The religious right won't ever leave it alone.

JStanley: I think that's the best response I've seen, one that I can agree with 100% even being a recovering Catholic :)

Abortion is like a lot of other things that a person finds morally repugnant: Most of us would prefer not to lie, kill, or go to work for Monsanto.

Personally, I think it's generally a bad idea to have an abortion, and it seems to me like it should be avoided, if at all possible. A teen mother could give the child up for adoption and get on with her life after a nine-month inconvenience. This is no doubt psychologically devastating, but I'm not sure abortion is any less so. For an adult woman facing an unwanted pregnancy, there may be no really good options other than abortion. For many, it could mean job loss or the inability to get a job, and severe hardship for herself and any other children she is supporting. I knew a woman who lost her job during an unplanned pregnancy. She lived in my apartment building and had another child to support. Me and another neighbor drove her to the hospital when she went into labor.

I don't "believe in" abortion, but I could turn pragmatist on a dime, depending on the circumstances.

Women have been making decisions about ending a pregnancy, pretty much down through the ages, and bearing the burden of regret or remorse. It seems to me like they are the ones who should be making this decision, and not the State. Life can be pretty tough and require painful choices.

No one knows when life begins. No one knows when or whether a fetus is a living soul. Hence, no ones opinion on this subject means ****, neither the founding fathers' or the rabbis of the Old Testament, or your local minister or any other authority. Any laws about this matter would have to be based on something no one can possibly know anything about.

What I can't understand is medical abortions, when it's pretty darned easy to cause an early miscarriage simply by running up and down stairs a lot.

If I shoot a pregnant woman I can be charged with 2 murders. I'd agree with that charge. The most obvious answer, regardless of the legal or religious ramifications is that a human life is ended. Can anyone dispute that?

Sharon wrote..

when it's pretty darned easy to cause an early miscarriage simply by running up and down stairs a lot.

Contrary to logic, this is not at all true. I remeber being pregnant with my second child. My first missed period was after a fairly long trip to the Florida tourist traps (Disney, Universal, etc.) and hubby was not on the trip. SO, I had to have gotten pregnant shortly before the trip.

I was very concerned because I am a coaster and any sort of throw you around type ride addict. I was concerned that the cells could have become jumbled, etc. and voiced my concern to my obstetrician. He chuckled and told me that if that sort of thing were the case, there'd be no such thing as abortion.

Binney, I am not qualified to argue, either with your or your doctor. (My sample is small.)

You have to realize, though, that abortion has been legal for a relatively short time. (Early 1970s, if I remember right.) The self-induced, non-medical abortion has been around ever since women have been getting knocked up. Knowledge on this subject was doubtless shared very judiciously--not to mention reluctantly and guiltily. I don't know if you could land in jail for sharing an old-wives' tale with a desperate young woman, but people probably thought you could. Plus granny might be reluctant to share such information for many other reasons. People might want to know how the hell she knew this.

I have an old book around here somewhere, called Life in a Serbian Village, where various methods of self-induced abortion are detailed. I once worked with a woman who told me that the reason her family immigrated from Sweden was because great-granny was an abortionist on the lam.

There are a lot of "ways," but they have probably always been carefully guarded secrets.

Here's an interesting story: I once knew a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy, who tried Bibliomancy to find out how to terminate it. She interpreted the Bible verse she landed on, in answer to her question, to mean that she should eat pistachio nuts. She said it worked.

Go figure.

boughtthefarm,

actually it depends on how far along the woman is in her pregnancy, if she is in her first trimester, it is really not a murder because depending on age, if you hit a woman in the late 30s to 40s, her first trimester loss could be as high as 40%, so even if you don't shoot her, the chance of miscarriage is very high anyway.

Now if you shoot a woman in her third trimester and the baby has gone through prenatal diagnosis to be chromosomally normal, then you have likely murdered two. However, if you shoot a woman in her third trimester with a T18, T21 fetus that is expressing major heart and organ defects, very likely the fetus won't survive long after birth, so it is hard to charge you with double murder.

Now, if you shoot a woman who just got to know from her amniocentesis results that she is carrying an abnormal fetus, likely you are not murdering two, because over 90% of would-be mothers terminate the pregnancy when they find out the fetus is chromosomally defective. So she is extremely like to have decided to terminate the fetus anyway.

Typically an infant's lungs have matured enough to produce their own dipalmitoylphoshpatidylcholine at around 30 weeks. After that, they are basically a full person if you're basing it on survivability. Prior to 28 weeks it is a certainty the baby won't make it because their lungs aren't ready.

The Siamese Twin analogy certainly applies at 30 weeks.

Quote:

If I shoot a pregnant woman I can be charged with 2 murders. I'd agree with that charge. The most obvious answer, regardless of the legal or religious ramifications is that a human life is ended. Can anyone dispute that?

