Anti Choice movement makes full frontal assault on Roe v. Wade

[Sandpiper]

If you support a woman's right to choose, be concerned, be VERY concerned. A well coordinate effort to take this right away has begun.

Choice News Weekly

A Review of the Week’s News on Reproductive Freedom


The anti-choice movement, sensing the likelihood that George Bush would shift the Supreme Court further to the right in a potential second term, is pressing forward across the country with a return to their basic strategy – trying to overturn Roe v Wade entirely. In Michigan, they’re pressing the stealthily near-total abortion ban we discussed last week. In South Dakota, the state House has passed an outright criminal ban on all abortions. And the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals – its membership bolstered by President Bush’s recess appointment of Charles Pickering (see how these things all tie together) – has agreed to hear a direct challenge to Roe that even a George W. Bush appointee rejected out of hand.


As if that weren’t enough, we’ve also got John Ashcroft’s Justice Department attempting to subpoena a host of private medical records as part of his efforts to lift injunctions against President Bush’s federal bill criminalizing abortion procedures. It’s hard to think of a clearer example of what it means to lose the right to privacy than the Attorney General prying through your medical records.

<snip>

South Dakota House Approves Quest to Define Beginning of Life and Ban all Abortion

As Choice News Weekly reported two weeks ago, South Dakota state Rep. Matt McCaulley introduced legislation to define when life begins, and to outlaw all abortions in South Dakota, making it a class five felony for any doctor to perform an abortion. The bill does not include an exception for the woman’s health, contains a dangerously vague exception for the woman’s life, no exception for rape or incest – and has just passed its first hurdle, the state House. Did we mention that this bill actually puts forth a definition of when life begins – the text of the legislation explicitly says that “it is within the proper sphere of state legislative enactment to determine in light of the best scientific and medical evidence.” Within the sphere of state legislative enactment to determine when life begins? We would love to get our hands on the South Dakota legislators’ job descriptions.

http://naral.org/about/newsroom/weekly_headlines.cfm

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. For the first time I can remember

they're also running TV commercials.

[Pushed To The Left]

2. Another reason to get out and VOTE in November!

The social conservatives need to be kicked out of power permanently.

[JasonDeter]

3. Mankind needs scientists to tell us WHEN life begins?

The most simple minded woman on the planet can tell you when life begins in her, its when she knows she's pregnant.

Since women started getting pregnant they've equated being pregnant with having life inside them. Thats the miracle of birthing a baby. Now all of a sudden, today, we need scientists to tell us when life becomes life inside a womans womb?
Wow, unfrickinbelievable.

[lapislzi]

6. No, apparently that's the state's job

Women apparently can't be trusted with their own perceptions, or to make their own judgements. We need the state to make their medical decisions for them.

Are you a woman, by the way? If not, how would you know how women think? Can you speak for ALL women, as you appear to do with some authority?

[Sandpiper]

39. Isn't it funny

Are you a woman, by the way? If not, how would you know how women think? Can you speak for ALL women, as you appear to do with some authority?

When someone with a penis feels that they speak with some sort of authority or insight on what women think. :eyes:

[ms_splash]

8. And since women started getting pregnant...

They have been finding ways to end their pregnancy.

That should tell you something. Women have had the need and desire to terminate unwanted pregnancies for a long, long, long time. We all should recognize that need and desire.

Let me have control over my own body!

[LeahMira]

9. Not the issue...

The most simple minded woman on the planet can tell you when life begins in her, its when she knows she's pregnant.

IMO, the issue is not when life begins. It is one of self-defense.

I believe that everyone has the right to defend his or her own life when we perceive it as being threatened, even if that means that another human is killed. If a woman believes that her life is threatened by the continued presence of a fetus in her body, she has the right to kill that fetus in order to preserve her own life.

I also believe that what you or some outside other happens to think about the situation is irrelevant. Although any individual may be mistaken in a particular situation, it is that individual's reasonable perception of a threat to his or her life that counts.

[hang a left]

12. Apparently your not gay -friendly as well.

Judging from recent posts that I have read.

