One significant but overlooked part of the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling last week safeguarding the privacy rights of abortion clinic patients was its statement upholding mental health exceptions for late-term abortions.
The justices noted that Attorney General Phill Kline “has said he disagrees with requiring an exception to preserve the pregnant woman’s mental health” — over the years, it’s been a frequent line in Kline’s anti-abortion talking points.
The court noted, “Until the United States Supreme Court or the federal Constitution says otherwise, however, the mental health of the pregnant woman remains a consideration necessary to assure the constitutionality of the Kansas criminal abortion statute.”
That pretty directly refutes Kline’s objection on this point. It’s the law.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
109 Comments
Don’t be silly Randy, the law will never stop Phill Kline from poking his nose into teenage girls private matters. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile, right?
Roe vs. Wade which is based on the “right to privacy” clause stipulates that an abortion is permissible when the health of the mother is put in jeopardy. But the Supreme Court made the term “health” ambiguous, they left no preceding adjective; so “health” could mean not just physical, but mental, financial, even academic! This has led to “abortion-on-demand” which is basically making frivolous excuses to terminate pregnancy. Sigh! If only we could be responsible with our sex-lives!
“Don’t be silly Randy, the law will never stop Phill Kline from poking his nose into teenage girls private matters. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile, right?”
Or in your case, once a shrill, libelous hag, always a shrill, libelous hag.
“frivolous excuses to terminate pregnancy.”
If a woman doesn’t want to give birth, she shouldn’t have to. No excuse is frivolous.
Every woman that gets pregnant either wants to have the child or doesn’t want to have the child, and whatever her reason is for having an opinion on how she wishes to utilize her uterus should not be considered frivolous.
Ok, before the Pro-Choice Police come busting down my door, I just wanna say that I don’t hate abortionists or women who get abortions, I hate the act of abortion itself. So please don’t burn down a building in NY or the NY state flag please. :)
cookie,Very absolutist. I doubt your “no excuse is frivolous” argument would hold up on a case by case basis though. You state that a woman should be able to decide anything she wants to about utilizing her uterus, but what about the man who impregnated her? Should he have no say in the development and birth of HIS child just because it is being developed in the woman’s body?
One thing to be aware of- some of the most visible leaders in the anti-abortion ranks are now advocating a position of no abortions for any reason whatsoever. Their position is that a real woman would rather die than have an abortion! The Vatican recently reinforced that view by nominating for sainthood a woman who refused treatment for cancer because it might harm her unborn child, and thus died. This is the model they expect all women to aspire to?This notion is a throwback to the days when a woman’s only value was as a producer of babies, and a woman that couldn’t or wouldn’t was dispensable!
As someone who has listened to the stories of many women who were getting abortions, I can tell you that it’s not done frivolously. It’s expensive, and unpleasant to go through, and having to run a gauntlet of christians yelling “whore” and “murderer” at her doesn’t make it easier. The women that come to the clinics for abortions are very literally at the end of their ropes! Regarding the man’s rights, maybe they can be improved when men get considerably better about supporting their offspring.
The “mental-health exception”, in other words…if you want an abortion at any time for any reason you can have it. It’s just like “fetus” and all the other words pro-aborts use because the truth is too gruesome.
Joe,Are you keeping current on your child support payments?
Jed,
Is it ok to kill another human being because the parent is not supporting it financially?
Yay! Another abortion argument!
Jed,Maybe someone should have aborted you?
CruX,Don’t worry; if I wasn’t here arguing this case, somebody else would be!
Nathan,You seem to think I’m in favor of abortion. I’m not- it’s a lousy solution to a difficult problem. Unfortunately, in this society, it’s the only practical one available.You also seem to be under the delusion that you are more qualified to decide what happens to a woman than she is. You don’t know, or care what her particular situation is, and you don’t have to suffer the consequences of that decision, she does. Let her make it!
Just wondering how many Deadbeat Dads didn’t give a rat’s patootie about that fetus…
Any man who wants to stop the abortion of something he helped create can do so. Most don’t care. (See above.)
Jed,
It is pretty simple for me.
Either you recognize the unborn child as a human life worthy of protecting or you don’t.
I do.
Once you make the decision to consider anything not a life worthy of protecting then of course it doesn’t matter to you or anyone else what the reason is for ending that life.
It is always easy to destroy something which has no value.
Once you accept that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting then the reasons for an abortion no longer matter.
You have made your choice, to deem the unborn as not worthy of protection.
I disagree.
The only argument is/should be if that unborn is worthy of protection or not.
All this choice crap or a womans right goes out the window to the life of another human being.
Nathan, I love the fact that you are in the marines and pro-life.
“Life begins at fertilisation” vs. “pregnancy begins at implantation” seems to be argument nowadays. Very often fertilised ova fail to implant in the uterus, and thus are flushed out to die, naturally. Are we to pass a law declaring this illegal, and force the implantation? Just an academic question.
Contraceptives are invented to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Why this aren’t being extolled more by the anti-abortion groups, I wonder. Honestly, “abstinence-only” programs are not faring well to prepare a person for a healthy sexual life.
Roo,”and thus are flushed out to die, naturally. Are we to pass a law declaring this illegal, and force the implantation? Just an academic question.”
What kind of argument is that? There is a difference between a natural failure of the egg/sperm union and the unnatural invasion of abortion.
Whether you are for or against abortion, your argument makes no sense. Try something different.
It is pretty simple for me.
Either you recognize living humans as a human life worthy of protecting or you don’t.
I do.
Once you make the decision to consider anything not a life worthy of protecting then of course it doesn’t matter to you or anyone else what the reason is for going to war, knowing you will kill thousands of living humans.
It is always easy to destroy something which has no value.
Once you accept that living humans in other countries are human lives worthy of protecting then the reasons for going to war no longer matter.
You have made your choice, to deem the civilian casualties as not worthy of protection.
I disagree.
The only argument is/should be if the living humans are worthy of protection or not.
All this premptive strike crap or a American’s right goes out the window to the life of another human being.
Walker – I think he is talking about failure to implant, not failure of sperm-egg union. It is about contraceptions (which isn’t really the point here anyway). Conception occurs before implantation, some birth controls prevent implantation. Natural versus unnatural is sort of silly in terms of medicine. All medicine prevents natural things from occuring naturally. If that is the argument then Christian Science is for you.
Allie,Thanks for the clarification. You are correct. And nope, I’ll let the CSers hand out leaflets in parking lots.
Allie,Nathan is in the marines to protect his country and to maintain our freedoms that we hold so dear. That is the purpose of a soldier, that is why countries keep armies, to defend their way of life. Now, do you or do you not believe in self-defense? Do you want people who want to kill you to achieve their goal? Are you currently aware of what’s going on in the world today? People like Nathan keep you safe, even to make incredulous comments equating the innocence of an unborn child to an enemy combatant. What if there weren’t people like Nathan? I shudder to think as to what may happen to an American woman like you if those enraged Arabs got a hold of you.
What if there weren’t people like Nathan?
Ahhhhhhhhhh……
Nothing against Marines, it his anti-choice fascist views that disturb me.
cookie,now i must respectfully disagree with you. “anti-choice is fascist?” Why didn’t you use the pro-life term? No bother. What is more “fascist” to you? A society that denies a woman the choice to terminate her unborn child, or a society that denies unborn children to live? Take your time.
I couldn’t resist.
When you’ve got two lives occupying the same body, one of them has precedent over the other. In the first trimester when viability is not even a possibility, I choose the mother.
Even if I’m dying from kidney failure, I can’t force my mother to get hooked up to me and keep me alive as a human dialysis machine. Not that she’d refuse to, mind you.
Either you believe fetuses are humans and therefore have the SAME RIGHTS AS OTHER HUMANS, or you think that they are some sort of uber-special entity that should be given the special privelige to do what no other human can: Use another person’s body for survival.
If you argue anything else, you just go back to the whole “it’s not ok for women to have sex for pleasure” since we’re babymaking machines. Birth control fails? Well, you knew the risks! Shoulda kept your legs closed, slut! Men don’t have to go through the irreversible, mindblowing changes of pregnancy and childbirth. No one can deny that if it were men that gave birth, the abortion war wouldn’t exist.
