A new push to define 'person,' and to outlaw abortion in the process

[RamboLiberal]

Source: LA Times

It is one of the enduring questions of religion and science, and lately of American politics: When does a fertilized egg become a person?

Abortion foes, tired of a profusion of laws that limit but do not abolish abortion, are trying to answer the question in a way that they hope could put an end to legalized abortion.

Across the country, they have revived efforts to amend state constitutions to declare that personhood -- and all rights accorded human beings -- begins at conception.

From Florida to California, abortion foes are gathering signatures, pressing state legislators, and raising money to put personhood measures on ballots next year. In Louisiana, a class at a Catholic high school is lobbying state legislators as part of a civics exercise.

"We have big and small efforts going on in 30 states right now," said Keith Mason, co-founder of Colorado-based Personhood USA. "Our goal is to activate the population."


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-embryos-personhood28-2009sep28,0,7467778.story

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. What will shut these idiots up?

My God. A fertilized egg is NOT a person.

These people make me sick.

Of course, people like me make them sick, too...

:mad:

[EFerrari]

3. If life begins at conception, then corporations can't be people!

LOL!

:hi:

[Stumbler]

37. Exactly, I like your thinking!

Let's tie this abortion-distraction to a serious issue, like Corporate-personhood. But if I'm not mistaken, the Bible states that life begins at birth; as in the fetus exiting the womb. Since most of these people looking to change the law are Christian, they should abide by their holy texts, not science.

[fasttense]

46. There is a passage in Genesis about God and breathing in life.

And many Christian take that to mean life begins with the first breath.

[KansDem]

73. Well, wouldn't that be after birth?

It sounds like "many Christians" want it both ways...

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

79. Maby Christians can breath inside the womb.

:shrug:

[KansDem]

183. Naaah, if that were true, there'd be a whole new industry, or industries...

Tiny air conditioners and room fresheners for "the baby." Maybe a little window to be inserted in mommie's abdomen so "baby" could have some fresh air from time to time. Then they'd be an industry for tiny blinds, curtains, and shades for the tiny window so "baby" could have some privacy. Then some tiny potted plants to go on the sills of the tiny windows, and so on.

I think that all would be happening now if "Christians" could breath inside the womb...

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

195. Don't forget about jesus hanging on the wall too.

[ensho]

88. yes life begins with first breath and breaths thereafter and the baby

continues. death occurs when breathing stops.

so, if death occurs when breathing stops, then life begins when breathing starts.

[No Elephants]

99. The Bible also

speaks of God having numbered the hairs on our heads before we were born; and many Christians take that to mean that we are people in God's eyes before we are born.

In general, it sometimes seems that you can find something in the Bibe for almost any proposition, especially if you interpret it a certain way.

The real issues, IMO, are (a) whether one interpretation or another of the Bible ought decide what are secular laws should be; and (b) whether your interpretation of the Bible gives you the right to control my body; and (c) whether we are going to be selective about which Biblical principles we enact into law.

For example, shall we arrest all those who have sex outside marriage, including those who masturbate ("onanism")? How about all those who bear false witness against their neighbor? Or all those who covet their neighor's wife?

On edit: A post down thread indicates that the verse to which you may be referring is about God breathing life into Adam. Adam was not the product of a pregnancy. I don't think you can generalize from Adam's receiving life to when life begins vis a vis a pregnancy.

Also, it depends on the definition of breathing, doesn't it?

[Qutzupalotl]

105. Genesis 2:7

"God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

Also, one of the prophets says (speaking for God): "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you." Some take that to mean God recognized the person while it was a fetus. But it's important to note that it doesn't say "before you were *fully* formed", or "while you were forming"; it says "before you were formed", which could mean before you had any physical form at all... which would then mean God recognized the individual soul without respect to its incarnate form.

[No Elephants]

108. Sorry. As I read further down the thread, I saw Genesis 2:7 and edited my post. Please

see it again for my response.

BTW

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[Qutzupalotl]

120. My thoughts on your edit

I don't think any one religion's laws should be the basis for our secular laws.

Adam is considered the archetypal man. I think it's legitimate to draw parallels between formation out of earthy elements and formation in the womb, and especially the start of life as commencing with the first breath. Many sects say we share in his sin, so it seems inconsistent to say he is a fallible man just like us on the one hand, and an entirely different order of being on the other. I acknowledge that this is an open question.

The difference between a fetus receiving oxygen through a mother's breathing and a baby breathing on its own is the difference between independence and dependence. That's the distinction: the start of independent life.

[No Elephants]

165. Adam may or may not be considered the archetypal man, but he is not

considered the archetypal fetus. Abortion deals with the inside of a pregnant woman's womb, a place where Adam never was. So, whatever it was that began Adam's life does not necessarily apply to when the life of an embryo begins.

"Many sects say we share in his sin, so it seems inconsistent to say he is a fallible man just like us on the one hand, and an entirely different order of being on the other."

I never said that, though. I just said his origin was not like anyone else's (not even Eve's, for that matter). As far as what "some sects" believe, tha is up to those sects and their followers. It does not govern even what other sects believe, let alone what I must believe.

"The difference between a fetus receiving oxygen through a mother's breathing and a baby breathing on its own is the difference between independence and dependence. That's the distinction: the start of independent life."

And that is your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled. Your having an opinion, however, does not make your opinion a truth, either scientifically or theologically.

[Qutzupalotl]

173. Both cells that create the embryo were alive before conception.

This type of cellular life cannot be considered a person, so debating about when the life of an embryo begins is meaningless. Embryos and fetuses are dependent forms of life, not independent. That is a scientific truth, not an opinion. I maintain that is where the distinction must lie in regards to this question.

[Dangerously Amused]

146. And the bigger question, why should the Bible control anything at all outside of church?

Why not the Qur'an? Or the Vedas and the Sutras? How about the book of Mormon? Or the Satanic Bible, for that matter? Maybe, to be fair, we could just rotate these religious doctrines and have them determine and control the law for everybody for specified periods. I don't see why the Christofascists should have any problem with this, since it is what they requesting on their own behalf.

[Thickasabrick]

186. What place does the Bible have in any of this....really. nt

[No Elephants]

96. I don't think the Bible says when life begins.

[tblue37]

161. Until relatively recently, the Christian notion was that the soul

entered the body at "quickening," which is when the mother first feels the fetus move inside her womb. In fact, that's why it is called "quickening."

[shadowknows69]

43. +1

[newtothegame]

75. True, but we kind of have to take some responsibility for that ideology in the first place...

Wasn't it a push to be able to sue corporations that resulted in corporate personhood?

[No Elephants]

100. Who's "we?" And what responsiblity? A corporation is purely a creation of law.

Therefore, a corporation has whatever rights, liabilities and obligations the law decides it has; and no others. The law can decide that a corporation can sue and be sued without also deciding that a corporation is a "person" for all purposes under the law.

[damntexdem]

107. It's clearly inconceivable.

And it's a fertile subject of conversation.

[populistdriven]

149. BINGO!

[intheflow]

190. I actually read the article at first as saying "life begins at corporation."

If that cognitive spoonerism isn't a sign of the times, I don't know what is! lol

[robinlynne]

194. That's what I thought this OP would be about...

[rhett o rick]

198. I think when the Roberts court is done, corps will not be people, they will be better than mere

people.