[Az]

13. Its not a question of when life begins

The fact of the matter is life began a long time ago and everything since has been one continuous unbroken chain. If you are concerned about life then you should weep everytime you shead some skin cells. They are as much alive as a fertilized egg.

It is not cells we value as human beings. It is living breathing THINKING people that we value. And the are made up of trillions of cells working together combined with experience and time to give rise to a working mind. That is what we strive to protect. If I handed you a lump of flesh with its own unique genetic code you would have a difficult time convincing people it was a person.

[outinforce]

15. What We Value

"It is living breathing THINKING people that we value."

I guess, then, that all those patients with Alzheimers are just things -- things we do not value.

And I guess people who are in comas -- we don't value them.

And young babies -- who have not yet developed the capacity to "think" -- mere lumps of flesh with their own unique genetic codes.

Anyone who does not have a "working mind" -- and of course, that is up to "us" to determine -- is just a "lump of flesh with its own unique genetic code -- worthy of nor more respect than an insect.

Do I have your thoughts on this matter correct, Az?

[Az]

18. No

Its a bit more complex. But the question at hand is when do we begin think of the fetus/baby as a human Being instead of human genetic code.

On the issue of what to do with occurrences after they have established themself it becomes more convoluted. We have learned that breaks can occur in ones life that suspend the mind. These can be recovered from. For the time during which their mind is inoperable they do not literally exist but we extend them the rights our society can in the hopes that they will continue once again either through natural recovery or medical intervention.

[outinforce]

19. Your Words

"It is not cells we value as human beings. It is living breathing THINKING people that we value. And the are made up of trillions of cells working together combined with experience and time to give rise to a working mind. That is what we strive to protect."

If you wish to limit the discussion to "lumps of cells that have their own unique genetic code" and which are growing up to from fetus-hood through childhood on their way to adulthood, then fine.

I take from what you have said that you give no value to anything human until and unless it breathes. Does that mean, then, that you take issue with the fact the Roe v. Wade authorizes states to impose restrictions on abortion in the final trimester of pregnancy? For instance, Roe v. Wade allows a state to forbid the abortion of a perfectly healthy fetus that poses no risk to its mother's life or health. Do I understand you correctly to be saying that since we do not value a fetus at any point during its gestation (after all, fetuses do not breathe), we should allow the abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses that pose no risk to their mother's life or health?

And are you also saying that at the moment a newborn child takes its first breath, its cells have "combined with experience and time to give rise to a working mind"? Or are you suggesting that some more time must elapse before that newborn child has a "working mind"? And does that then mean that, in your view, a child -- even though it is born and breathing, is of no value to use until some time after its birth? What amount of time, in your view, must elapse between birth and the development of a "working mind"?

[Az]

20. The focus is on identity

Thus it is keyed to the condition of the brain. If no breath were ever taken and the mind arose I would defend that minds right to exist. Once established I would fight to preserve any mind even if momentarily broken due to illness or injury. The fight would continue until all hope of restoration were gone.

[outinforce]

21. At What Point, In Your View,

during the process of a lump of human cells developing from fetus-hood through baby-hood, through child-hood, on its way to adult-hood, does this condition of the brain known as "identity" (which is the condition I think you are suggesting is necessary for "us" to give "value" to a human life) arrive?

Is it at the same time that birth occurs? Or is is at some point a fter birth?

[Az]

22. The mind

Arises from the brain. So we can assume that a fully developed brain is the bare minimum requirement for a mind to exist. After a brain is formed it begins aquiring information from its enviroment. At some point there is enough experience for it to distinguish self. This is the point at which the mind arises. We cannot pinpoint this moment yet so reliance on what we can determine is the focus. We look to the minimum requirements that we know are needed and that brings us back to the brain. A fully developed brain is indicitive of needing to use caution as you may now be dealing with an individual instead of a group of cells.

[outinforce]

23. Which Is It?

Which is it that "we value"?

Earlier, I thought you said "It is not cells we value as human beings. It is living breathing THINKING people that we value. And the are made up of trillions of cells working together combined with experience and time to give rise to a working mind. That is what we strive to protect."