Crusader X,For someone engaged in a long-winded theological debate on another part of this blog, you seem to have majorly overlooked a substantial part of the Gospels. Jesus certainly seems to have been a pacifist – you know the old favorites – “turn the other cheek,” “take up your cross, and follow me,” “he who lives by the sword,” “love your enemies.” . You can talk long about penal substitution, but that doesn’t change Jesus’ radically pacifistic stance in suffering crucifixion. So, the Christian answer is in fact, no I don’t believe in self-defense. Certainly, not at the cost of other innocent lives. If there were not people like Nathan, Christians would have to put their lives where their mouths are. Or, better, we would have to figure out a way to live together in the peace that all of the major religions of the world teach us to do.The equation is not entirely about enemy combatants. We know, we always know, that there will be civilian casualties. Even “enemy combatants” are usually young men, equally fed “It is a noble thing to die for your country” as our boys. They are not truly responsible for the “evils” we are punishing. It is not enough to simply not intend to kill civilians; we decide that our supposed safety or national interests are worth innocent lives. We are making a decision that “the freedoms we hold so dear” are worth the lives of women and children. I can make the same argument for abortion – I am not intending to “kill the fetus,” it is just an unfortunate side effect of my restoring my menstrual cycle.Yet, Nathan says that there are no other factors admissible in the abortion debate besides the human life aspect. The interest of the woman, however valuable to her, count for nothing to him. How can one hold this position about fetuses and not about living, breathing humans? We make the decision in war (maybe in very rare occasions correctly) that we will sacrifice the lives of innocent people, who will surely die by our hands, for the greater good of others. We are saying that our good, including our freedom, are worth the deaths of other people. There is no other way to look at it. It makes no logical sense to me to take one stance in reference to a fetus and a different one in reference to a breathing person. Human life cannot be an absolute good to anyone who is not a pacifist. There is always a trade-off they are willing to make. You are really the one being selfish, not the woman, when you will make the trade off for your interests and prohibit a woman from making it for her intersts.Countries do not keep armies only to defend their way of life. If that were true, there would be no wars. But, there are wars. Nations keep armies to intimidate others, and sometimes to force them to give them what they want, like umm oil.I am completely aware of what is going on in the world today. It is what has been going on in the world for all of recorded history. Amazingly, war hasn’t solved it yet, and all it seems to produce is a different destabilization and different justifications for people wanting to kill others. It is nothing more or less than the Hatfields and the McCoys.
Allie,I agree with you, really I do. JC would never advocate war at all. In an ideal world, there would be no war.But this is not a utopian ideal world we live in, Allie. More often than nought, men have to do what they perceive is the right course of action, and you know that we, with our finite limited minds can not see every consequence of our actions. That is something only God can do. I don’t want innocents to die, we call that “collateral damage” I know that seems cold, but there never was an intent for us to hurt innocents. Neither do I think there is anything good or glorious about war. There is no glory in killing a man. But the existence of a fetus as a separate, living entity can not be denied by anyone. We are a country that holds our basic rights close to our hearts, I respect your rights as a woman, but does that mean that the rights of the living fetus inside of you would have no right to be alive? We are not perfect people, and i despise the Christian who makes himself out to be sinless, I am not condemning the pregnant woman for considering abortion, because JC never condemned anyone except the hypocrites. God forgive us.
CX-In an ideal world, no woman would need to have an abortion. God would only give them children when they were happily married, prepared for the burden, and physically and mentally healthy. Why does your painful acceptance of the brokeness of the world accept things that benefit you and reject ones that benefit women? We know, just as much as a woman having an abortion, that collateral damage will happen. We call it “collateral damage” to remove the human aspect from it. Hypocrites are people who excuse things for themselves which they condemn in others.I don’t really want to fight the separate living entity. The brief version – fetus’ are certainly cellularly alive, but in no way separate. Every molecule of Oxygen or nutrient is digested by the woman and delivered to the fetus through her circulatory system. Every molecule of Co2 and every waste leaves by her circulation system. Were fetuses separate, we would not be having this debate.
longtimeLurker,the fallacy in your argument is that you equate the fetus and the human being as separate and equal entities. The fetus, relies on the nutrition of the mother to grow OUT OF NECESSITY. Other existing human beings usurping the nutrition of other human beings is UNECESSARY and nonsensical. Now, if I were a Supreme Court Judge, and a bill from Congress came to me making it illegal for human beings to feed off the nutrients of other human beings, then it would be illegal for any fetus to grow in the womb. (If it is defined that a fetus is human, that is.) Now this seems nonsensical, yes, but this right here is the basis of your argument: If pro-lifers believe that a fetus is a human being, then that fetus should be treated as ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING and should not be allowed to usurp the nutrition and grow in another human being (i.e. the mother) You fail to realize that a fetus is a special case, then it must be protected by specialized laws. Good try Longtimelurker, but it wouldn’t hold up in my court. :)
Allie,Did I say that war benefits me? No. And you are thinking of biological separation, in that case the fetus and the mother are not separate. But the fetus has an EXISTENCE that is entirely it’s own. Allie, we’re not talking about removing a bunyan or a wart from the woman’s body. Such things do not have life or a soul in them. We are talking about the willfull destruction of an innocent fetus that has committed no crime, but to exist unwanted, and thought of as a mere inconvenience. We live in a society of laws. These laws are made with the intent to protect the people of our country which these laws govern. What kind of society do we live in when we can’t even protect the most innocent among us?
CX-Yes, you did. You said Nathan defends “our freedoms that we hold so dear.” I think you are part of your “our” since you used the first person plural, and all. You suggested that the reason I should support Nathan’s discongrous views is because of all the benefits I receive from his participation in war. Now, I should be thankful that I receive those benefits, but you don’t? Nathan only defends poor damsels in distress like me, but not you?Ah, existance. And what existance is that which is so separate? And in what way can you prove to me that souls exist at conception? At conception, you have a single cell, with DNA. Are souls equivalent to DNA? DNA only produces proteins, nothing else. Souls are nothing but proteins, if you believe that souls and DNA are necessarily equivalent. And, where do souls and life exist, since they do not exist in bunions or warts? They exist in some parts of a body, but not in others? In what part of the body do they exist?What you call the “most innocent among us” aren’t among us at all. They are inside particular women, not among them, or us, or anyone else. Until my fetus is no longer inside me, than your soaring legal belief about what exist among us doesn’t seem to apply very well.
“Now, if I were a Supreme Court Judge, and a bill from Congress came to me making it illegal for human beings to feed off the nutrients of other human beings, then it would be illegal for any fetus to grow in the womb.”
Oops. I forgot to say “against their will”. I think there is legal precedent that humans can’t use other humans’ bodies to survive against their will. For instance, you can’t be forced to donate an organ/bone marrow to someone who’ll die without it, even if the chances of finding another match are zilch.
I admit the analogy is certainly a stretch, since it wouldn’t ever happen (we have machines for dialysis), but idea of forcing a woman to gestate against her will is similar to forcing a person to be hooked up to a person for life support.
I’m rather suprised–I’ve never heard a pro-lifer admit outright that special laws should be in place to protect fetuses. I’ve only heard the arguments like “Murder is illegal, so abortion should be” and “You wouldn’t kill your 2 year old, right?” and all the other ones that place a fetus on equal footing with adult human beings. In fact, most insist that they are not champoining for special rights for the fetus, just the same right to life as the rest of us.I appreciate the new and honest view.
So you believe that the life of a fetus is more important than the life of another human? Because if you’re willing to bestow special rights onto it that no one else has, it suggests that you place the fetus above living humans. Why is that? Is there a reason, without the appeal to emotion using terms like “innocent life that committed no crime”? I don’t know, I think that fetuses are incapable of guilt, and therefore innocence. They’re neutral, in my mind.
In Romania, under the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu, millions of women were denied contraception and abortions: the Romanian government wanted to increase the population and forced women to have as many children as possible. Is this wrong? Why? Assume that none of these women were raped, only having sex without access to birth control. Still wrong?I think of the prolife movement and think “forced birthers” and then I think of Romania. Not a very cogent argument (a fallacious appeal to emotion, I admit), but just an opinion I’ve always wanted to throw out.
I also want to mention that Sandra Day O’Connor predicted in 1983 that medicine would push viability back “further toward conception” and the trimested system established with Roe vs. Wade would be “clearly on a collision course with itself”. I would actually love to see viablity pushed back to the first trimester. I would be completely (politically) prolife then. Now, I’m only personally pro-life.
In Romania they did encourage gypsies to have abortions and for good reason.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Allie,I personally believe that our army should be used as a deterrent and not as something offensive. I do believe in the right of self-defense. That is not incongruous with Christian beliefs. “turn the other cheek” doesn’t mean roll over and die. And when soldiers came to Jesus and asked him what they should do, he told them to be happy with their wages and not to practice extortion. He did not tell them to leave the army, Allie. And why would I just single you out? He protects all our rights like I said before, I am included. I am not a chauvinist. I don’t think women are property or anything. I don’t know, it could be my upbringing, I was raised to believe that a man should protect women and children, especially pregnant women; and if that classifies me as a chauvinist pig then so be it! What I know is many women are ignorant of the ramifications of having an abortion. They are ignorant of the physical pain, emotional and psychological repercussions that follow losing your fetus. The fact that you can speak of a fetus as a separate entity is proof enough of its separate existence. You wish me to prove the existence of a metaphysical soul through empirical means? What are you gonna ask of me next? You want me to walk on water?