Whether it's one charge or two depends on the state and circumstances, just like Roe v. Wade intended. It is not automatically set in law. Furthermore, that's state law, not federal law unless the act involves a federal statute and I'm not sure any federal statute says anything about the the status of the fetus for purposes of foundation of charges for punishment for murder.

In some states, if I recall correctly, the fetus is not considered an individual, but the statue is stretched in so that the killing is considered the extinguishing of a potential future life which the state has decided as equivalent as an actual life for just the purposes of punishment for the legal act of murder. Very much like special provisions for the killing of a law officer, etc.

Science will continue to fray the edges of this area of law. For example, if when the unborn murdered fetus' DNA is recovered and it is ascertained that it had a terminal condition which would not have allowed it to ever live, is it then a murder? It could be argued that probably not. Then using your logic any fetus with a terminal or potentially fatal condition could be terminated without consideration of punishment, Roe v. Wade aside.

In today's level of medical technology, we now have many cases where the fetus will live to term, but is for now doomed to a gruesome death at or near birth, with genetic diseases like Trisomy-13, Trisomy-1, etc. and even viral diseases like HIV.

IMHO, we are at a stage in human history where either religious faith must now evolve to keep up with science or it must return back to its original bible words, in which case JSTANLEY01's words are most appropriate and liturgically accurate.

Yes its a state issue. In Ohio you can be charged, I recall not long ago someone got charged with 2 deaths in a car crash. I'm not sure that the independently viable or terminally ill arguments hold water, I can certainly think of cases where people long post birth fit those categories. Although in some cases family can decide to pull the plug on them. Statistically speaking I'd venture that viability issues involve a small parentage of abortions. In my view all humans have inalienable rights, that is the agreement we live by. A fetus is a human, it is alive.

I'd give this example. I think a person should be allowed to abuse any drug they are dumb enough to try. It's their business and their body. Introduce a pregnancy and imo it gets allot more complicated. Do you have a right to destroy another persons life with your bad choices?

I'd like to keep religion out of this, on both sides, but I have a simple question nobody has been able to answer yet.

If it can not live outside the womb of the mother, how can it be considered a separate life?

Very simple answer Asimov, to which I agree with you. It cannot be considered alive by both scientific and biblical standards if it cannot live independently outside of the womb. That where the "A fetus is human, it is alive" idea falls apart.

Quote:

Although in some cases family can decide to pull the plug on them.

Glad to know you see the wisdom where family (however defined) can legally and morally pull the plug. The expectant mother is family, so I'm glad you agree that the mother can pull the plug.

Quote:

I can certainly think of cases where people long post birth fit those categories.

The longest living trisomy 13 individual lived for 13 years, with no brain. The longest Trisomy 1 survivor has been less than 72 hours. 60% of miscarriages are due to genetics, 1.1% of births have some sort of genetic abnormality. Trisome 13 occurs in one in 15,000 births in the United States.

Quote:

I'd give this example. I think a person should be allowed to abuse any drug they are dumb enough to try. It's their business and their body. Introduce a pregnancy and imo it gets allot more complicated. Do you have a right to destroy another persons life with your bad choices?

Until it is defined by law (state or otherwise) that there are two lives then you have the right to do anything you want with your body as long as it doesn't hurt others (DUI, DWI).

By that definition described above, having one alcoholic drink, taking one dental X-Ray, taking a flight were you would exposed to more radiation, smoking a single cigarette, taking a medication prescribed by a physician, drinking a soft drink with certain chemicals in it, would all be bad and illegal choices, regardless of whether you knew or not you were pregnant because there is a period of time where you have conceived yet you won't know it.

As aptly stated before by Gen, that's what wisely sets Roe v. Wade apart from other law in that it defines the legal implications at each trimester.

Many with various afflictions and most premmies fit that category.

Yes but does with afflictions have already been born and lived for a while and the premmies all breath on their own for at least a few minutes until given additional support.

Your argument clearly supports Roe v. Wade, since it gives last trimester fetuses priority. Just like the Bible, Roe v. Wade wisely steps aside and does not rule on early or second trimester fetuses.

So in a nutshell the Federationists position supports Roe v. Wade.

What happens at the exact moment the third trimester begins that conveys the rights of a living human? The second trimester that conveys some partial rights? Given that gestation length varies how can that exact moment even be identified?

There is no bright line per-se before birth. The Constitution specifies the bright line at "born."

What the Supremes decided in Roe is that there is a Constitutional argument for compelling state interest (STATE, not federal) in the third trimester. It remained silent on the second. And on the first, the ruling was that there was no possibility of independent life, and therefore the general principle of ownership of one's person won over the other arguments. They made an exhaustive examination of the history on this issue as well, and found (which incidentally is accurate) that while there was a plurality of argument against abortion after quickening, there was certainly no clear argument for such a ban before that time, nor could one be realistically enforced without unlawful intrusion into one's personal affairs.