Now I think I hear you saying that having a "fully developed brain" reuqires us to "use caution", since having a "fully developed brain" may mean that a "group of cells" is an "individual".

Does a fetus, one day before it is born, have a "fully developed brain"?

And is having a "fully developed brain" the same as having "a working mind"?

[Az]

24. Specific

The use of living and breathing was a minor issue in my initial comment. It was meant to convey that it was an entire working system giving rise to an active mind that we strive to protect. So let us drop the word breathing if it is troubling you.

The focus even in the intitial comment was the mind. Hence the capitalization of THINKING.

The brain is developed in the third trimester. Thus the reasoning behind Roe V Wade becoming murky on its position around the third trimester.

A fully developed brain has not necissarily developed a functioning mind. However we do not have the means of determining when it has collected enough experience for the mind to arise. Therefor we err on the side of caution and say that the brain is currently capable of expressing a mind but may not yet have done so. This gives us a viable criteria for determining when there may be a being present that we should extend protection to.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. I will exert my mind reading powers... NOW!

MMMmmmmMMMMMmmmmm... you... have read books by Carl Sagan... MMMmmmMMMMMMmmm... specifically... Dragons in Eden!

:yourock:

[Az]

26. Wrong!

I have read Sagan (mentioned Demon Haunted world in a recent fave nonfiction thread) but have not gotten around to reading Dragons yet.

Didn't even need to fire up the baloney detection kit to field that one :D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. You haven't? Get it NOW!

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[outinforce]

27. If I Understand You Correctly,

You are suggesting that we should "give value" to and even "protect" some forms of human life that are not yet "fully human".

I think I hear you saying that in order to be "fully human", and therefore worthy of "value", a lump of human cells must have a "mind". And a "mind" is something which thinks thoughts.

I also hear you saying that we cannot know with certainty when "the mind" comes into existence. But we can, according to you, know when a rain becomes "fully formed".

Since a "fully formed brain" is necessary in order for a lump of human cells to have a "mind", we ought, I think I hear you saying, give value to and protect lumps of human cells that have fully formed brains.

In other words, I think I hear you saying that we should protect "potential" human life (lumps of human cells that have fully-formed brains but which might not have "minds" yet).

While I appreciate your own view that it is "the mind" which gives rise to an individual's humanity and therefore her/his worth, why is that view any more or any less valid than a view which suggests that we should never cause any pain to a group of human cells capable of feeling pain?

In other words, there are some who suggest that what we honor is not "the mind", with its ability to "think thoughts". Rather, what makes a person a person is the ability to "feel". And, according to this point of view, it is the height of barbarity to inflict intentional pain onto another person.

In this view, a person who is developing from fetus-hood through baby-hood through child-hood on its way to adult-hood, can feel pain long before it can think.

In your world-view, it is unclear whether or not a human child that has just been born "thinks", or has a mind. But in the world-view of those who suggest that it is the ability to feel that gives a person his or her value, there is absolutely no doubt about whether a newborn is or is not a human being. Clearly, according to these folks, a human baby can feel pain, and is therefore worthy of value and protection.

Your view gives protection to "potential human life". The other view gives protection to actual human life, as it defines human life.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. The operative word here is "might"

In other words, I think I hear you saying that we should protect "potential" human life (lumps of human cells that have fully-formed brains but which might not have "minds" yet).

A newly-fertilized egg does not have mind/consciousness/self, PERIOD. Ditto for hydrocephalic fetuses of any age. 100% sure, as sure as haemoglobin carries oxygen. Now, a brain that has a neocortex enters a gray area, so we should err on the side of caution.

[outinforce]

33. OK

I'm not sure I understand your point here, JCCyC.

Az, as far as I know, is saying that we value human beings because human beings have minds.

But Az freely admits that we can not know when a human mind comes into existence (at least I think Az would agree to this).

So, I think I understand Az to be saying that we should protect some forms of human life that are not yet human beings -- they are mere "potential" human beings.

These "potential" human beings which Az wishes to protect and value are those lumps of humam cells which have fully-formed brains.