Allie said:”Nathan, I love the fact that you are in the marines and pro-life.:”
Posted by: Allie | February 08, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Anyone care to dispute the fact that she has a point???
Longtimelurker,when I said that a fetus was a special case, it meant that the natural tendency of a fetus is to feed and grow, otherwise no baby, and no people. The other example of other people usurping the nutrition of other people is unnecessary and nonsensical because a grown human can survive independently of a host/mother. Hence, I used the term “special case” because if said law were passed, then it would be illegal for any woman to give birth. Now when I said specialized laws, I meant laws that would entail the protection of the fetus from said law, i.e. special case of natural births. “Specialized” does not include in any way a superior protection for fetuses over other human beings, I used the term specialized in reference to the exception that the law must not infringe on the rights of women to have natural births. Of course this is all a hypothetical situation, but don’t be too worried Lurk, I won’t force women to give birth if the pregnancy itself jeopardized their lives.
Ian,Shut up.Lurker,What many people don’t realize is that Roe vs. Wade doesn’t necessarily need to be overturned to greatly damage abortion. All they would need to do is simply revise the law. Just insert an adjective before the word “health” such as “physical” and that would in effect make it illegal to make reasons like mental / financial health viable causes of abortion. Then you could kiss your precious abortion-on-demand goodbye. But don’t worry, I’ll let you kill your babies, after all why should I care about your kids when you obviously don’t give a damn about them.
And asserting that a fetus has a soul is a religious argument, and therefore it’s not a good argument to base laws off of. IF you go by the modern Catholic idea of a soul (and therefore life) at conception (I’m only using this as an example), you force your beliefs onto those who think life begins when brainwaves occur, or when God sends an angel to breathe life into the fetus, or people who think Thomas Aquinas got it right when he said God ensouls embryos at 40 days for males and 90 days for females.I think the prolife movement would be much more successful if they could argue outside the context of religion…that goes into dangerous separation of church/state territory. If they try to make abortion illegal on the basis of the Christian faith, it will most certainly be struck down as unconstitutional.
This is much more interesting than sleep, but I have two loudmouths to feed…must work :)
Sigh..and it always has to turn to ad hominem attacks. I overestimated, I suppose. I’ve never killed a baby in my life: In fact, I got pregnant with my first right after I applied to KU Med with superhot MCAT scores. Abortion was not an option for me, so I truly resent the “babykiller” attack.I just understand that I can’t force my morality onto women in the same position. Do I feel a little holier than thou sometimes when I think about what I gave up? Sure I do. But I’ll defend their right to choose as long as I can.
Lurker,Sorry, I let my emotions get the best of me. This is why I don’t like abortion debates, it can get ugly and personal. I wasn’t singling you out, I didn’t even know you were a woman.
I might point out that the idea of the soul being present from conception is a rather recent theological idea. Traditionally, the soul was considered to be “inspired” at birth.A number of early christian communities thus practiced abortion as a means of protecting a soul from original sin (a sin of the flesh) by allowing it to remain unfleshed and exempt from purgatory. Go figure!
CX-I suggest that if you are going to make claims about knowing where and when souls exist and suggesting that we must make abortion laws based upon it, then you should be able to explain it. If you told me you could walk on water, I would certainly ask you about it. You say a fetus has a soul, and a wart doesn’t. However, I doubt you want to suggest that the soul is equivalent to a mind or consciousness, because it ruins your argument. So, can you defend your argument?
Concerning separate existence, I can differentiate a liver from the person whose liver it is. That doesn’t offer the liver a separate and independent existence. Fetuses, particularly pre-viability but even post-viability without emergency delivery, do not exist apart from the pregnant woman any more than a liver does. She dies, both die.
Re: chivalry and chauvinism. I don’t care if you hold doors open, or even claim “women and children first” in times of emergency. I do care that you seem to be saying, I have to protect women from themselves. That smacks of chauvinism – I (m) know better than you (f) what is best for you. Women can’t make a decision for themselves, I have to make it for them.
How can you justify deciding that physical reasons for abortion are justifiable whereas mental health exceptions are not? Is it that you value women’s bodies, but not their minds? Is mental disease not real illness? Moreover, even allowing abortion only in physical illness becomes difficult. Who gets to decide if my risk of death is great enough to warrant abortion? You? Pro-lifers? Doctors? Which doctors? Male doctors? Only pro-life ones?
Regarding PASS – 21% of American women will have an abortion in their lives. PASS has been undetectable as a distinct phenomenon in methodologically rigorous studies, including longitudinal ones. Many of the studies cited by pro-life groups advocating PASS have been shown to be ridiculously biased. One found participants on a website specifically for women who feel “traumatized by abortion.” Not a standard population. To discount legit studies, they like to go for “but sometimes it doesn’t come out for years.” An 8 year longitudinal prospective study didn’t find it either. They also like to go for the studies are too superficial. If this is a real disorder with true manifestations, one would expect to see it pretty clearly. Their studies often ask extremely leading questions and repeatedly until the woman knows what the “right” answer (that they feel really guilty) is. Some women have difficulties after abortions, like after pregnancy, miscarriage, infertility, divorce, etc. Claiming that no woman should have abortion because of PASS is less logical than claiming no woman should have children because of post-partum depression. The events that predict difficulty post abortion are 1) history of psychological difficulties before pregnancy, 2) feeling forced into abortion, 3) believing fetus was independent person but did it anyway, 4) having a later conversion to a believe in fetus as independent person or that abortion is morally wrong. No respectable pro-choice person suggests a woman should have an abortion if she is being forced or having doubts about the decision. But, PASS was created by pro-lifers and their therapy and activities seems to be geared at increasing it, instead of supporting women.
Finally, regarding Christians and war. I don’t think the only choices are violent or military self defense or “roll over and die.” I think the entire example of Christ is that there are other options, but resorting to militarism is not one of them. Everybody thought that the Messiah would come and be a military leader, and he came and wasn’t. Sacrificial love is another way, pre-emptive political negotiations, statesmenship, respect and learning about why the situation is escalating towards violence are others. I am not convinced that your example suggests that Christians should, therefore, become soldiers. People in the military sometimes convert while in it. They can be given conscientious objector status even in the military. To his disciples, Jesus says, “come follow me.” Even the earliest church looked at the example of Christ, tried to live it, and refused to serve in the military. Justifications seem to have developed later. We don’t have a draft enacted right now; nobody is forced to join up. Even if we accept your position of self-defense (a just war theory), Christians could only join the military as conscientious objectors because our country does not fight wars on just war grounds (even if the rhetoric tries to appeal to it), certainly not only for clearly identified defense. A Christian in the military cannot assume that they will only be used for operations of defense. Unfortunately, the option of selective conscientious objection is not offered in terms of the draft or in terms of participation in offensive campaigns.
Allie,Regarding the so-called stats on PASS, while I’m sure they have done some biased studies, more often they simply invent them.
Jed,Excellent point. Maudlin emotionality is way more persuasive than legitimate medical research. My job would be so much easier if all of medicine could be based on whether I want it to be true or not.
How can you justify deciding that physical reasons for abortion are justifiable whereas mental health exceptions are not? Is it that you value women’s bodies, but not their minds?
What I said concerning the effectivity of Roe vs. Wade was a hypothetical situation, I never said I personally would perform that revision if I had the chance. And concerning war, I said I favored a defensive military, I don’t believe we should be the “world’s police” because policing is not the job of a soldier, Allie. Once agan, this is not a perfect world, and not everyone is a follower of Christ. If this were a perfect world everyone would be a philanthropist like JC, but it’s not, Allie, and the sovereignty and survival of a nation is dependent on it’s military strength. This is applicable to EVERY country, state, empire in history. Do I like this harsh reality? No. When Jesus comes again to establish the righteousness of God then we can “beat our swords into plowshares”, but until then, every country is going to maintain armies because human nature is desirous of security and stability. They see their army and they think, yeah, no one can touch us. Now, am i a proponent of war merely because I state an inevitable fact of the human condition? No. If I had omnipotent control over the world no one would raise a weapon against another in anger, and I would ensure that you, Allie, were the happiest of women.
CX-”All they would need to do is simply revise the law. Just insert an adjective before the word “health” such as “physical” and that would in effect make it illegal to make reasons like mental / financial health viable causes of abortion. Then you could kiss your precious abortion-on-demand goodbye. But don’t worry, I’ll let you kill your babies, after all why should I care about your kids when you obviously don’t give a damn about them.” Gee, I thought I understood your comment fairly well, including the satire. You weren’t being satirical? I am glad you have asserted your pro-choice beliefs (I’ll let you kill your babies). Thanks for joining us; we will have to work on your phrasing some more – try “I respect your right to make choices about your reproductive health.” OF course, you didn’t say that they SHOULD, or YOU would, insert “physical health.” You just ridicule pro-choicers because of it. I am so confused. Sort of – “I didn’t rob the bank, I just told them how to do it and enjoyed the profits” defense?