[slay]

66. Seriously, WTF is wrong with these people? They want to go back to coathangers and girls dying in

the streets? Just cause you make something illegal doesn't make it impossible duh! Just look at how making various drugs illegal has totally gotten rid of them! :sarcasm: What gets me is these idiots are constantly bitching about how they want the government to stay out of people's lives UNLESS they, in their infinite wisdom, decide otherwise. These asshole conservative anti-abortion wackos make me sick. :puke:

[paulthomson]

74. Let's face the legal reality of this

without a thousand loopholes and exceptions, a law making a fetus a person, means that every miscarriage is a potential homicide that will necessitate a coroner's ruling. Period. If your child dies, there is always a cause of death, and if there is any sign that you may have caused or contributed to the death, there is an investigation. So in addition to being forced to carry a child, women will also be LEGALLY responsible for what they eat and drink, and any activities that might potentially harm the "person" inside them. Think of all the ways they can extend child abuse statutes once they include fetuses. And if you think they will let family doctors or OB-GYN's make determinations, think again--they don't even want them to be able to decide when a woman's life is in danger now.

This is crazy.

[mac56]

89. Good analysis.

And welcome.

[Bettie]

94. And if a fertilized egg is a person

Then the carrier (mom) should be able to write that "person" off as a deduction on taxes, even if the pregnancy results in a miscarriage.

This is so stupid.

[rucky]

122. And drive in the carpool lane. n/t

[BattyDem]

138. Exactly! A woman would have to live in fear for nine months.

How could she live a normal life knowing that if something - anything - happens to that zygote/embryo/fetus, she will face a criminal investigation and possibly be charged with a crime?

It's not just eating and drinking, it's driving, working, walking on a wet (and potentially slippery) sidewalk, tripping over the dog, etc. EVERYTHING in her life would be scrutinized! If she had a miscarriage, there would be endless questions. Did she do something to cause it? Was she negligent? She'll have to defend every decision. "Why didn't you get rid of the dog after you became pregnant when there was the possibility you could trip over him? Why continue driving when you knew you'd have to wear a seatbelt that could hurt the fetus? What were you thinking when you walked across the slippery parking lot in the rain?!"

What if the child was born with a disability? Would there be an investigation to determine if she somehow caused it? Would there have to be monthly tests done on the fetus to make sure her "lifestyle" wasn't causing harm to it? Who would pay for that?

Also, what would be the legal responsibility of third parties? Would friends or family be held accountable if they didn't report "dangerous" behavior? Could an employer be charged with a crime if a woman trips over her office chair and miscarries? If she a miscarriage occurs after a fender-bender, could the other driver go to jail for manslaughter? If an obviously pregnant woman is served "fast food" in a restaurant, could the owner get in trouble for endangering the life of a child?

Yes, it sounds silly and exaggerated, but where would it end? Where would the line be drawn? At what point do the rights of the "person" inside of a woman become more important than the rights of the woman herself? :shrug:


By the way ... welcome to DU! :hi:

[Alameda]

144. Good points....it is a way to totally enslave fertile human females

......check points to check if you are carrying?

In the "old days" when abortion was not legal, if a woman went to a Dr and was pregnant, and then turned up not pregnant...there were questions. That was then, can you imagine what it would be like now.

I know about this because I was there then.....

[Mark D.]

162. Oh, It Goes Deep!

Given how many far right anti-choice folks are often themselves, or good friends with, racists, just do the math. Picture some fundie trying to 'press charges' against a minority they found out miscarried, and also was a smoker during the pregnancy. We might scoff at 'they aren't that crazy'. Oh yes they are. Remember Bush and the 'snowflake babies'? There is a huge group of radical righties trying to illegalize embryonic stem cell research. The main thing I always got mad at was how the embryos they wanted to use were those from the IVF clinics (which I'm not very fond of, all they've done is cut the number of would be adoptions and given us Idiot & Kate Plus 8, and Octomom distractive hysteria). The ones that were near expiration. They can only keep in a freezer so long, or the parents are 'all set' with their 'clinician playing God' games and want no more implanted embryos. Option 1, wash them down the drain. Option 2, put them in a cooler and bring them to a lab.

Option 2 is somehow bad. That's what I nicknamed 'sewers over scientists'. Better they die within a stream of human waste vs. in a lab maybe saving a future life. No matter how clearly you try to explain that, they just go batty saying 'it's a life'. You can't trust those radicals with anything, including such a law, that grants full personhood to a fertilized egg. Next they'll attack the day after pill. Then the Birth Control pill. Then condoms. Then masturbation. They won't stop. They consider ONLY missionary position sex, between a married man and woman (him on top), for procreation only (only as long as it takes to get off, no foreplay, no doing it for fun, none after menopause), to be the only sexual / reproductive ANYTHING that is 'okay with God'. ANYTHING else is 'sodomy'. That is just insane. It is a bunch of assumptions, based on outdated things in the Bible (things God moderated on in Christ's time, things that Christ never spoke of, or seemed worried about).

[Politicub]

187. Thanks for this analysis

It brings to light all of the real issues that something like this kind of law would create.

[felinetta]

124. I am so sick of the "save the zygote" crowd.

[AnneD]

141. If they really want to get biblical......

life starts when one first draws independent breathe....like Adam. I can live with that. So it is not life until draws breath on it's own. That give women more time than they have now, otherwise every women that starts her period late would have to report to the police station with her Kotex pad to make sure she didn't commit murder. And I have been in delivery rooms may a time and have seen still born babes and those that died while being born. Who has charges brought up against them, Mom or the Docs-after all, the baby was murdered.

What a crock....perpetuated by people that hate women for enjoying their freedom.

[Taverner]

168. Well I would say, but I'm not supposed to threaten violence :)

[Downwinder]

2. When is conception for a Corporation?

When it is first thought of?

[EFerrari]

5. When it was a gleam in a vulture's eye?

LOL

Don't give them any ideas.

[Arkana]

6. A corporation becomes a person at IPO!

Regulation stops a beating heart :(

[shadowknows69]

44. Oh Gods don't give them any new slogan ideas please lol.

[lapfog_1]

4. What will they decide about Ectopic Pregnancy?

will that be considered murder now?

What about the life of the mother?

[glinda]

102. They don't care about the mother. They only care about control and their "point".

The whole abortion debate is about Religious control. Bringing the whole Country under their values and then controlling them. It has nothing to do with health, caring or anything else.

[hamsterjill]

116. Well stated!

n/t

[Stumbler]

140. Exactly

If these people really were concerned about "the sanctity of life" they'd focus their efforts on expanding health care access and affordability, ending all wars and "armed conflicts," ending corporate pollution, reducing mercury levels in our waterways, etc, etc. Instead, they're focus is on controlling the amount of power women can exercise in this society. Besides, Roe v Wade will never be overturned, as it provides a reliable crop of single-issue voters who will vote against their own interests if it "saves a baby."

[lolly]

197. Let it burst insider the woman

Yes, really. That's what countries with ultra-restrictive anti-abortion laws do.