Az will, I think, tell you that having a fully-formed brain, although necessary in order to have a mind, does not mean that a mind is actually there. I think, for instance, that Az would say that a fetus with a fully-formed brain is only "potentially" a human being -- it has a fully-formed brain which, in all likelihood, will develop a mind. But a fetus with a fully-formed brain does not yet have a mind of its own.

So, to be "safe" and to ensure that we never destroy a human being (something with a mind), Az suggests that we err onm the side of caution and protect that which is merely "potential" human life.

I think that is what he is saying.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. I don't think that's what he's saying

And the word "potential" is being misused. The right word would be "possible".

We have a month-old embryo (is it even called a fetus?) Does it have a mind? We are well sure it doesn't.

We have a 5-month-old fetus. All layers of brain tissue are fully formed. Does it have a mind? NOW we're not sure, so we choose to protect it.

"Potential" is a much broader concept. Even unfertilized eggs have "potential" to become human, so do we force women to have sex every fertile period? Of course not.

Edit: punctuation

[outinforce]

41. Please Note

I am not the one in this thread who is saying that "potential" or even "possible" human life ought to be protected.

It is those of you who are suggesting that what we value is "the mind" who are making that suggestion.

Since you cannot with any certainty say when the mind comes into existence, you are left with saying that "Well, we know that if there is a fully formed brain, there might be a mind -- the "possibility" of a mind is there, or the "potential" for a mind is there.

And from this statement of "possibility" or "potential", you assert that we ought to extend the same protection we give human beings to that which, by your own definition, you cannot say is a human being.

You guys are the ones suggesting the we "protect" and "value" potential or possible human life.

Not me.

[Az]

30. What is feeling the pain

Pain is a result of sensations recieved by a brain. Feeling specifically is what happens when various nerves are affected by external stimuli and relay information to the brain. Some autonomic physical reactions may occur such as yanking a finger out of fire, but this is not a feeling recorded of felt by any individual unless there is a brain recieving these sensations.

Its still runs into the lump of flesh argument. There may well be nerves in the flesh but they are communicating with nothing. It like claiming that a surgeon is killing a person when they take out a kidney. Is a biopsy on a kidney murder? Of course not. It is not a human being.

As to potential. There is a difference between the idea of something that may one day potentially have a human mind and something that right now potentially has a human mind. This is the crux of the difference. A fully developed brain has the potential to have a mind in it right now. Thus we extend our protection to it. A cluster of cells does not have the potential to have a mind right now. Thus we do not extend our protection to it.

[outinforce]

35. Your fully formed brain

is what thinks the thoughts that the mind has.

A brain that is sufficiently developed to experience pain in what experiences the pain.

You cannot know for certain whether a newborn's brain in fact thinks the thoughts of a mind. And so, the most you can say is that a newborn child is a "potential" human being.

A person who asserts that the ability to feel pain is what constitutes a human being does not need to concern her/himself with whether or not a "mind" exists. S/he need only be concerned with whether or not there is something that "feels" the pain. And it is clear that in the case of a newborn child, there is clearly "someone" there experiencing that pain.

And so, to a person who says that the ability to feel pain is what makes a human being worthy of "value" and "protection", there is no doubt at all that a newborn is a human being.

[Az]

36. A conscious reaction to pain

Is indicitive of a mind being present.

I fail to see where you are trying to take this discussion. You seem to be working your way down the road to make my argument for me. A reaction to pain beyond simple autonomic reaction is indicitive of an identity expressing itself in reaction to unpleasant stimuli. Thus a baby crying after being hurt would indicate that it is a being with a mind well under way.

[outinforce]

40. I See.

"A reaction to pain beyond simple autonomic reaction is indicitive of an identity expressing itself in reaction to unpleasant stimuli. Thus a baby crying after being hurt would indicate that it is a being with a mind well under way."

OK. Then when does it become possible for this "identity" of which you speak to feel pain? What biological conditons must exist? Must this "identity" have a fully-formed brain, or is it sufficient that this "identity" have those portions of its brain which feel and react to pain formed? Does this "identity" need to be able to "think" in order to edxperience pain?

You asked what is it that feels the pain? My response is simply this: that which feels pain is that which feels pain.