Crusader (your name suggests you believe that violence in the name of God is good) – the question then is -Did Jesus just throw up his hands and say – “You know, I tried to be the Prince of Peace and maybe someday again I will come back and do it right; until then why don’t you belligerent little bastards stock-pile nuclear weapons, just in case?” I think you are trying to tell me that you want to be a reluctant soldier, kill as few as possible, only do it if they did it first. I say, that ain’t the Christ I know. Christians are supposed to work for the reign of God on earth, to believe in a new creation here and now, to imagine and foster peace even now. Be proactive for peace rather than reactive in defending against violence. I am not suggesting that I do not have an equally dismal view of human nature, I am suggesting that “but what can you do?” shrug, pick up a bazooka is not a Christian response. I would equally suggest that neither “but what can you do?” shrug, pick up a vacuum extractor or “but what can you do?” shrug, force oppressive legislation on women without dealing with root and potentially ameliorable causes for women needing abortions (lack of physical or emotional resources to care for future child, lack of contraception advice and devices, a trade off between childrearing and education on the part of women, etc) are appropriate responses to abortion. Appropriate responses to war include – What can we do to be pre-emptive not in striking but in preventing warfare even with nations not adhering to our beliefs? Appropriate responses to abortion include – What can we do to prevent women needing abortions by empowering and respecting them in their reproductive lives? I agree, not all wars will be prevented, and likewise, not all abortions will be prevented (but I would suggest that the number of necessary wars is a infinitesimal fraction of the number of necessary abortions). The sovereignty and survival of war is dependent on militaristic nations, but wars always eventually destroy nations.
Finally, I might suggest that even with omnipotence, making me the happiest woman in the world would prove difficult. First, I don’t believe that one can “make” another person happy even with omnipotence; you know, happiness comes from within. Secondly, could you make me the happiest person in the world without fundamentally changing who I am? And if so, I doubt I would be happy with that. Catch twenty-two. I guess you could make me happy that you had turned me into someone who didn’t mind being someone else. Pretty sick form of happiness. I love having a range of emotions, that certainly include deep and abiding happiness and hope for the world and deep unhappiness with many forces in it. Fortunately, analytical thinking does make me happy.
Ok first I gotta go way up thread to this fealty to Nathan who is “protecting us”Nathan is not protecting anyone. He is here in Kansas spouting support for a war that he has no more stake in than his draft dodging president. Indeed, while his brothers die in that war, he appears to have a great deal of idle time in which to post here.
The thread of this blog was Kline and his dichotomy of treatment of young males and females. Of course the end of his purposes concerns an anti choice agenda. It is not surprising that this thread went to that point as well.
Now I’m about to ask a a very deep question. But before I do that I want the anti-choice crowd to know that I was part of the “Summer of Mercy” protests and I was on your side.
So here is my question. Say you get your wish. Abortion is banned TOMORROW. So………how do you do that? Do you strap a woman in a gurney and FORCE her to gestate? Is she self aborts do you convict her of murder and execute her? How can you tell if it was a miscarriage? Does it follow that if abortion is murder that birth control is pre-meditated murder?
Tough questions huh? That happens when you run onto somene who used to be on your side.
But you won’t answer and Kline wouldn’t either. Because even as anti choice is the destination, getting there is ALL the fun.
The REAL agenda IS to take America back to some 1950’s construct. So why don’t you folks and KLINE just say so? If your cause is oh so righteous why are you hiding your light under a bushel? Be honest in the path you pursue. Cause if you aren’t you are gonna have to provide answers for questions and demands that God aint gonna show up to address. It’s gonna be on you.
I know, I shouldn’t answer, but I think that since the drugs for RU-486 are actually used for other diseases there will be a big “increase” in their use. Call it the new ruptured appendix. Particularly convenient is endometriosis, but rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and others are possible. So, these medications must be outlawed, lest they be used inappropriately, too bad for the RA patients though.
JR, Allie,You can dispute semantics all you want, but in the end the only real term for your movement is “pro-death”. Because that is inevitably what abortions are. While hiding behind your “choice” agenda you side-step the fact that you are destroying human life. And don’t tell me that a fetus isn’t human, because the DNA would prove otherwise.
CruX,”Pro-death?” Hey man, you shed thousands of cells containing reputedly human DNA every day! When human cloning becomes possible, wouldn’t that then make you morally obligated to collect ALL those cells, clone them and support them through college?
Allie,You claim to champion women’s rights, but yet you fail to understand that 50% of the time abortions are destroying FEMALE fetuses. So you are denying the FEMALE fetuses the fundamental right to be alive, overriding it’s inalienable right to live with your “Choice” argument. If a woman was irresponsible to end up in a situation where pregnant, why should her unborn child pay the price for her irresponsibility. I do recognize that legitimate causes of abortion exist such as rape, incest, life-threatening birth complications, but abortion should be only an extreme alternative. Of course you are inevitably going to disagree with me because you buy into the idea that an individual’s choice overrides another individual’s right to be alive, and you sidestep the destruction of a human fetus citing that said fetus is less human than the rest of us. If you were a true philanthropist you would be overly concerned about the unborn’s right to be alive. You criticize Nathan for his being in the marines and being pro-life as being hypocritical, but what about your position of an ideal utopian society where no human lives are destroyed, EXCEPT in the case of the unborn child? Is that not a greater hypocrisy?
Jed,”Thou shalt not kill skin cells.”Hmmm, nope. not in my Bible. :)
Hey CruX,They’re all potential humans!
Jed,”When human cloning becomes possible” You’re making a hypothetical statement, so we can safely say that NO skin cells are potential humans. And I know you’re not going to compare a human fetus’s right to be alive, with the DEAD skin cells that fall off our bodies every milisecond. That would be silly, man.
At least some of them are potential humans. lol
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
I don’t come to a topic for a while and when I do, here is JR trying to insult me… LOL
JR,
Did you ever agree to meet for lunch or what?
You don’t just insult me JR, you are isulting all of the Reserves.
Do you think I am the only Marine who has “idle time?”
There are over a million men and women in our armed forces, many of whom have not played a part in this war and currently are not.
It has nothing to do with me, it is called deployment of forces. There are people in higher places who make the decisions on whom to send to war and who not to.
You sit here trying to insult me for having time to post while my fellow brothers and sisters are fighting when it has nothing to do with me at all.
At least I am serving in the armed forces and yet you have the nerve to attack me because I am in the Reserves?
CruX,A hypothetical statement? It’s getting closer every day, man! And alive or dead, those skin cells contain your all-sacred human DNA. It’s no sillier than worshipping an amorphous clump of undifferentiated cells that are only hypothetically human.
OMG!!! Jed you’re missing my point, man! Pro-Choice groups go to great lengths in their arguments to claim that fetuses are not human. I was just pointing out that the fetus can only be classified as human because it’s genetic DNA is identical to any and all human beings! What do I care about skin cells? The scope of the argument lies within the humanity of the fetus. The logic being that because a fetus is human, it deserves to be protected. As for human DNA, I don’t care about blood or mucus or even urine or excrement, those things contain our DNA too, but I don’t regard those things as being human therefore I would not be morally compelled to save them. :)
It doesn’t say “Thou shalt not abort” either. And the OT story on the worth of fetuses and even early infants isn’t stunning for your point. Though, creative eisogesis is used to talk away Exodus 21.22.A brief story of grammar and synatax. You use human (adj) and human (n) as synonmous. All human cells, including a vial of blood, shed skin cells, fetuses and immortalized cancer cells living for years in petri dishes are human (adj) because their dna is human (i.e. not dog). Does that make an cancer cell line a human (n)? Nope. What, then, is a human (n) if it is not anything that has human dna? CX would have to describe what makes independent persons, whom we all consider humans, and fetuses humans in such a way that the fetus (as fetus and not as future persons) and person are differentiated from the skin cells and cancer lines.
CruX,Yet they contain the same DNA as your precious zygote!
I see it is just because you, CX, get to regard some things with human dna as human beings and other things as not. I guess you weren’t kidding about that omnipotence thing. So, why am I not the happiest person in the world yet?