Again, the problem with moving the line where some people want it is that essentially everyone who wants to do so is a damned hypocrite.

If you move the statutory line on "personhood" to "conception" then:

1. Any act a mother takes that materially increases the risk of miscarriage is attempted murder and must be prosecuted as same. This means that upon miscarriage (e.g. if you wind up in a hospital) every such event must be criminally investigated since a "death" occurred to see if homicide charges are necessary (not "possible", necessary.)

2. Citizenship vests at conception. This has some ugly consequences on both sides of the argument. Female US citizen that ****s a foreigner in Spain? Sorry, the kid is not a citizen as only one parent is a citizen AND he was not conceived in the United States. On the other hand, two illegals **** in America? Kid's a citizen - even if the birth takes place somewhere else! That gets ugly, and fast.

3.******or incest? Tough crap. The embryo is a human being. You can't kill it, even in the case of******or incest, as it's a person and a citizen. In short there is only one exception - justifiable homicide (e.g. the mother is going to die if she does not abort), and all such decisions are grand-jury referable in every case to determine if the medical evidence was sufficient.

There's much more, but that ought to get you thinking. And if you're in the "life at conception" camp, you either support at minimum all of the above with the same vociferous support as you take for "no abortions" or you have no right to the position you espouse.

Good write-up Gen.

"Life at conception" people really need to go back to have some more human biology class. Then they will understand conception does not equal implantation does not equal viable pregnancy. In this day and age, lots of conception happens in-vitro.

There is absolutely no way that you can protect a nonviable embryo against the will of God/mother nature. So life at conception is just non-defensible from a practical point of view.

There is allot of hypocritical thinking around the subject. Many states have considerations of drug use by a pregnant woman different from that as a nonpregnant one. And I can give you examples of people being charged with murder of a fetus. How can you be charged with murder of something that is not a living human?

I have worked in pediatrics and some neonatology for a while. I have seen babies that lived from about 24-25 weeks gestation, albeit with abnormalities. There are some 27 weeks that I have seen that turned out as normal healthy children.

I used to be indifferent about abortion, until I started spending time around women who have had alot of abortions, there's a certain darkness that surrounds the whole practice. Worst thing I ever saw...a woman in her 20s had 3 abortions. In her 30s she finally found the man of her dreams she wanted to have children with. The baby had to be delivered about about 7 months gestation, the baby came out, the mother said it was ugly and she didn't want it and to kill it.

My youngest sister in law is an ardent abortion supporter, goes to rallies and the whole bit. They say things like fetuses are parasites, and babies should be aborted instead of put up for guardianship. These women are dark creatures, and they have an 'off to the gas chamber' mentality with regards to almost any fetus. I shudder to think what's going to come in the next 20-25 years.

There's crazy everywhere. Laws don't fix that. Someone who actually thinks fetuses are parasites are not going to be affected by laws preventing abortion. Luckily they should (not) breed themselves out of existence.

There is something dark surrounding it because those who don't like it, vilify those who support choice.

It wasn't long ago that bastards were considered dirty and not allowed to mix with "clean" children.

That's pretty dark too.

There is no point at which life begins; it merely changes form. Life exists as sperm and egg--and most of these die. Then, life exists as a fusion of sperm and egg, in a single-cell, and most of these die through failure to implant or miscarriage. Then, life exists as a ball of cells, most of these survive, and it eventually differentiates and develops specific organs, limbs, etc., and so on and so on.

I realize the question is one of "when" do you ask the law to protect this life as an independent human. For me, the answer to "when" is "when it can survive outside womb". Until then, it's just another form at life who exists at the pleasure, or mercy, of mother nature. Is it cruel? That depends on your perception of mother nature...is she cruel? Imo, no, that's just the way it is, neither cruel nor charitable. In fact, it works well to prevent the birth of most imperfect fusions via miscarriage. Life isn't perfect, nor is the system of procreation perfect but, in the end, it works well enough.

TL;DR If wt momma wants to prevent the propagation of her specific lineage, let her.

Quote:

Until then, it's just another form at life who exists at the pleasure, or mercy, of mother nature.

The difference is the intervention in the natural process. If you didn't do anything, would life continue in a natural way? Science can meddle a lot with the process, so everyone is looking to the law to define the line.

Genesis has it down for the law. Those that personally want to implement stricter standards in their life (imo) should be encouraged to do so. Want to convince others of your views, great! The law can only go so far on this one, and the Federal government should simply set the framework for discussion and leave the particulars to the states.

Abortion is one of the "polarize to overcome" issues used to distract discussion. If you try to change current precedent on it, it'll supplant the other issues on the platform. 'This is the Constitution's stance, this is the judiciary - this is where we stand' is the way to go.