I might ask you the same question: What is it that thinks the thoughts of the mind?

[Az]

42. The brain

Do we agree that without the brain there is no mind?

Do we agree that nerves may pass signals indepent of a brain but without a brain to record these signals they do not constitute pain? That is pain is the brain recognising a nerve reacting.

Define feel please. I suspect some of this issue may be trapped in a semantic issue based on what you mean by feel. My understanding of feel in this context is the brain recognising a signal caused by stimuli on a receptive nerve. If you poke a singular cell it does not feel anything. It may be destroyed by the interaction but it does not feel pain. Feeling pain is a process that results from a collection of cells conveying information about potential life threatening damage to the collection of cells.

What is it that thinks the thoughts of the mind? The brain.

I used to think my brain was my favorite organ. But then I realised what was telling me that. - Emo Philips

[outinforce]

43. OK.

"Do we agree that without the brain there is no mind?"

I think (Or, rather, the brain which is in the head which is part of the body typing these letters on a keyboard) agrees with that statement.

"Do we agree that nerves may pass signals indepent of a brain but without a brain to record these signals they do not constitute pain?"

Here again, the brain which is in the head which is part of the body typing these letters thinks the mind connected to that brain agrees with this statement. However, the mind which uses the brain in the head which is part of the body typing these letters would wish to ask whether it is necessary, from the brain in the head of the body which typed the question in italics above, whether it is necessary for there to be a fully-formed brain? Or could a partially-formed brain, one that does not have hte capacity to think, experience pain?

In the view of the mind which uses the brain in the head of the body typing these words, it is possible for a brain which does not think (and therefore has no "mind") to feel pain. Feeling is not the same thing as thinking. Brains must be more developed to think than to feel.

[oneighty]

16. And were it a lump of flesh

from another of God's creatures it would be eaten. Yummy!

180

[Malva Zebrina]

32. I agree one hundred percent

the problem has always been that no one can logically determine when human life begins. Those who think it begins with pregnancy, are indeed on a slippery logical slope.

Some believe it begins with the first breath and this belief is supported by their religion. Indeed, in the Christian mythology, Adam was not living until he took a breath, and neither was Eve. If we were to believe that life begins with p-regnancy, then some out of necessity would have to believe that Adam "carried" Eve--and she was not "life" when she resided as a bone in Adam's body. She was human or myth, when she took a breath.

Women have known for thousands of years how to abort unwanted children.

[JasonDeter]

44. Thats rich! So your saying a skin cell can grow up to be a loving

intelligent human being? Hmmmm...

[Az]

46. Perhaps you are confused

A cell is alive at a cellular level. A fetus is alive at a cellular level. They are both made of human dna. At the moment niether one of them is a human Being. Given time a fetus may grow to become a human being. Potential does not equal human being though. A single cell could fall into that hands of a nefarious scientist who makes a clone from it. Thus a cell has a potential to be a human being. At the moment it is not though.

You are not a cell. You are not 10 cells. You are not 100 cells. You are not 1,000 cells. You are not 10,000 cells. You are not 100,000 cells. You are not 1,000,000 cells....... You are a very large and complex arraingment of cells that posess a brain which gives rise to the identity you recognise as self. This is who you are. You could slice off (though I would much rather you remain intact) billions of cells from your current form and still remain you. It is the collective effort with a focus on the cells in your brain that make you who and what you are. And it is this identity that I will defend from any that would do you harm (including slicing away several billion of your cells).

[JasonDeter]

48. One thing I'm not confused on:

Unbelieveable rationalization on your part justifying the aborting of babies. I have heard it all now. I fear for mankind, its best and brightest have and are being aborted.

[Az]

49. Please explain

I do not understand your comment. It does not really seem to address anything I have said other than in an emotional appeal. Could you clarify what you object to?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. You are, of course, aware...

...that women's awareness of their own pregnancy varies WILDLY. One thing is certain, they are not able to "feel" conception. So I assume you believe life begins sometime AFTER conception? (A very reasonable position IMHO)

And yes, we DO need scientists to tell us about lots and lots of things about the functioning of the human body, including, of course, reproduction.