CX-Re: feminismOh, now you are going for the lamest argument by so-called “pro-life feminists”? Before 8 weeks, there is no physical gender differentiation (90% of abortions before 12 weeks). Gender karyotype is the only distinguishing test. How many women do you think are shelling out for that test before an abortion? In China, sure, gender abortions occur, what is wrong there is how they view living women. But, it has not been shown to occur here. Fetuses are not being aborted because they are female. A few may occur for “family balancing” reasons, but that is about it. I would guess, all things equal, single young women would abort boys more often than girls if they could. Finally, even if I bought your argument; I would have to say, since 100% of those seeking abortions are women, 50% of fetuses are female; but there are equal numbers of fetuses and women (multiples probably not sig number), I am supporting the rights of more women by supporting abortion. But, let’s remember, fetuses aren’t separate from the women gestating them, so I don’t buy your argument that we have to separate their rights from the rights of the woman while they are still absolutely cellularly dependent on her.
But, your new found feminism is short lived when you say -”woman was irresponsible to end up in a situation where pregnant.” So, all women getting pregnant are irresponsible? Condoms don’t break, pills don’t fail, schools don’t teach abstinence only, pharmacists don’t deny bc pills, and contraception is totally a woman’s responsibility anyway. I am not buying your deeply held feminist concerns above.
I don’t disagree with you because I believe “an individual’s choice overrides another individual’s right to be alive.” I don’t believe we can honestly talk about a fetus as an individual with rights separate from the woman’s rights. You act like it is comparing two separate apples, and I think it is apples and oranges (or saying the seeds inside the apple have rights against the apple itself). If I honestly believed your belief that fetuses are independent humans who therefore have full human rights separate from the woman’s, I could understand your charge of hypocrisy. However, the definition of hypocrisy is not holding beliefs that Crusader X disagrees with. It is not inconsistent for me, because I find no compelling argument that fetuses are equivalent to living, breathing persons. They are significantly different from the victims of war who have consciousnesses that fear dying, and experience death as a conscious process, which is unusually painful and grotesque in war. The unique harms of war that make death in war such an outrage are not there for fetuses. You have declined to show me that fetuses necessarily have souls that exist at conception. I think a theologically valid and reasonable argument can be made for the “breath of life” as the moment of ensoulment and of receiving basic human rights (so, spare me the infanticide arguments). Yeah, I know, one moment a fetus isn’t breathing, a minute later it is. That is why we make birth certificates and celebrate birthdays, ’cause it’s so special. If that isn’t true, Adam and Eve must not have souls since neither of them experienced conception according to the story. Jesus and Mary (for Catholics) fail the sperm enter egg conception criterion that we are talking about here. Fetuses are not equivalent to independent persons (you said so yourself above). You say give them special protections; I say it means the women have rights that supersede your supposed fetal rights. I think there is a big difference from a pre-conscious fetus being aborted, and a conscious, living, breathing, human being killed by war.
Allie,Hypocrisy is holding beliefs which I disagree with? Please Allie, if you want to call me a fascist, do so openly. However, your comedic definition of hypocrisy as you apply to me can also be applied to you. I guess you will not be satisfied until myself and nearly 50% of the American population which is pro-life agrees with your definition of a fetus as nothing but a symbiotic group of living cells, however, fascism leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. As for your war argument, I guess you think the partial-birth abortion method in which a doctor drives a pair of scissors into the back of a partially born baby’s skull is a less gruesome, more humane way at killing than the killing that goes on in war? But hey,I must be the bloodthirsty woman-hating fascist here right?
CX-What does this have to do with fascism? There are people on this blog I think are fascists; you are not one of them. So, now you have to accuse me of insults I never said or implied? I defined hypocrisy for you earlier, and have shown why I do not believe I have violated it.Re: partial birth – another clever ploy by pro-lifers. Your fascinating description of the procedure (parroting a description by former abortionist turn pro-lifer trying his best to make it sound more gruesome, e.g. jamming scissors in skull to make it sound less medical and more cold-blooded) aside, what we think they are talking about is called a dilation and extraction. So, as I said, 90% of abortions before 12 weeks, no d&x is used in this time. However, pro-lifers like to try to write bans that would get rid of vacuum extraction abortion (fetus so miniscule it may come out complete, and potentially briefly “alive”) on grounds of partial birth. Now, for late term abortions, where what you are trying ineptly to describe occurs (constituting >1% of abortions). Hydrocephalus occurs in about 6/10,000 pregnancies (there are 6 million US pregnancie/year)- where the brain doesn’t develop but a huge amount of cerebrospinal fluid fills the cranium. Are you suggesting that these women should undergo major abdominal c-sections to deliver the intact swollen head of a lifeless or soon to be lifeless fetus? You have already suggested that you support late term abortions for the life and health of mother, so I assume then if the best health issue of the mother (potentially requiring non-invasive d&x instead of c-section) requires d&x, it would be ok? Is it better for suicidally depressed women to stab themselves (perhaps actually with scissors) and kill themselves and the fetus? Should a 9 year old, raped and too scared to tell anyone, be forced to deliver (certainly by c-section) at grave risk to herself instead? Other uses include fetuses with malformations incompatible with life and delivery of late term still births. Should they let fetuses die inside them, risking greater complications to appease your conscience, before removal? Finally, since as I have said before, fetuses have no consciousness, cannot fear for their lives, cannot even feel pain before 20 weeks (and many of the malformations for late term abortions have no brains to register pain), I would suggest abortion as a far lesser evil that death in war. We have done PASS, supposed pro-life feminism, partial birth abortion, aren’t you about through the usual pro-life litany of lies?
No, because you still evade the destruction of a human life. I bet you get your statistics straight from NOW don’t you? Well I too could fabricate slanted statistics and offer them to try and prove my point, however I am above that. Also i’ve noticed that your argument would be valid if and only if the fetus wasn’t human.
Crusader-You’re not a fascist, but now you are being supercilious (you will stoop to using tired, lame easily refuted pro-life arguments, but not to using their biased statistics). None of those statistics come from NOW or planned parenthood. They are, in fact, generally accepted numbers for number of pregnancies per year, cases of hydrocephalus, percentage of abortions in first trimester, and percentage of d&x procedures. If you would like to contradict them with statistics (within variance) from an unbiased source, be my guest. There are certainly biased statistics around, but those cited above are not among them.Let’s see – You haven’t responded with a meaning of human (n) that differentiates fetus and person as individual humans (and not fetuses as “potential humans” – i.e. someday they are gonna breath if you let them) and excludes skin cells and cancer cell lines. We have already said that having human (adj.) DNA, even unique human DNA (cancer cells have unique human DNA) doesn’t seem to do it. So, until you do that, I think you are admitting the argument is valid.
So sad.
Allie,You are right. I have no more defensible arguments on the subject. I yield. (but I am still personally pro-life!) I must study more on the topic then I shall make much more defensible arguments. But don’t pat yourself on the back so soon! You may have won the battle with me, but not the war!
I am perfectly happy for you to be personally pro-life. Most people who are pro-choice choose to have children at some point and love the child deeply and are excited when they become pregnant. I am glad both that my mother was pro-choice and that she chose to have me when she was ready. We aren’t ever trying to force anyone to have an abortion, only to accept that some women thoughtfully choose it.
Ah, NOW you’re happy.
The personally makes all the difference. But, don’t start thinking that you’re omnipotent.
pfshaw! little old me?Of course I am. ;)
War and abortion are both wrong. And if you believe one might be justified and the other is not, then you’re a hypocrite.
Thanks, Damoon, for your insightful dictum, but you would have to prove it. A person would be a hypocrite if they believed fetuses were persons, killing persons is wrong, and then that war is wrong but not abortion. Nathan is a hypocrite because he believes killing fetuses is wrong because they are persons, but killing persons in war is not. Otherwise, it’s just someone with a different viewpoint from yours, which doesn’t define hypocrisy for Damoon any more than it did for Crusader. If I am a vegan and believe animals have souls and personhood, can I call you a hypocrite for eating meat and being against war?
Allie,A fetus defined as a person? Surely you’re not leaning to the pro-life side now are you? (pun-intended) Equating the killing in war to the killing of a fetus person is not hypocritical if once self-defense enters the picture. In war, people are shooting at you with intent to kill you, what are you gonna do, throw flowers and sunshine back at them? Or maybe that is what you expect of nathan? Self-Defense dictates that it is within one’s right to take life in order to prevent the loss of one’s own. Once again, you’re retreating to your ideal world where everyone puts the concerns of others before their own concerns. I too would like to live in a perfect world like that Allie, the only problem is I wake up in the morning.