If she has access to good medical care, she will be hospitalized when it's diagnosed, and they will try to save her, but if they don't, oh well.

[Tumbulu]

7. OK, how about we demand that all males of reproductive age

post a paternity bond that can be used to support the forced babies they may conceive. Either the money goes to the mom or the adoptive parents. If the male does not keep the bond funded, a vasectomy.

That ought to shut these creeps up. Turn it around on them. Make it the fathers that pay for the entire upbringing of the child. Take the focus away from the forced mom and force it on the sperm provider. And remove any control of the upbringing from them. Just a bond posted that the mom can draw from to raise the baby without any of his input.

I keep feeling that we need to turn this discussion around and get on the offense.

[thunder rising]

9. I totally agree. Guys get off and the woman pays for the rest of her life; rapists choose the mother

[Downwinder]

12. vasectomies are reversible. Should be more permanent.

[Seldona]

16. Yes, because it is all men.

:eyes:

[Mad_Dem_X]

52. I like that idea

Make the men have more responsibility. That may make these idiots think twice about forcing women to have babies.

[Kermitt Gribble]

129. That won't work

as, I'm sure, vasectomies will be banned because they will be viewed as a form of birth control. Masturbation will also be banned as we can't waste the little spermies on a tissue instead of letting them carry out their God given purpose.

[No Elephants]

134. Once upon a time, giving counseling about birth control, even to a married couple, was against the

law. See Griswold v. Connecticut. That is the point to which we will eventually return, if we follow the neo theos.

[onlyadream]

130. Great idea - we can only wish....

women are second class citizens as long as they bear the brunt of rearing a child. Men get off way too easy.

[bluestateguy]

8. How about we make them a trade

OK, a fetus is a person, WITH the right to health care, and a corporation is not a person, for whom the 14th amendment will no longer apply.

[No Elephants]

145. A girl who has been raped by her father may rather a corporation had the right to make a

movie with political overtones (as so many movies have).

Sorry, BluestateGUY.

[Historic NY]

10. Trying to make more of the census count...

:yoiks:

[State the Obvious]

11. And is a "person" also defined as a living being or living soul?

According to the Bible...life (personhood) begins with breath.

... and God breathed into his nostrils the BREATH of LIFE and (then) man became a living soul. Genesis 2: 7

Organs begin functioning before we take our first breath (birth), and, for a short time, after we take our last breath (death). So it is not the developing organs that determine life, it is the breath itself that BRINGS life.

Just my opinion.

[Downwinder]

14. That might not be enough according to the SCOTUS.

[No Elephants]

109. That was Adam, not a person created through pregnancy. Please also see Reply 99.

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[Downwinder]

13. Get ready to age 9 months in a day. n/t

[Thor_MN]

56. Does this mean I will be eligible for full Social Security benefits 9 months earlier?

[FarLeftFist]

15. I'm going to start a religion that is pro-abortion So....

So the U.S. has to keep abortion legal because it would infringe on my religious rights as an American citizen. Game over.

[tomm2thumbs]

17. actually many already say that until God 'breathes into it the breath of life', it is not a child

this is not a fringe element either - very common.

[No Elephants]

114. Sorry. Won't work. See Reynolds v. United States.

[kestrel91316]

155. Yep. Abortion as holy sacrament. I could go for that at this point.

[winyanstaz]

18. a fetus is not a person until the soul enters into the vehicle..

which happens shorty before birth and sometimes not until birth itself.
In rare instances it does not manage to enter at all and we have what we call a brain-dead baby and the empty vehicle soon dies.
The soul/spirit of the child is in the energy field of the mother until the time it enters into the soft spot on the top of the skull...known as "the Mouth of God".
A corporation is not a person as it does not have a soul entered into the vehicle.

*edited to add the corporation comment

[truthrocks]

32. YES! Thank you for posting this spiritual perspective!!!

[Mad_Dem_X]

53. That's an excellent explanation!

Thank you for posting that.

[No Elephants]

115. That is your personal belief, to which you have every right in the world. However, why should your

personal spiritual belief (or anyone else's) decide my reproductive rights and/or obligations, let alone corporate law?

Until we decide that question, it's premature, IMO, to speak of how some people interpret the Bible or what someone's personal spiritual beliefs are.

[winyanstaz]

177. nope, this is not just my personnel belief,

It is what is known and taught in advanced yoga philosophy by the yoga masters.
Anyone that learns to see energy fields can also see this for theirselves.
Science can already film and measure some of the layers of the human aura and it will not be long before it is in the public as well because some of it can also be caught with a regular camera if the lighting is right.

[onlyadream]

135. Ever read Journey of Souls?

The soul of the child hangs around waiting until birth. Sometimes its in the body, but most times it's flying around. Interestingly, before I read the book, I had something happen to me which kind of confirmed this. My daughter at age 3 identified a tool that I used when I was pregnant (saying that "mommy has that"). The tool went away (never to be seen again) before I had her. When I read the book I remembered this and it made sense.
The book also says that we view our life before birth (so we know how it's going to go), so if a body is going to be aborted, there is no soul going to that body in the first place.
I still don't like abortion, and would never have one myself (unless my life was threatened),but i respect the right to choose.

[omega minimo]

19. Great! Now women can hand zygotes over to the state & not have to gestate them inside for 9 months

since they're already "persons"
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:


WOMEN ARE NOT INCUBATORS.

ASK THE BIGOT IDIOTS WHY THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THESE "PERSONS" WHEN THEY'RE INSIDE WOMEN'S BODIES?

:evilfrown:

[cliffordu]

31. Yep.

[bliss_eternal]

110. perhaps they'd like our menstrual remains, as well...

...i really don't want to be accused (monthly) of aborting, spontaneously or otherwise. so i'm happy to pass along my used sanitary items to the asshats. they can hold sacred rites, for all the people that will never be. ;)

[omega minimo]

164. "written in blood".... how obvious does it have to be this is about CONTROLLING WOMEN'S LIVES

:kick:

[tomm2thumbs]

20. a reference on that issue

for ref:

''For the biblical Christian view on abortion there are many good books available showing that the biblical Christian knows just like the Jews that there is no soul till birth and that the radical anti-women's choice religious zealots are falsely using the bible for their unfounded emotional attachment to a soulless fetus, rather than the mother.

One small concise book I recommend that goes through every biblical passage related to the issue is "The Origin of Human Life" by R.B. Thieme, Jr.

Robert Thieme is a pastor or Berachah Church, Houston, Texas and graduated Summa Cum Lade from Dallas Theological Seminary. His extensive training in Greek, Hebrew, theology, history, and textual criticism became the foundation for his demanding professional life of studying and teaching the Word of God. Thieme teaches from the original languages of Scripture in the light of the historical context in which the Bible was written. He has recorded thousands of hours or lectures covering the Bible verse by verse. His scholarly, expository approach to God's Word and the international distribution of his taped sermons and books have made him a major voice in Christianity today.

The book lays to rest the true biblical issue concerning abortion and concludes there is no issue about when the soul enters the body. It confirms the O.T. Jewish view that their is no soul in a fetus and shows how certain scriptures have simply been misunderstood from their English translations. In the original texts, there is no question, there is no soul till birth. This confirms the O.T. teachings that have been known by Jews, for whom, abortion is much less an issue again since God also reveals in the O.T. no soul till birth.

