifers are generally eager to help women with crisis pregnancy care, adoption assistance, etcetera. Christian pro-lifers are especially aware of Jesus's instructions that we should care for all people in His name. However, as soon as abortion becomes a part of that "care", we will oppose it.

Fetal homicide should be treated like any other form of homicide, meaning that it can be the basis for murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide, etc. It should be subject to the same general principles of criminal law (e.g., mens rea, etc.) as any other homicide.

And, as a homicide, should be subject to the same general principles of excuse and justification as other homicides (not all homicides are crimes).

The application of these principles is a technical and difficult process, handled case by case, taking into account all the attendant facts and circumstances, just as the application of all criminal law is handled.

But before such a legal analysis can begin, one must accept of the basic premise abortion qualifies as a form of homicide.

George,

I sense some "some vague, fuzzy notion"s going on here. Are you saying that abortion is a form of murder, but just some "lesser" form of murder? Would you classify it as a 2nd degree murder, or just voluntary manslaughter? Could it sometimes maybe be considered just negligent homicide?

Also, given your posiiton that abortion qualifies as a form of homicide, what are your moral obligations to stop it from happening?

I became pro-life in part because of the same argument you are making in this article. I started by being confronted with the "how is killing an infant one moment after birth different than one moment before" and proceeded to think about why life is valued and when life begins. My conclusions are similar to yours: life of the mother is self-defense, rape and incest are gray areas but still unsavory, and abortion-on-demand should be illegal.

I think much of the debate these days is based on who you focus on. If you think of abortion as a decision being made by the pregnant women, it is a question of liberty. If you think of abortion as a question of when life begins and the perspective of the unborn child, then it is a question of life. Democratic and liberal sites usually talk in terms of "defending choice," "men wanting control over women," and "women's rights" on the issue while Republican and conservative sites mention the "right to life," "a culture of life," and "the unborn child."

It is a tough issue and I applaud your ability to make your thinking public. Kudos.

Andrew, I've thought about this issue for some time, and as a scientist I've naturally viewed it from a scientist's perspective. Because your arguement's (and doverspa's above it seems) stem from a scientific definition of what is murder and what isn't, I thought I'd share my thoughts on this.

First, I disagree with your ultimate conclusion. The reason I come to a different conclusion from you is because I do not believe that your working definitions are accurate. It is undoubtably true that a single celled zygote is 'alive' and, as it contains human DNA its clearly human. Thus, you conclude, killing it is murder! However, I'd argue that the real test of murder/humanity goes far beyond the simply yes no test of, is it human and does it contain human DNA?

Take for example, a human white blood cell. Its alive, its human, and therefore, everytime you bleed you commit murder on the level of Hitler or Stalin. Do I sound ridiculous? Of course! Then how is it one should consider a zygote worth of protection from murder and your white blood cells not?

Take the uproar over stem-cell research, as another example. The conservatives often point to 'adult stem-cells' as an alternative to using fetal stem-cells. What they don't realize is that in theory, you can clone an adult human from such an adult stem-cell (see Dolly the sheep). It is, in principle, no different from a human zygote - with the proper nuturing, you can arrive at an adult fully functioning human being from that adult stem cell. Is it a human? Clearly no.

The debate, after stripping away all the political crap, should therefore center about defining not what 'human life is (e.g. DNA and a cell)' but defining what a HUMAN is. IMO, a zygote is not a human, a blastacyst is not a human. A fetus, at some stage, IS a human. A braindead patient is not a human. Its obviously a fuzzy line, and people could justifiably argue many definitions over their position on what is a Human, but its simply not enough to say its alive and its got DNA. Your arguement needs to be deeper than that.

Respectfully,

-Yertle

Naaman said:
"Pro-lifers encourage adoption, help with crisis pregnancies (suporting the mother & child well after birth, by the way), abstinence training, and more. In fact, I don't know any pro-lifers who advocate banning abortion and nothing else, as you have claimed."
Notably absent from this list was sex-education and promotion of birth control, especially condoms, which help protect against STD transmition. The would be theocrats will only go *so far* to lower abortion rates.

I sense some "some vague, fuzzy notion"s going on here. Are you saying that abortion is a form of murder, but just some "lesser" form of murder? Would you classify it as a 2nd degree murder, or just voluntary manslaughter? Could it sometimes maybe be considered just negligent homicide?

The reason it appears to be vague and fuzzy is that the criminal law distinguishes between higher degrees of homicide (e.g. murder) and lower ones (manslaughter) primarily on the basis of intent, i.e., one's mental state when committing a criminal act.

Also, many states have a provision that severe emotional distress can bump a crime down a level or two. Add to that the fact that each state writes its law a little differently.

The facts of specific cases can and do vary. On the one hand, you can have a person without severe emotional distress, who knows full well what she is doing, who deliberately kills an unborn person. Absent other mitigating circumstances, that may be murder. She acts for the specific purpose of causing the death of another.

Then, you might have someone who, perhaps because of her age or social circumstances is genuinely experiencing severe emotional distress, or is mentally impaired due to an illness. These are facts that, just as with the typical homicide, can be used to argue the case to a lesser degree of homicide.

Then, you may have a woman who acts recklessly with her fetus, who doesn't do so for the purpose of killing her unborn child, but disregards the risk and does so anyway. This might be analagous to people who, with frightening regularity, leave their children locked in a hot car.

It all depends on the facts of each case, which as a criminal defense attorney, I can tell you vary widely.

Also, given your posiiton that abortion qualifies as a form of homicide, what are your moral obligations to stop it from happening?

Not much different from the dozen or so murders that will be committed this month in the town where I live.

Considering the fact that the biggest problem at the moment is the state of the law, my time is best spent (a) acting responsibly in my own life, and (b) advocating for a change in the law.

George:

...you can have a person without severe emotional distress, who knows full well what she is doing, who deliberately kills an unborn person. Absent other mitigating circumstances, that may be murder.

I'll disregard the "may" you inserted in this statement and assume that you consider a healthy, mentally stable woman who decides to terminate pregnancy simply because she has decided that she does not want to be pregnant, would be in your view, guilty of 1st degree murder.

Now, assuming the above, I also assert that you know (or could know with little effort) who is assisting in the commission of these murders and where these murders are occurring on a regular basis; and yet take no direct action to stop these murders.

If I was in your position, I would take up arms in order to resist the murderers.

Why don't you?