CX-I didn’t get the pun. I think you do realize it was a hypothetical, as the IF that begins the statement suggests. I don’t personally believe it, but if one did, I could understand the hypocrisy charge against them. But, Damoon is trying to play your game of charging me with hypocrisy based on her and not my definitions.Ok, so we are going to go self-defense. I though we covered this one under the only two choices for turn the other cheek are not “roll over and die” or “pick up a bazooka and blow away your newfound enemy.” You willfully bifurcate to only see pacifism as roll over and die so that it becomes so idealistic as to be unattainable. That lets your conscience off supporting war, which you know to be against your faith traditions precepts. Last time I checked, Saddam Hussein was not marching into Kansas (or planning to, though Bush would be happy to hear if if you had knowledge of that), so Nathan willing got on a plane and went over to Iraq to go shoot people. The only people you are defending by your argument are the Iraqi women and children defending themselves against Nathan, not our people over there.Now, if some army comes marching at you in Kansas – Things happened before a soldier is marching into your house to shoot you and you have to shoot back. Saying all you can do is defend your right to shoot back is pretty lame appraisal of the whole situation. I am also not saying appeasement will always work. Iraqi women didn’t have much control over us going over there, and clearly it was a bad deal with Hitler. However, I just don’t want to rule out peaceful resolutions so early in the name of realism that we never give ourselves a chance to work for peace that comes not through bloodshed (which is how we usually try to do it, which unsurprisingly doesn’t work). That is, America shouldn’t fight wars “making the world safe for democracy” and should thinking beyond carrots (oil for food), sticks (sanctions), and big sticks (threats of war). Particularly, we should stop giving arms to the sides of political disputes and civil rebellions whom we think will be more favorable to us. We create situations that lead to our needing war to solve them.
Abortion, like war is wrong. Sometimes it’s necessary, but it’s still wrong. You can deny the humanity of a fetus all you want, it’s just your opinion and twisted philosophy and not based on medical fact. All the intellectualizaton and rationalization in the world won’t change that fact that abortion terminates the life of a human being. Open your eyes, Allie.
Et tu quoque, Damoon. Crusader is at least somewhat interesting. I have an opinion, you have an opinion. I just have problems when a bunch of pro-lifers want to make their opinion moral law for the rest of us. It is wishful thinking on your part to believe that medical fact supports pro-life. The only medical fact you can support pro-life with is human DNA, and I haven’t seen you jumping to define human beings by DNA in such a way as to exclude cancer cell lines or stem cell lines. Do they have human DNA yes? Are they themselves human beings any more than any other cells in a woman’s body? No. You then conveniently ignore all the other medical facts – fetuses can’t respire, defecate, digest nutrients, exist in their own unique place, or do many of the other things that even a newborn baby can. They can only exchange gasses and nutrients with the woman’s blood stream, just like her liver. Are those not medical facts? But, you conveniently ignore all those other medical facts that are easily apparent. Who exactly has their eyes closed here?
Lets break this down Allie.
At what point does the unborn become a human life?
At birth?
What is the difference between a just born baby and a baby still in the womb at 9 months?
Is it simply becuase the unborn baby is part of the mother, still inside her?
If that is your argument then even after birth, untill the cord is cut the just born baby is still not a human life because technically it is still a part of the mother. Is it not?
So, we can logically conclude that simply being attached to the mother and dependant upon the mother is not precluding the unborn baby from being a human being.
So how far back can we go?
Lets go to 6 months in the womb. I do believe that an unborn baby can be premature at around 6 months and still survive. Maybe I am off on the time, but lets just go with the number X. X will represent the months an unborn child can be and still be born premature and live.
So, now we ask ourselves what is the difference between X month old unborn baby and X month premature baby?
We are back to the it is part of the mother argument again… and technically that can be dragged out till the cord is cut.
So, there is no real difference between a premature born baby at x months and the unborn baby at x months other than location.
I would say they are both human beings worthy of protection.
So, lets say that at the very least in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters the unborn child is indeed a human being worthy of protection.
So what next?
What is it the seperates the 2nd trimester from the 1st in determining the unborn baby as a human being?
Are you seeing the pattern yet?
Most all of you pro-death of the unborn baby supporters (pro-choice) jump to sperm or DNA to be so silly to obscure the point.
Lets be serious. At the point of conception, where the sperm has fertalized the egg… human life begins.
It doesn’t take a medical doctor to tell me that.
So Allie, when exactly do you think human life begins and is worthy of protecting?
Allie,fetuses can’t respire, defecate, digest nutrients, exist in their own unique place, or do many of the other things that even a newborn baby can.So what? Comatose adults require machines to give them oxygen, water, and glucose, but DOES THAT MAKE THOSE ADULTS LESS HUMAN just because they depend on a machine to stay alive? No. So your position that something is not human if it depends on something else to sustain its existence has now become, invalid. :)Also, conerning the war argument. Do not confuse the “pre-emptive strike” nonsense that “legitimized” the Iraq war with my definition of self-defense. You say I have judged your previous posts by disregarding your definition of hypocrisy and self defense, very well.. Provide your own definition of hypocrisy and self-defense and we’ll base our arguments from them! I never said people shouldn’t strive for peace through diplomacy rather than resort to force, never have I said that in my previous posts. You say Iraqi women didn’t have control over us going there, of course they didn’t! Iraqi people did not and does not control the actions of the US government and military. Hell, Iraqi people didn’t even have control of their OWN COUNTRY while under Saddam and his Stalinist Baathist regime! I reiterate what I said before: I do not applaud the idea of using our military as the world’s police. The administration’s stupid diplomacy tactics that preceded the Iraq war was inexcusable. Neither was our Cowboy-in-Chief’s ultimatum for Saddam to just leave a viable diplomatic solution. He knew Saddam wouldn’t just step down, that was all a farce to make it seem that the Bushleaguer administration tried their damndest to make diplomacy work! My argument isn’t with being pro Iraq war specifically, the locus of my argument deals with self-defense as being morally justifiable in a combat situation (i.e. during a war)
And yes I did understand that you postulated a hypothetical fully.I was just being sarcastic in my opening statement of the previous thread.
Crusader-We all depend on machines to survive, we even depend on other humans in a general sense. Social dependency is not the issue, biological dependency on one and only one other person is. Do you not think there is a difference between needing mechanical assist for some activities and needing a woman’s body for everything? ARE women really just machines for gestating fetuses to you? That is the implication of your argument.
Comatose patients can, in fact, digest, deficate, and respire at levels more advanced than a fetus. For them, a peg tube delivers food to the gut, where digestion takes place just like for you and me. This is different from a fetus, where all nutrients are delivered directly from the woman blood to the fetus’s blood by placental exchange, no digestion. If a patient has a nonfunctinal gut, nutrients directed into their veins is a very short course solution. For my friend’s father, his non-functional gut while on a respirator was the ultimate reason the doctor’s had to take him off it (he was comatose by medication not pathology). Coma patients, like babies but not fetuses, are incontinent, so they may need diapers and catheters. Fetuses send their waste back into the mother’s blood. After 6 months, fetuses urinate, but it still must be returned through the amniotic fluid to the mother to be disposed of. Only right at birth might a fetus have a bowel movement, which doesn’t include digested materials like ours. Comatose patients are not necessarily on respirators, but even still, the respirator provides the muscle action of breathing in, but the lungs are still engaging in oxygen exchange, unlike a fetus. PArticularly, if the failure is associated with brain death (a legal definition of death), families are allowed to remove the respirator. Families are also allowed to withhold artificial nutrition from comatose patients. Coma is except in very, very rare cases a short term issue. The patient recovers, dies, or enters PVS in usually 2-4 weeks. I am not debating a care issue, many patients and babies require a great deal of outside care. However, the humans caring for patients are paid, choose to be there and take shifts. Only fetuses are fully dependent on one particular person for all basic life functions.
Crusader- You specifically mentioned Nathan when talking about self defense. Therefore, the argument was, in fact, can he shoot back. My point was he personally went to Iraq to shoot people. He chose to be in a situation where he would be required to shoot back. That is my point. Skipping too quickly to but can I shoot back in war bypasses everything that happens to get there. You can’t just wait by the door with your uzi and say, but I didn’t shoot him until he stepped on my lawn.
Nathan-Since you haven’t answered my comment on how you can be pro-life and pro-war, I don’t see why I need to respond. Nevertheless.Yes, I think birth matters. I think that is why we celebrate birth days and not conception days. So, the question is “is it until the cord is cut?” No, I prefer at first breath. The cord becomes useless at that point and a stillbirth has not occurred. Do some premies need help after birth breathing? Sure, but do I think parents are required to put them on vents? Not any more than they are required to put grandpa on one. And what is logically wrong with saying “not until the cord is cut?” If it could be true that a fetus could be outside the mother but still depend totally on the cord, I would say the mother can choose to cut the cord, even knowing the fetus will die.I don’t agree with your logical leap. I do not agree that “we can logically conclude that simply being attached to the mother and dependant upon the mother is not precluding the unborn baby from being a human being.” There is nothing SIMPLE about being “attached to the mother and dependent upon her.” You can’t just dismiss it!