The book "The Origin of Human Life" published by R.B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries, 5139 West Alabama, Houston Texas 77056 (ISBN 1-55764-049-1) is available from the ministry at no charge or obligation.''

[mac56]

82. They love the babies UNTIL they're born!

:eyes:

[stubtoe]

91. At which point they are supposed to become punishment for the mother

A millstone around her neck, if you will, for the crime of having sex.

:mad:

[No Elephants]

147. Are you saying those who oppose abortion view their children as millstones? Jeez.

[Kermitt Gribble]

156. I think the poster was implying

that the fundies believe that you should only have sex with the intent of having a child - sex for any other purpose (physical pleasure) is evil, forbidden, and the mother should be forced to raise the child as a reminder of her sins.

[hamsterjill]

118. Exactly.

Personally, I think they have some fascination with umbilical chords.

I've never understood their thinking, but as best I can tell, they love the babies until the umbilical chord is cut. Then they don't give a rats ass if they have access to health care, or whether they are killed in a war, or executed in prison.

[No Elephants]

125. "The book lays to rest the true biblical issue concerning abortion..." Riiiight.

The book lays to rest what one author thought when writing it. Nothing else. It did not even lay to rest what that author may think about the same subject next year.

If the book had really laid abortion questions to rest, there would have been no further discussion of abortion questions, beyond citing to the book, as one cites to a definitive U.S. Supreme Court case regarding Constiutional issues. Heck, even the SCOTUS changes its mind on its own interpretations of the COTUS.


Please see also Replies 115 and 99.

[KakistocracyHater]

21. all the while these same people are against health coverage for kids already

born. Why is it these religious sorts are fanatically against birth control? Cause that's what this is about, not just "abortion". There are NO "abortion clinics", but there ARE WOMENS HEALTH CLINICS.

The OLD biblical view, that not until God BREATHED into Adam did the Human have a soul. What happened to that? This is an older view & a better one, it isn't tinged with violence & murder-of ob/gyn doctors.

What spiritual edict says birth control is forbidden? What special power do they get for not using contraceptives?

[tomm2thumbs]

22. actually, rich 'chosen' kids can have it, just not anyone else

non C-Street children need not apply

[jaded_old_cynic]

60. It's really very simple.

In answer to your question, the reason why these people are against birth control is the subjugation of women. The patriarchs want to maintain control.

Same goes for abortion. They are not interested in the fetus so much as they are interested in punishing women for having sex. If this were truly a life issue, then they wouldn't allow exceptions to that rule. Such as in cases of rape or incest. Their perverted reasoning being, "Since she didn't have sex voluntarily, she shouldn't be punished."

Of course there are some who do believe that abortion is wrong even in the case of rape or incest, and as such shouldn't be performed at all. As abhorrent as that sounds, at least they are consistent in their thinking which shows their primary concern is indeed preserving life. (At least life as they perceive it.) Whether it be a cluster of cells or a full term fetus. My personal beliefs on the matter is that abortion should be between a woman, her god, and her doctor, and depending upon the situation, her boyfriend/husband.

Peace.

[veganlush]

61. Exactly...well said.....n/t

[uncle ray]

104. it's a woman's decision, period.

she can consult whoever she wants for advice on the matter.

personal beliefs aside, do you want a law that recognizes god as an interested party to reproductive rights?

[jaded_old_cynic]

127. When did I say that?

For the record, I am an atheist. I merely mentioned the god situation, because not all people subscribe to atheism, and a woman may want to reflect upon her own moral code. Whether it is based upon her religion or not.

I am certainly not suggesting that religion should have any say whatever in her decision. Nor am I suggesting that anyone else should. The decision ultimately lies with her. And being that it is her decision, she can also decide not to have an abortion as well. Her choice in that matter is neither my business nor yours. I think you misunderstood my post. I thought that my post was quite clear that the church or the state shouldn't be involved.

Peace.

[State the Obvious]

97. See my Post #11 nt

[Zoeisright]

23. Making abortion illegal does NOT end it.

That's just one thing those nosy creeps don't understand. It's such a private thing it is literally impossible to end it. Women have been having abortions since time began, and they will continue to do so.

The only thing that really changes when abortion is made illegal is that girls and women die.

But that's just fine with the 'pro-life' crowd.

[hamsterjill]

121. That's absolutely true.

And if truth be told, I'll bet more of the "pro life" crowd than we know or could count have opted to have an abortion themselves when "they" happened to find themselves in need of one.

It's just 'different' when it happens to 'them', of course, because they believe they are too perfect and pure.

[No Elephants]

133. Not necessarily. If I believe that abortion is a sin under any circumstances and I

I have an abortion anyway, I will believe that I have committed a sin. Sure, some will ratinalize that it was justified in their case, but believers know that they sinned before becoming believers and will continue to sin after they become believers. They accept that no mortal is perfect or free from temptation or free from succumbing to tempation.

[No Elephants]

128. I disagree that they don't understand that criminalizing abortion does not end it.

Society criminalizes stealing and murder. No one is under the illusion that enacting those laws ended stealing or murder. However, those things may occur less frequently than they would if there were no laws forbidding such things, as some of us do strive to be law -abiding. Also, society punishes crimes and that is a lot of what this is about--the ability to lock up at least the doctors, clinic owners, etc. who participate or even provide counseling. (They seem to have backed off locking up the woman.) And, there is loss of the license to practice medicine. IMO, it's also about society reflecting their individual belief that abortion is wrong.

[NoQuarter]

24. Let's see one of these "life begins at conception"

zealots claim a gestating fetus as a dependent on their 1040. Let's see how long that lasts.

[saracat]

25. How can this be? I am always told on DU that abortion isn't an issue.

I have also been told many times that it shouldn't be a Democratic issue because many Dems are against it.So I guess we don't have to worry about this? And please pay no attention to those folks that consider birth control an abortafacient.:sarcasm:
And we must continue to placate these folks because federal dollars could never be involved in covering abortions in a public option.Our president has reassured them.

[omega minimo]

167. "Many Dems"

are really Republicans :thumbsdown:

[bl968]

26. Law of unintended consequences can strike again

If they are not careful they will make corporations non-persons again...

[regnaD kciN]

28. ...or lots of seniors will be due nine months back Social Security

:rofl:

[colinmom71]

48. Or take it even further....

Not only would all now born persons be due 9 months back SS, BUT every US citizen is now due 9 months SSDI payments since they were legally disabled and incapable of performing major life functions during the pregnancy that birthed them.... I'd love to see the amount of money it would take to cover all of us with those "entitlements" should personhood be extended to fetuses... You'd then see Republicans tripping over themselves to retract fetal personhood as quickly as possible. Then again, just for the humor value, I say let it happen! }(

[No Elephants]

136. Not all people who are disabled were disabled because of genes.

[colinmom71]

188. Umm, yes i know....

My son is severely disabled due to his premature birth at 24 weeks. Nowhere in my post above do I intend to exclude persons with disabilities not derived solely from genetic issues.

If you are referring to the last sentence in my above post, I meant it to be sarcastic dark humor. I truly do not at all hope for people to be born with issues that could become disabling. Or to have disabilities later in life...