Edit: grammar

[Az]

31. Heh, There are women that give birth without ever realizing

They were pregnant. Sad to say but it happens.

[Walt Starr]

34. Nope, I have to disagree

I'm a man, so I take my mother's word for it.

When my mom found out she was pregnant with me, she considered me alive immediately.

When she found out she was pregnant with my little brother, it was several months before she considered him alive.

That's why this is 100% up to the woman and the doctor. Nobody else need apply.

[JasonDeter]

45. Let me guess. little Bro has low self esteem?

Poor little Bro! The downhill slide of mankind was when they decided they needed 'experts' to tell us what is and isn't. Common sense has taken a back seat to convienience.

[Iris]

50. Did Walt Starr even mention self-esteem?

No, I didn't think so, but thanks for sharing your opinion about "common sense."

[JasonDeter]

53. Ok Iris, read the two lines from Walts post slowly ok? Here they r.

When my mom found out she was pregnant with me, she considered me alive immediately.

When she found out she was pregnant with my little brother, it was several months before she considered him alive.

Get back to me if your still confused. My second point is still true, still standing.

[Az]

54. Condesending attitudes do not build good arguments

You leap to an assumption that his brother has low selfesteem because of an opinion his mother had before he was even conscious. This suggests that you are leaping to conclusions and making assumptions. From these assumptions you then put forward a statement that casts his argument in a negative light. This is called a Strawman argument and has no place in a rational discussion.

[JasonDeter]

61. Whats rational about debating

whether aborting a baby in the womb is killing a baby or not!? History has been turned on its head the last 40 years rationalizing a horrible death perpetrated upon innocent babies. And the last 40 years Sojourner Truth has been turning over in her grave grieving that she ever spoke up for womens rights.

[Az]

62. Um, ok, here are the rules

You could try to explain yourself. Is the only thing you have emotional appeal? I am loathe to play that card myself and must say that it is not very becoming for you.

We can discuss these things are rational human beings. If you have a position you can put it forward and I can give it honest consideration. Delving into the petty bickering of emotional spite is useless. Discussion and dialog lead to understanding. Who knows. Perhaps we will find that there is more in common than either of us realise.

[JasonDeter]

63. So I have to disagree with you according to your rules?

Wow, I forgot my place.

[Az]

65. What am I saying

That is so pissing you off? I am seriously trying to reach out to you and you seem to be absolutely set on treating me like dirt. Have I attacked you? Please tell me as I have not done so deliberately. I am trying to talk to you about this. Are you unwilling to talk about it?

[JasonDeter]

69. I am not now nor have I ever gotten 'pissed off' on DU.

Unfrickenbelievably amazed at some of the tortured logic and in some cases outright denial of some posters but never 'pissed off.' I usually don't get angry at the written word, now the TV is another story! bush* or a republican moving his or her lips really pisses me off because if their lips are moving they are lying. Democrats who bow before republican pressure really pisses me off.

But regarding this topic, it amazes me the length pro abortionists will go to rationalize, to deny calling that flesh in the womb a baby. I have read some doozies in this thread.
Proof the 'cell' as you call it is a baby?
Leave it alone and in 9 months give or take a baby comes out.
You can't get any simpler than that. You can torture reason and logic to deny it but the evidence stands. Have a man put his seed into a womans, leave it alone for approximately 9 months and a baby will come out alive. Every parent looks to see if the baby has all 10 toes and all 10 fingers and if all the parts are in the right place and the baby may be wrinkled and ugly but it is a baby.
Its not a lump of wood or a piece of steel or a loaf a bread, its a baby, usually looking like one of the parents, or maybe not! But please don't tell me or try to rationalize the abortion of a baby by saying its just a cell or group of cells, because very early on those group of cells start taking on a form and shapes and before long arms and fingers and legs and toes and a head and eventually the baby will even smile and suck its thumb and then the baby is born and then my gawd what most who refuse acknowledge happens! Responsibility for action is required. More importantly, responsibility for life! is required.


edit: the only time abortion is justified is if the life of the mother is at stake and then only if the woman wants to abort the baby. Some women choose to give their lives for the baby.