The difference between a 22 week premie and a 22 week fetus? The premie is lying in a NICU bed. Machines are assisting the fetus, nurses are caring for it. The nurses chose that line of work. The mother may be there, but may have given the child up to the state. The fetus is inside the mother’s uterus, still dependent on her every breath for its survival. If she dies, it dies. If the mother in the case of the premie dies in a car accident on the way to visit it, the premie doesn’t die. YOU all want to act like the difference between being in a womb and in a NICU bed is just LOCATION. How is that not totally demeaning to women? My uterus is not just the best NICU bed going for a fetus. It is my organ, it exists inside me.Ok, then you continue this regressive gradualism argument to before viability. Well, take a good look at a embryo at 2 months and 1 month, and they will be different. But, being totally dependent on the woman will be the same, and to me that matters a lot. But, then, I am a woman so I guess it should matter more.I don’t need some self-righteous pro-lifer to pretend like conception doesn’t occur inside a woman’s body. It isn’t floating out there in a neutral space. You tell me that a one celled fertilized egg is just the same as a new born enfant. I say, nonsense. It doesn’t take a medical professional to say those are totally different things.
So, when do I think life is worth protecting? When it is breathing (even if aided by mechanical assist) and not exchanging oxygen with a woman’s circulatory system.So, how do you assure yourself that you aren’t killing any fetuses in “collateral damage” in Iraq?
I didn’t even see the comments about me untill I reread everyting.
Let me explain this to you so you understand.
This for Damoon too.
I believe in the sanctity of life.
Sometimes to protect the sanctitiy of life, life must be killed.
If there is a man with a gun killing people I believe that in order to protect the sanctity of life you must stop the man so he can’t kill any more people.
In war, I am not the one deciding to kill anyone or go kill anyone.
I follow orders. I am told to go to Iraq to fix weapons, I go fix weapons.
If I am there and they send me on patrol, I go on patrol.
If I am on that patrol and we are attacked by some insurgents, I fight back.
I fight back not just to save my life, but to save the life of my fellow Marines.
It sickens me watching people like you try to demean what our brave men and women in the armed forces do by saying they take a gun to iraq just so they can shoot someone…
It is absurd to follow the logic of never thinking it is ok to take another human life.
You end up killing more people if you are unwilling to stop the killer.
I am no hypocrite. I believe in the sanctity of life. It is a pretty easy concept. Try to wrap your head around it for a while.
Sometimes to protect the sanctitiy of life, life must be killed.
Nathan, sounds like you voted for it before you voted against it.
Is there ever a time when killing someone is ok ksfarmgrrl?
Nathan,If you are willing to kill people for some reasons, I don’t understand how you can make absolutes about abortion. Please tell me how war is protecting the sanctity of life? Iraq being an especially poor exampe of any noble reasons for war. Plus, you can’t just say well, we prevented more deaths by accidentally killing some people. We are still responsible for the people who died by our actions, you can’t just subtract off some other people you think might have died if you did nothing. And why can war protect the sanctity of life and abortion can’t? Abortion protects the sanctity of a woman’s life by protecting her right to self-determination and respect for her personhood and moral decision-making ability. That sounds a hell of a lot more justifiable than any reason given for Iraq. Your “just taking orders, sir” approach doesn’t work either. Tiller is just taking orders from the women needing abortions, just like you are. He doesn’t choose who has an abortion; he just does them. Moreover, you are not approaching the issue that we know innocent people will die in war, not just bad people with guns. Why do you take a gun to Iraq, and more importantly, why do you go to Iraq, if not to kill people? To show them how big your gun is? You are a hypocrite if you are willing to say that you will sacrifice some people for your greater good, but won’t let another person sacrifice something that you are trying to argue is a person for a different greater good.
“If you are willing to kill people for some reasons, I don’t understand how you can make absolutes about abortion.”
I am not making any absolutes about abortion other than the unborn child being a human life worthy of protection.
“Please tell me how war is protecting the sanctity of life?”
For instance, if we did not go to war with Hitler he would have taken over Europe and continued to kill people. We went to war to stop a dictator from continuing his path of destruction.
“And why can war protect the sanctity of life and abortion can’t? Abortion protects the sanctity of a woman’s life by protecting her right to self-determination and respect for her personhood and moral decision-making ability.”
The sanctity of life has nothing to do with the quality of life. Two different things. The sanctity of life has to do with your right to live not live comfortably. I believe the unborn child is a human life that deserves to be protected. If the life of the child and the life of the mother were both in conflict and only one could live then it is not my decision.
“That sounds a hell of a lot more justifiable than any reason given for Iraq.”
I am talking about war in general and abortion. If you want to debate Iraq then start a different subject or topic. Try to focus would you?
Your ignorance on how war is fought and the military system is disturbing if not tragically funny.
“Why do you take a gun to Iraq,”
People in the military take guns to any place because we are trained to kill people. You can’t kill people very good if you don’t have weapons…
“and more importantly, why do you go to Iraq, if not to kill people?”
Duh. The intention may not always be to just kill people, but to kill when attacked too.
“You are a hypocrite if you are willing to say that you will sacrifice some people for your greater good, but won’t let another person sacrifice something that you are trying to argue is a person for a different greater good.”
I am talking about the sanctity of life not the greater good. Do try to focus would you?
Nathan,Is there ever a time when abortion is ok?My guess is you might say “life of the mother.” So, I might say, ok, so killing in war is equally ok, if and only if, there is a direct and imminent threat to the survival of our nation on the order of the threat to a woman’s life for abortion. Is that ok? So, is there any war we have waged that fits that definition?
Allie,
The only time I can think of when abortion might be ok is when the life of the mother is at risk.
I don’t compare war to abortion, you do.
It is not about any particular comparison. It is about the sanctity of life.
Nathan,You don’t compare war to abortion because being pro-life and in the military requires extreme cognitive dissedence. How does sanctity of life not apply to war? Are those lives you are killing not sacred? I don’t understand how you say killing some lives preserves the sanctity of life, period. It is like fighting a war for peace. It makes absolutely no sense.
You say that there are times that lives are worth sacrificing. I agree; I simply believe that women requesting abortion are making far more compelling cases than almost any case for war that has ever been made. I am sure that a pregnant woman has died by American fire in Iraq. Isn’t that killing an innocent fetus? Military types like to go quickly to Hitler. However, that doesn’t justify the killings. We are still responsible for the civilian deaths that occured in WWII. We are responsible for deaths of innocents in WWII and any other war committed by our engagement in that war. Hitler was certainly responsible for a huge number of tragic deaths. That fact does not make us not also responsible for the deaths that we caused to stop him. We said- these peoples lives will be traded for some other peoples lives. You say, ok we can do that in war for some supposed and ill-defined “national intersts”. I say, women can do it for a fetus existing wholly inside their bodies and totally dependent on them.
Sanctity of life is respect for personhood. I think that inextricably tied to personhood is ability to have basic self-determination, to have a right to one’s own body. You cannot co-opt a true, independent person’s body for your supposed fetal rights. That violates the sanctity of her life. Does that not matter? Slavery is not just a quality of life issue; it is a sanctity of life issue.
It is stupid to say, but I only fire when I am attacked, when you have invaded a country. They are practicing self-defense; you are not. If you weren’t there, they wouldn’t shoot at you. And don’t give me some, they would come over here and shoot you argument. We are making new terrorists by invading their country.
“I am talking about the sanctity of life not the greater good. Do try to focus would you?”I am totally focused; I think you are just too dense to understand. You are making a “greater good” argument for war (we kill a few to stop Hitler) and a sanctity of life argument for abortion. You reject “greater good” arguments for abortion and reject “sanctity of life” issues for war. That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Pick one and apply it to all cases of persons, ok?
And, no I don’t think fetuses are persons, but since you do, you have to pick.
So we shouldn’t have killed a few to stop Hitler? I would like to know what you would have done had you been in FDR’s or Winston Churchill’s shoes?
I think I would have rather been in Diedrich Bonhoeffer’s shoes. I think he made the most compelling case for how Germans should have acted in WWII. Not a perfect case, but a more compelling case. And he finally and carefully decided to take part in a plot to kill Hitler, the one person responsible, to truly kill as few as possible. And he suffered the ultimate price for it. Why do we assume that the answer lies with Winston Churchill and FDR and the blame and therefore a real answer not with the complicity of German Christians? Why does the answer not lie with more people being Corrie ten Boom and the priest in the village that hid their jews saying “we have no jews here?” How did Christians become SS soldiers? Do you think the people around the camps could not smell the fumes? Since WWII, German Christians have had to contend with what happened during that time. Why do we not wonder at the poverty and inflation of 1930’s Germany that brought Hitler to power? Did unstustainable and foolish investment in the US not produce the great depression that produced WWII? Why do we not consider that the War to end all Wars ended with a peace that not only wasn’t lasting but seems to have a direct influence of Hitler’s rise? Why do you assume that the only solution is being FDR and WC and ordering attacks? What would I have done in their shoes? I would have lamented the failures of the previous 25 years that made WWII a reality.