[regnaD kciN]

27. I thought a person's life began when the Articles of Incorporation were filed...

:sarcasm:

[gtar100]

29. Life begins at the Secretary of State's Office.

But if they outlaw abortion, than anyone who conceives of an idea for a business must go through with their plans. Otherwise they will be committing murder.

[change_notfinetuning]

30. Do they have a funeral when there is a miscarriage? Just wondering because

I have never heard of it myself.

[LeftyMom]

42. I know a loon who did. Complete with graveside service and neighbors bringing casseroles. Twice.

For first trimester miscarriages, no less.

But she's a loon.

[No Elephants]

157. Miscarriages can cause a lot of grief. Peopleare entitled to deal with their grief however they

wish, IMO.

[LeftyMom]

174. I know. BTDT.

Shit happens. Being a drama princess isn't a good way to respond to anything, and holding a funeral for a shoebox full of Kotex is just retarded.

[marshall]

175. I've heard of people inheriting money through miscarriages

It happened at least twice in my family, decades ago. The only offspring to a couple was a miscarriage. The wife had it registered as a birth, the husband died later. A few years passed and the husband was heir to some money. The wife collected it as the heir to the miscarried child, whereas if no birth had ever been recorded she would not have been an heir. It would have passed on to the next person in the husband's family.

[saracat]

203. There was in fact a television special about that. Many people do just that. Creepy, But I do

understand it is a loss and must be grieved.I just think it is inapproprate but it isn't my call to judge anyone who does such a thing.I personally think it would make the grief worse.

[Froward69]

33. these loons were soundly defeated in 2008

here in CO. my a margin of 3/4 opposed to their measure. they are funded by Focus on (your)the family... Ie Dobson and the idea was from a 17 year old female.

[girl gone mad]

34. conception is as arbitrary a milestone as any other.

why not declare that protected life begins at ejaculate?

[54anickel]

51. Well, you know that every sperm IS sacred....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002085385040727366#

[Downwinder]

77. Protect the Sperm.

[Ozymanithrax]

35. There is one good thing (just one) about this idea.

Under no definition of human that I can think of would a Corporation qualilfy. Therefore, a good lawyer could argue that corporations would not be allowed to have rights as a human.

[No Elephants]

137. No court has held that a corporation is a human. It is said to be a "legal person," whatever that

means. I guess it means an entity created by law that has the rights of a human.

BTW, a good lawyer should be able to argue both sides of any issue! But the only arguments that count are the ones that win in court.

[Anakin Skywalker]

36. My Booger is a Person!

[Wizard777]

47. No, but your tumor could be.

Inside some tumors it's not uncommon to find bone, teeth, hair and skin.

[No Elephants]

139. That can be a twin absorbed in the womb. (And, in any case, ewwww.)

[Wizard777]

193. No it's tumors. They can find bone, hair and teeth inside them.

It's basically a cellular stew gone amok.

[Solly Mack]

38. What would those oppressors know about personhood?

Other than to deny it to women, that is...

[bliss_eternal]

111. thank YOU!

plain and simple, they hate women.

:thumbsup:

[JoeDuck]

39. What about insurance?

If all rights accorded human beings begin at conception, does that mean that the human being so conceived is entitled to be covered by life insurance?

[colinmom71]

50. Also, what about my health insurance?

My H's employer provides a health insurance plan that covers abortion services. So, would they need to be tried for murder (or conspiracy to murder, depending on applicable state laws) for providing the funds to achieve a criminal action? Does that coverage suddenly become null and void, despite their contractually offered service?

Also, if a birth that results in the sad death of the neonate, is the health insurance company still liable if they cover the medical services involved? Hrmmmm.....

Clearly these folks have not thought their cunning plan through. :eyes:

[krispos42]

40. This will have enormous financial benefits for women

Imagine... you miscarry twice in a year. Two deductions for your federal and state taxes!


And we could make it retroactive, what, 7 years? That's the time you have to file an amended return, right?




:eyes:


These people need a creative hobby. Desperately.

[truthisfreedom]

41. We need a Constitutional definition of "personhood." Which is a ridiculous term in the first place.

These freaks know only one mantra: reproductive slavery for everyone. They're flat-earthers.

[State the Obvious]

98. Yes, and the Republican party is defined by "ridiculous terms"...

...like "personhood", "death panels", "coalition of the willing"....

[No Elephants]

143. I would not open that Pandora's box for all the tea in china. Heaven only knows

which side would win and what other amendments people would want to throw in the bill/ballot question with it.

Besides, controversial Constituional amendments don't seem to happen anymore. I think the last one may have been in the 1950's. For exaple, the ERA for women has not yet made it, though it is not technically dead, either. Even a bill to declare void all the amendments that, like the ERA, are still floating around in Constitutional limbo did not get anywhere. That is how partisan our country has become. As far as the Constitution, freezing it where it is may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who has the majority in the SCOTUS.

[Wizard777]

45. It used to be answered for religion by the transmigration of the soul.

Life existed from the first independent breath which is always in to the last which is always out. This was the ethereal(in the air)soul entering and leaving the body.

How will these laws account for still birth? Will this shift issuing birth certificates from birth to conception?

[AlbertCat]

Life existed from the first independent breath

See...this is what the ignorant, unscientific people who wrote the Bible ages ago would naturally think. It's what one would naturally think not knowing about development and cells, and DNA. They wouldn't think a fetus, if they saw one, was a "person", nor would anyone else really. Why would religionists wanna change that? Science? That dangerous thing they don't "believe" in?

Science on the other hand knows about things like the many miscarriages of fertilized eggs that happen throughout a woman's life and they never know about. It tells us that it takes days for the DNA's of the two parents to "merge" and that more than one sperm can penetrate an egg, and again a day or so for the egg to reject all but one set of male genes. And of course for a while there are nothing but cells that have not differentiated themselves into the parts of our body (stem cells)....a process that take a while. So when does this thing called a "soul" enter the fetus? When does it have a nervous system we would call "human"?

They're gonna have to discuss all these matters and many more, these religionists. Do they uphold science or not? Of course much of this has already been considered when making the law which is why around the 3rd trimester it's difficult and not recommend to have an abortion unless absolutely necessary.


All this really has to do with a "soul"...which in my humble opinion does not exist. It's something we made up because it FEELS like we have one. Our brain creates the feeling of an individual because it helps us survive in the real world. But most of what goes on in our bodies that keeps us alive we are completely and totally unaware of. We are a collection of symbiotic systems. And even motor functions can happen before we are even aware of them (Throw something at someone and they will either bat it away, or, if they've been taught, catch it...this all happens in the brain milliseconds before the info is sent to the region that makes us conscious of it.) Our consciousness is clearly NOT in charge.

Religionists and the courts can chew on these notions til the cows come home.

But the real question is, why should the government tell women to have or not have babies?

[No Elephants]

150. I agree with your last two sentences. However, with all due respect,

none of us has a clue what people who wrote the Bible thought about when life began. The breath business comes from God creating Adam, who was never a fetus, from dust. That says nothing whatever about when the life of a human embryo begins. And it certainly does not distinguish between the first breath and the first "independent" breath. Besides, an embryo can be said to breathe, depending upon how one defines "breathe." After all, a fish breathes in water.