Allie,If all you would have done is weep about the past, we would not be free. “Freedom comes at a price” but i’m sure you knew that already. You talk about Bonhoeffer’s assassination attempt on Hitler and you say you would rather be in his shoes?? Then you DO advocate killing Hitler!! You recognize that killing Hitler was necessary in preventing the deaths of tens of millions of American, German, Russian, Canadian, Polish, French, Spanish, Norwegian, Jewish, Catholic, Homosexual, Elderly, Undesirables lives!!! Congratulations Allie, you are now an advocate for self defense.
Allie, you take medical “facts” and interpet them to fit your own proabortion philosophy. A fetus urinates, breathes, sleeps, cries, moves, sucks her thumb, hears, swallows, and feels pain. The idea that a fetus can’t feel pain before 20 weeks is propaganda on the part of those who are proabortion, because the nervous system is responsive and the pathways are developed at 10 weeks gestation.There is nothing magical that happens at the moment of birth to make a fetus “human”, she’s just as human before she’s born as after. It’s only your opinion that a human being isn’t a person until she’s independent from her prenatal environment.A good friend of mine just had her first grandbaby who was born at 25 weeks gestation. He’s very much alive and human, but he doesn’t breathe on his own yet and it wasn’t until he was at 28 weeks before he could eat and poop. What about him is not human or alive?My son and his wife got to see their baby for the first time the other day at 20 weeks gestation. They got to see her face, her arms, her legs, and the rest of her little body, and they watched her move around. There is much more there besides her DNA that let’s us see she’s human.All you have is rethoric to support your beliefs. ANY doctor (with the exception of Tiller)would disagree with you about a fetus not being human and alive.I guess I could respect your opinion more if you didn’t try so hard to convince everyone that abortion is nothing more than evacuating a bunch of cells out of the uterus.Like I said many times before. Sometimes abortion may be necessary and I don’t think it should be illegal, but I’m not going to deny what it is. It’s the termination of a human life and nothing else. I DO have my eyes open, Allie, that’s why I see the truth when it comes to abortion.
Allie,Im afraid Damoon is correct. You have been making your own opinion and stating it as fact. Kudos to the Damoon. What the hell’s a Damoon anyway?? Care to explain your moniker?
X, it’s a shortened version of a liitle boy’s name that I loved. My real name is Mary.
Damoon-You accuse me of justifying and twisting words, and then you use the euphemism “prenatal environment” to talk about a woman’s uterus. I don’t think MY uterus is just some potential “prenatal environment.”
I think you are doing the same thing, twisting medicine to fit your agenda. A fetus moves, but it moves sorely limited by the fact that it IS INSIDE A WOMAN’S BODY. It hears, murmured voices coming to it THROUGH A WOMAN’S BODY. Do tell me how a fetus cries. I am fascinated by that one. Can you hear it? How would you cry, if you don’t have air to come out of your lungs and through your vibrating vocal cords?
A fetus does produce urine into the amniotic fluid, but can we really consider it the same thing, since the waste will have to be absorbed into the blood, and remicturated by the woman? Not, as I said, “defecation.” And to suggest that they can dispose of their waste without going through the circulatory system and defecation pathways of another person, like a baby, is simply not true.A fetus breathes? I must have totally missed that one in Embryology. A reading from Moore and Persaud regarding breathing – “the lungs do not begin this vital function until birth.”You are twisting medical facts on your “the nervous system is responsive and the pathways are developed at 10 weeks gestation.” You wanna tell me where you got that one? Even if we grant that nervous development is a continuous process that does begin early, the nervous system being “responsive” (whatever that is supposed to mean) does not indicate an awareness of pain. Awareness of pain requires higher brain function, the kind that develops later than 10 weeks. Unfortunately, Moore and Persaud don’t go into enough detail on this one. They do have a diagram of a 10 week fetal brain. Most of the brain space is Lateral Foramen (fluid space), the cerebrum is smooth, which indicates not a whole lot of awareness going on up there. So, anyway, what do experts believe, and you are right it isn’t 100% determined (though I don’t know of anyone beside total pro-life shills going as early as you want to). A meta-study published in JAMA 2005, “Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing.” So, your just “responsiveness” doesn’t seem to do it. They see fetal pain as unlikely before 3rd trimester. Of course, anti-abortionists did object to the study, but 1) JAMA is well respected, 2) and objecting on political grounds is not the same as actually methodologically objecting (and JAMA does screen for methodological errors). If they tried to object by saying, then we should take the lowest number possibly found, you are still stuck at pain awareness at 21 weeks. Finding studies on fetal pain below 20 weeks is difficult, and well, for most anyone nonsensical at 10 weeks. A British study in 1995 by Fitzgerald suggested that responses below 26 weeks is unconscious reflex, not pain. Do you experience pain when you are unconscious? No, but your reflexes should still be working. Reflexes are just that – unconscious responses that you have no control over and do not necessarily feel.
If nothing special happens at birth, we have got to call Hallmark and get them to lay off the birthday cards.
You are doing pretty well in the lame rhetoric department yourself. Though your heartfelt maudlin stories add that extra touch. Let’s see, only Tiller would disagree with me? Hardly. Besides, I am not trying to say that a fetus is does not have 1) human dna making it human (adj) and 2) alive, as in undergoing cellular processes. I have already asked you to show me that a cancer cell line is not also human and alive. I don’t consider fetuses persons or independent human beings, or capable of biologically independent life before 22 weeks (and I still think since they are inside a woman’s uterus and attached, there is a big difference between that and a baby). I think a lot of doctors would agree with me. I know a number of them, including both of my parents who have been doctors for 30 years.
What about the cute little grandbaby that is different? Well, there he is outside the woman’s uterus. Machines and paid nursed get to take care of the little tyke, whom we could all see and touch.
You may have gotten to look at your grandchild’s IMAGE, taken through your daughter-in-law’s uterus, but if they got to actually see her, I don’t think she would have survived for long. So, I don’t think you actually saw her, right?
Crusader – Don’t agree like you are in a position to determine medical veracity, if the only reason you’re agreeing is because you like what she says. I suggest that I would prefer to be him to FDR, etc. I would also prefer to be Corrie ten Boom. DB looked beyond just seeing collateral damage, and he did it reflectively and self-sacrificingly.
Oh, and I would love to see a study from JAMA or better suggesting fetal pain at 10 weeks. Call it a birthday present, if you like.
Anyway, Crusader, was Diedrich really doing self-defense? I think, as he says in his writings, he is willingly taking on the sin of homocide for other people. He doesn’t say it isn’t a sin, or pretend that it is good. That isn’t really self-defense. He had many oportunities to stay in the US, escape, save himself. He didn’t really do self-defense at all. He did self-sacrifice, even inspite of his moral determination that Christians should not murder.
Damoon consorts with hanknathan and as such her posts are just as suspect as theirs.
I state again my puzzlement over the concern of the right with “life”. They are preoccupied with life IN the womb. Funny thing. That “life” is none of their busisness, and they have no investment or responsibility for it other than steadfastly “defending” it.
But once that “life” gets outside the womb….well hey their job is done! Welfare for the mother and child? Hell no! Not their problem! Personal responsibility is the mantra!
A less hypocritical and more honest way to say this is: I got your baby born. Now it is YOUR responsibility.
The real root of this is babies as punishment. Sex is BAD! Your sentence is 18 years!
JR,”The real root of this is babies as punishment. Sex is BAD! Your sentence is 18 years!”
That may be your take on it, but I would seriously doubt that a majority of Americans would agree with your conclusion.
Most people care about the child before and after birth. There are is a portion of the left side that thinks abortion on demand for any reason should be the rule of law.There is a portion of the right that thinks that there should be no abortions, period.
I doubt that most Americans agree with either of those groups of people.
When arguing abortion, it comes down to personal beliefs. I have my own, you have yours. I have no intention of slamming you for your beliefs. I expect you to respect mine.
To call people “hypocritical” for their beliefs is doing a diservice to both them and yourself. You give the impression that because they don’t agree with you, they are wrong. Isn’t that a little “hypocritical” in itself?
I think the hypocrisy charge is that some pro-lifers (certainly, not all) care so much about a fetus but then think that living children need no support and it’s all up to the women to care for them then. It is not simply that they don’t agree but that they are holding one view for fetuses (you must deliver it because we care) and then another view for children (it’s all your responsibiity, we don’t need to help support you).
Phill Kline will keep getting into teenagers and NO LAW can’t stop him from this :S