However, none of what I believe about when life starts or what constitutes "breathing" matters unless one assumes that one interpretation (of many possible ones) of the Bible should determine the law of the land. So, that is the first question. If the answer is "no," people's personal interpretations of the Bible are pretty much irrelevant.

[Wizard777]

192. Religion and science are not as incompatible as you think.

As a Mazdian. My religion basically is science. We worship Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord.) Einstein developed his theories of Physics from the Torah. The understanding of science changes over time. There are thing the scientists of prebiblical times did that modern scientists can't figure out how they did it. Like building the pyramids. Thousands of years in the future they may look back at our time and laugh at E=MC2. Not all people who practice religion are low brow dullards. Not all people who study and apply science are without religion.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

49. Yo, women, you may be prevented from having a drink

a smoke, or take any medication whatsoever, because of the chance that it might harm that little person inside you.

That is the logical progression of this movement. Of course, they believe that women are second class to begin with. Obey your hubby, and all that claptrap.

[Downwinder]

80. "What would you like? May I see your ID and test strip ."

[No Elephants]

151. Actually, if a woman intends to carry to term, I may have no problem with saying she should not

drink or smoke or drug, except as necessary for her own health. I stand for reproductive choice, by maybe not for a right to impose upon another human being a life sentence for, say, the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome.

I have not thought that through fully yet. Hence the word "may." But, it's probably better to keep the issues sepaarate for purposes of analysis.

[kiranon]

189. So a woman's life is worth less than a full life? Men should also be

restricted from everything after all they need to be a father at any moment and the preborn will know after all he/she is a person with the ability to detect such things as alcohol on the breath. Men need to be monitored to make sure they do not form an attachment with another female or male thereby damaging the parent-child relationship which, of course, exists at the time of conception. Men will have to register every sexual encounter they have to make sure each preborn is assigned to the proper dad. Don't think the restrictions will only be on the woman under the line of thinking that a preborn is a person. How about if someone insults the preborn - can it sure for defamation? Must the preborn be consulted on all purchases for it? A whole new line of business will be born (pardon the use of the word "born") - those who can decipher the preborn's thoughts and needs and transmit that information to the parents to be and the government. Perhaps they could be called the "preborn whisperers". Can they vote? Of course, just ask the preborn whisperers to find out which candidate they want. The preborn will also change the voting demographics since they need to be counted for determining the number of representatives and senators a state has. OH the kinds of mischief that can be done with this one.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

191. light drinking does not cause fetal alcohol syndrome.

You have to get rip roaring fairly often.

[moose65]

54. Ridiculous!

For one thing, WHO is going to know the EXACT moment of conception? Are women going to have little chips embedded in their hoo-hoo's that will track every sperm that comes in? Sheesh. When a baby is born, the mother (and others) know the exact moment when it happened. For conception, not so much.

[Orrex]

55. Sweet! Now pregnant women can drive in the carpool lane!

And they can't be jailed, because that would be wrongful imprisonment of an in utero person.

[kiranon]

184. And can we send the preborn to school? Don't want them to fall behind.

[Loki]

57. Will this new "personhood"

allow me to claim this deduction on my income taxes before it is officially born? Will all spontaneous abortions, those not performed in a clinic, and miscarriages be considered potential crimes where the mother, her spouse or anyone connected with such spontaneous abortion or miscarriage be indicted for manslaughter or possibly murder? Will en vitro fertilizations clinics be held responsible for the deaths of all en vitro fertilizations that do not result in a full term pregnancy? Will all doctors and nurses be held responsible for not resuscitating all infants born before the age of viability (around 24-26 weeks) they have a right to live, even if their lungs are not mature enough to support breathing, right? Ignorance is becoming the new pandemic, please get your shots soon.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

142. A Former State Legislator from VA actually tried to make reporting

of miscarriages to the police mandatory. :eyes: From what I understand, it didn't go over very well, hence his status as a FORMER legislator.

[southernyankeebelle]

58. Watch out this will also be the death of birth control pills

[No Elephants]

160. Yep. And more. Please see Reply # 134.

[veganlush]

59. When they get their way..pregnancy tests will have to be outlawed.

..or prescription-only so that a positive result can be followed-up on.

If abortion is murder, because life begins at conception, then when someone gets a positive test result, and then on a subsequent visit to the doctor is discovered to not be pregnant for whatever reason, a investigation will have to be conducted.

..Unless we're going to be soft on "murder", the would-be mother is going to have to prove what happened to the fetus. Was it a miscarriage that occurred at home or elsewhere? Was it a back-alley type termination? Will we have to come up with a new type of AMBER ALERT?

..If corporations are "persons" does that mean that if one dissolves after bankruptcy or whatever reason, a murder investigation must ensue?

..It's the religious right for the most part that is forcing it's will on us so that has me confused- I thought the bible says we are all born in sin. Will that have to be moved back to conception?

..why do the religious people NOT trust their own god? The aborted fetus, not yet born therefore not yet a sinner, goes immediately to it's reward- to spend eternity in God's heaven, while the mother, doctor, and anybody else involved in the abortion will apparently spend eternity in the fiery depths of hell so what exactly is the problem? God's got this handled, no? Why do they not trust HIM?

[daggahead]

62. So ...

Will this also mean that a fertilized egg can be considered a tax deduction?

[zbdent]

63. I'd put in a provision which would suddenly kill the bills ...

If a "fertilized egg" becomes a person, then the insurance companies should pay when a "person" spontaneously aborts through natural causes (and no fault of the "incubator") ...

When the insurance industries are forced to pay out, then the screams begin ...

[veganlush]

64. In medical terminology, miscarriages are refered to as...

..spontaneous abortions...and there are millions of them yearly. Does that mean that GOD is the biggest abortion doctor of all time?

...God created everything right? including death...GOD IS PRO-DEATH!

[WinkyDink]

65. OBVIOUSLY, LIFE begins at conception; it is what conception MEANS. But when SENTIENT is the issue.

[Qutzupalotl]

112. Cellular life begins before conception.

Conception is the commencement of a potential independent life, becoming independent (and breathing on its own) at birth. Throughout pregnancy, that life is entirely dependent on the mother for both its form of breathing and nourishment.

I think we need to define personhood as starting when a life is independent. Sentience is a different question, IMO.

[No Elephants]

153. It was not so obvious to the court in Roe v. Wade. But, the court averted the issue by instead

looking to whether and when the state's interest in protecting life outweighs the interest of the woman in deciding what happens to her body, which the court characterized as a privacy right.

Before doing that, however, the court noted that scientists disagree about the issue, as do theologians.

[omega minimo]

207. It is not Life independent of or separate from the mother. These bigots pretend she isn't ever there

[Danmel]

67. Can i take a tax deduction for a fertilized egg?

My pregnancies overlapped years- I can get some reto-active refunds!

[mbperrin]

176. Seems to me there would be dependent deductions for every frozen

embryo stored anywhere. Need 50 quick deducts? Fertilize and freeze 50 embryos. And since they don't have a date of birth, I can't see where they will ever expire, since they will never pass the age of majority.

Tax Deducts 'R Us, now open for business.

[Odin2005]

68. The stupid (and misogyny), IT BURNS!!!

:banghead:

[Triana]

69. They'd define the sky as purple with hot-pink polka-dots if it enabled them to CONTROL WOMEN...

...'cause that's what this shit is all about. They're not "pro-life" - they're "pro-CONTROL".

The American Taliban and its war on women.

[bliss_eternal]

113. control over the species....

...that they don't really consider human.
the only value women have is to procreate and make more men. :eyes:

[BREMPRO]

70. Just another ploy to get right wingers to the polls. Abortion and gay marriage

are the things that they get most upset about and will drag there sorry asses to the polls for. This is about mid-term election strategy plain and simple.

[mrs_p]

71. this was up in colorado, and

it was soundly defeated. before it was up for vote, i checked out the catholic church's stand on this initiative. interestingly, they said a person could vote his/her conscience b/c the initiative was too vague.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8397157

[marshall]

72. I wish some kind of comprimise could be reached

I don't think fetuses should be considered persons, but I think we as a society should hammer out some legal definition to try and eliminate all the confusion and conflict.

Certainly not a person, but some kind of legal definition that will put it all to rest.

[LiberalArkie]

76. OK when does a corporation become a person then?????

[Christa]

78. Yeah, but do they care for the "person" after it was born?

I don't think so.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

81. You know China OWNS us... it would be interesting if they came over here

and put some of their laws in place. They really would not know what to do.

[snooper2]

83. When the baby can survive outside the womb

without any medical assistance, it's a person. Oh, And I've been watching sonograms, heart beats, and movements every month. My wife is high risk so we have had monthly sonograms since day 1; which is actually kind of cool. (Most people have 2 or 3 at most(cost)). The lady who runs the sonogram machine is greatness and seeing the fingers and toes one month, the brain developing, the heart, the lungs and kindneys developing. The technology these days is amazing, 3D images, live 3D video, etc., Our daughter is due in 7 weeks....


I would say 6-7 months into the pregnancy

[mac56]

84. which if I remember right is the standard in Roe v Wade

"Third trimester"?

Someone please correct me if I'm mis-remembering.

[No Elephants]

158. Roe v. Wade was more complicated than that; and Roe v. Wade was not the Court's final word on the

subject. Moreover, the Roberts Court has shown a zeal, IMO, for overruling prior cases.

[State the Obvious]

101. i think the lungs (the "holders of breath") are the last organs to be developed....

...in the womb. Until that happens....you can't breath.

[No Elephants]

159. that matters only if your definition of life depends upon it. I think this is a dangerous path to

go down. Better, IMO, to focus on whether government has a right to force a woman to choose between carrying to term and a potentially unsafe abortion. If the state has no right to force that choice, then it should not deny women a safe abortion.

[ZenKitty]

206. Saddest most discombobulated thread ever on DU...

So if I were to follow your logic...those that deserve to live must pass the test of surviving "outside of the womb without any medical assistance".

That's absurd! Think about it.

[thereismore]

85. Get 10 eggs extracted, fertilize them in vitro, and freeze them. 10 tax deductions every year! nt

[and-justice-for-all]

123. Ha!

:ROFL:

[Unvanguard]

86. Their attempts to do so are irrelevant, at least as long as Roe v. Wade stands.

There the only question is who constitutes a person under the federal Constitution, and the Court's opinion in Roe made it clear that fetuses did not.

[Tab]

87. Does it fall under your family life insurance?

Can you collect in the event of miscarriage?

[ensho]

90. more proof that the religiously insane are dangerous people

nt

[area51]

92. I think this was sort-of mentioned upthread,

but if someone were to tell the nazis that if this would go into effect, not only would the fetus and mother be entitled to healthcare paid for out of the general tax revenues, then if life is so precious, also this would mean everyone in this country would be entitled to healthcare, as anything less would be a murder. But yes, I know simple logic escapes them.

[humbled_opinion]

93. Yes very interesting my fear

Is that somehow they will use Health care reform to their nefarious ends. I think it is very important for us to demand controls in the law that would stop someone like a future Very Conservative PResident from twisting the law to make Abortion illegal or unavailable to those that require it.

One way I have read is that groups saying if a single payer eventually becomes law they intend to force govt non-compliance standards i.e., birth control provided by the govt means that pregnancy was a failure to comply and therfore intentionally wanted, desired making any choice obsolete and std's are no longer covered medical conditions....

Very scary indeed.

[cap]

so how much birth control are we seeking to outlaw here?

IUDs?, the Pill?, patches?,
when will this crap end?

[2Design]

95. are these the teabaggers who want government out of our lives? I want them out of our lives n/t

[LibertyLover]

103. So they want us to be like Romania

under Ceausescu, a Communist don't forget, where all women capable of having a baby were subject to monthly pregnancy tests so that they could be monitored? And if I recall correctly, there were consequences for the woman who had a positive pregnancy test, but did not produce a baby. At the least they were subjected to forced medical evaluations to try and determine if they had deliberately aborted the fetus. If it was determined that the woman had procured an abortion, those consequences were severe.

[damntexdem]

106. Personhood for sperm and ova!

Why wait for fertilization? If a fertilized egg is a "person," then why not each and very one of the millions of sperm that aim for that unfertilized egg, who should also be seen as a person?

Next: personhood for toenail clippings!

;-)

[undeterred]

117. When does a woman become a person?

:shrug:

[and-justice-for-all]

119. Sorry to have to be the one to inform them......

but, it is none of their fucking business if and why some one chooses to have an abortion.

Corporations took advantage of a law that was to protect former black slaves land ownership; Corporations are NOT people.

[GirlAfire]

126. Shame...

I especially loved how this point is raised:

"I don't believe that just because we will not get enough votes in an election that we should not do this. I don't recall Martin Luther King checking the polls to see if he was right on civil rights."

...as if this movement is in any way comparable to the Civil Rights Movement, through which the rights of actual, y'know, persons were being sought after. In order to justify this in the eyes of others, and perhaps even themselves, they try and associate this ridiculous venture to something highly regarded and cherished in our history. It's a shame that some people buy this.

[AllyCat]

131. So if they succeed in defining person as such, does that mean corporations

are no longer persons?

[Ozymanithrax]

132. This bill will never pass...

It's purpose is to promote the culture war and keep their base angry when Democrats vote it down.

The idea of loading it with so man ammendments that not even the Republicans would vote for it is smart.

But I don't expect it will go anywhere.

[ddeclue]

148. Poison pill it: Add that corporations are NOT people to the bill.

:P

[Mark D.]

152. One Christian View

Just mine, as a life-long progressive-minded liberal Christian. The case the far right makes as far as Biblical 'proofs' that God or Christ are anti-choice are extremely few, and far fetched and still based on assumptions, nothing solid. The parts about him knowing folks 'in the womb' is 1/2 the time spoken by humans in the text, and the other is the very simple assumption, as a Christian, that of course an entity that is all powerful knows of all things. It works on any level. "Knowing" something is not a pronouncement of 'life'. We know we grow hair on our bodies. It's a result of us being alive. We know that, Christians believe God knows that. It doesn't mean we can't cut our hair.

Now for the Christian case proving God / Christ are pro-choice. Yes, twice in the Bible, it's indicated one is alive, and given a living soul, upon getting breath (I.E. taking their first breath). Next, what does God say DIRECTLY about actual abortion? God speaks of what would happen in a hypothetical fight between two men, where the pregnant wife of one gets between them. If the adversary hits her stomach, causing miscarriage (abortion by fist), 'Murder' isn't mentioned, God says the fine is a merely for trouble caused the husband/wife, NOT fetus. I guess if she's injured and misses work, there is compensation. God's words. God never calls what happened a 'murder' of anything.

Finally. Christ's main focus is mentioned over three thousand times in the Bible. Altruism, Charity, Peace. "Do unto others..." "As you do to the least among you, you do unto me" (that's Matthew 25:40, next time you hear a fundie yell about how bad safety nets are in society, remind them of it). "Sell all you have, give it to the poor..." Christ's focus. It's rather simple. If it was important, Christ would have talked about it a lot. But there are no references to Abortion, Birth Control, or sexuality (there were gays back then too). Make no mistake, there WERE herbal-induced miscarriages back then, meaning abortions. Where does Christ condemn the in the Bible? Not even ONCE.

The idea of a Christian is a follower of Christ. They learn from much of the good in the Old Testament, and recognize that Christ redefined and clarified a few things and gave a bit of a different path to walk upon. Less militarized, more 'hippie' if you will. He hated the gap between rich and poor, he was against the Empire / Elite / Money-Changes (Usury and Bankers, who've since been somehow 'de-sinned' (Usury) and forgiven by the so-called 'Church'). The focus on what Christ never talked about (reproductive rights / sexuality) is CONTRARY to what Christ talked about. Contrary = Anti. Contrary-Christ. Anti-Christ. Wanna see righties go batty? Call their activities Anti-Christ.

The idea that 'life begins at birth' is SCIENCE based. In fact, until the baby kicked first (the 'quickening') folks in that day and age, beyond religion, didn't think there was 'life' there at all (in a fetus). We agree, SOMETHING happens at fertilization. The formation of an embryo, and implantation the side of the uterus is akin to planting a sprouted pumpkin seed in the fertile ground. It's still part of the ground until its got full pumpkins grown on the plant. It's NOT a pumpkin. It's that simple, in my view. Anti-choice is 'Anti-Christ', anti-progress. Distracting folks with personal issues, while the elite widen the gap between rich and poor worldwide, that Christ had despised above all else.

[No Elephants]

169. I don't recall the hypothetical fight you mentioned. Do you know which book of the Bible and which

chapter of that book describes this fight?

BTW, according to the Court in Roe v. Wade, scientists disagree with each other as to when life begins. That may have changed since the 1970's. Scientists may now all agree. I have no idea.

[Mark D.]

178. Here Is The Quote

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Exodus 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

Though we know the pacifist revision made by Christ ends the 'eye for an eye' part of it. But there was NO REVISION MADE by Christ on the miscarriage/abortion aspect.

[omega minimo]

204. So as far as you know, women are still part of the equation when the production of a human being is

regarded.

[kestrel91316]

154. If the average American looks at a human fetus and can't tell it from

a cat fetus, it's not a person. How about THAT for starters?

[tblue37]

163. Until relatively recently, the Christian notion was that the soulentered the body at "quickening,"

which is when the mother first feels the fetus move inside her womb. In fact, that's why it is called "quickening."

[No Elephants]

170. I don't think there was a single "Christian" definition of when life began.

[greymattermom]

166. a human cell that can move on its own

Is a sperm!!!!
So killing such a thing is murder.

[No Elephants]

171. Good luck enforcing that law!

[Mark D.]

179. You Must Be Joking

Even with my statement above of how far the fringe can go, I'm flabbergasted when folks say such things.
Unless you are joking about sperm. You have to be. What's next, we jail for having nocturnal emissions?
Those happen in folks who haven't had sex or masturbated in a while. It's natural. You must be kidding.

[greymattermom]

182. of course it's a joke

But you have to be careful about unintended consequences when you want to change the law. I would recommend this to freepers who want personhood of embryos.

[No Elephants]

172. Determining when life begins is a subjective quagmire and a distraction. . The SCOTUS averted

the issue when it decided Roe v. Wade. So, clearly, deciding when life begins is not necessary in order to decide whether, when and to what extent states may prohibit or limit abortions. Deciding when life begins is certainly not necessary to determine rights and obligations a corporation does or does not have.

Finally, deciding what the Bible says about when life begins is even more of a subjective quagmire and assumes that one interpretation of the Bible or another should govern our nation.

Unless we concede that America is a theocracy, why on Earth are we struggling to interpret the very little the Bible says about fetuses in order to decide what our laws should say? And, if interpretations of the Bible differ, as they obviously do, whose interpretation of the Bible should end up in our secular laws and why? Why isn't my view of what the Bible means as valid as Pope Benedict's, or vice versa?

In all, this is not only irrelevant ground, but dangerous ground.

[State the Obvious]

185. You are right..."this is not only irrelevant ground, but dangerous ground".

Republicans must focus on pushing the Democrat's buttons because they have nothing else. They need to divert national attention from solving more relevant topics like... discussing our economic problems...developing a health care reform plan...solving the Afghanistan dilemma etc. I know I am re-stating the obvious, but Republicans cannot rally their base any other way. They have NOTHING.

[skip fox]

180. Are pregnant women then illegally detaining their fetal child?

And it they cross state lines . . .!

Let's get those mothers in jail and see how they like it!

[skip fox]

181. and should the concept of birth be set aside for conception?

That makes each of us about 9 months older than we had previously thought.

Can we retire earlier? Get Social Security earlier? Drink and vote younger?

[alp227]

196. This is just so pseudoscientifical

I found this story on PFAW's Right Wing Watch blog. This is just hysterical.

[defendandprotect]

199. Maybe they can "incorporate" the fertilized egg, thereby gaining personhood . . .???

two birds with one stone?

Meanwhile, the "pro-lifers" and the Catholic Church would as soon see a female

trying to gain an abortion DEAD rather than give her access to legal abortion!!

[daleo]

200. If a fertilized egg becomes a person at conception

Then identical twins must be derived from the same person. But personhood is indivisible, so only one of these twins can really be a person, and have the associated human rights. Which one is the person, and which is not?

Same goes for triplets, etc.

[alp227]

201. Oh yeah, WHAT ABOUT THE STILLBORN?!

In the words of that silly heckler at the Sotomayor confirmation hearings this summer:

If whoever is behind this "personhood for fetus" idea would explain stillbirth, could the answer be: "God did it!"

[Quantess]

202. Does this mean an 8 week pregnant woman can drive in the HOV lane?

Can airlines charge her extra for airfare? :eyes:

And, by the way: Don't you love how the most zealous of the anti-choice zealots are always MEN?

[Violet_Crumble]

205. I think I understand the affinity antichoicers feel to a newly fertilised egg...

It's because in those first few minutes post-fertilisation there's actually something that exists that possesses less intelligence than the Lila Roses and other antichoice nuts of this world. After it divides into more than eight cells it's got it all over the antichoicers when it comes to the smarts ;)