[Az]

70. Can we walk through this together and try to examine the matter

You seem to be focused on what is often called the Potential Human argument. That is that eventually that cluster of cells will become a person. But the question at hand is about now. Now the cells are not a human being. Now they do not have a brain. Do we have a disagreement on this point?

[JasonDeter]

75. Abortion is genocide.

And not only are abortionists killing a 'potential humna being' but generations of human beings! How many potential human beings are required to be considered genocide?

[Az]

76. Ok, we have a dialog going.

Now qualify your statements. Do you not understand that something which one day might be something is not currently that thing? Ice will eventually melt to become liquid water. But at the moment it is ice. It is solid. You cannot drink ice because it is not liquid. A cluster of cells may one day become a human being. But right now it is not. A sperm may one day become a human being. But trillions do not. An egg may one day become a human being but each month cycle billions of eggs are sluffed off.

Now and later. They are different. You eat food. It becomed digested. It eventually becomes you. This does not mean that the food is you before you eat it.

By your standards millions of generations die each night due to nocturnal emissions.

[JasonDeter]

77. No, we don't have a dialogue going

You take a snapshot of the early growth of the baby and say, "Because I can't recognize a baby it is not a baby" and then argue that from as many different angles as you can all the time not realizing how absurd your argument is?

[Iris]

73. "Some women choose to give their lives for the baby."

Well, let's just go ahead and canonize them all right now. It will certainly put the rest of us uppity women in our places. Imagine, a woman wanting to live - maybe even so she can see through what she started with OTHER LIVING CHILDREN that are not dependent on her body for their very existence rather than "sacrifce" herself for a child not yet born.

But what I'd really like to know is who will pay for maternity costs for women who are pregnant through rape? Who's going to make sure they do not lose their jobs as the result of taking medical leave to give birth to the progeny of a rapist? Who's going to pay the cost of counseling or other support the woman might need while carrying the child to term?

[Iris]

71. The last 40 years?

Abortion has been happening ever since women could get pregnant.

As far as "reading between the lines" - well, from what I see, you are just making stuff up about Walt Starr's brother to further your argument and it's not working.

[Az]

47. Projection of identity

We experience only our own existance. That is we can only know what we ourselves feel and epxerience. It is through interacting with others that we come to understand that they too experience things similar to what we do. But since we cannot experience their lives we project our own impression of what they are likely experiencing. Thus we learn to project identity on others.

We can also learn to project identity on things that may not have a sense of self. We invent invisible friends. We give attributes to stuffed animals. We feel that things have personalities. So to do mothers give identity to the fetus growing inside them independent of knowing whether it has a self within it experiencing anything at all.

[izzie]

4. Think this, they maybe moving so fast now because.......

They feel Bush may not get a second term.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Reinsert wedge

tie it all together and wrap it with a pretty bow and call it the number one uniquely compassionate conservative issue.

[noonwitch]

17. I agree

If Bush doesn't get another term, then how long can Renquist hold out before he either has to retire or he dies? Although he's not the pivotal vote on issues like abortion or gay rights, Sandra Day O'Connor is more of a swing voter on those issues. I hope she retires when a liberal is in the White House.

[dusty64]

5. This ought to create

a backlash and a STRONG motivation for those opposed to the extreme right to come out and vote. They are making NO secret of their attempts to turn us into a corporate theocracy and have been VERY successful so far. This may be our LAST chance to stop them.

[Iris]

10. Potential death through child birth is one of the sad possbilities that

is the result of woman's role as childbearer.


Or, so says the Catholic Marriage Manual my mother received when she got married in the 60s.

Yeah. Let's go back to THAT reasoning! I'm sure lots of men would be willing to risk being a "single dad" because his wife died due to pregnancy complications.

[skippysmom]

11. This is why I am ABB

I really don't want a Repuke appointing new Supreme Court judges.

It's funny how these aren't used as an example of judicial activism, isn't it?

[dawn]

38. This is scary.

What is going on in this country? We've got to get these maniacs out of there!

[demigoddess]

51. YOU ALL HAVE GOTTEN OFF ON THE WRONG TRACK

It is not when life begins or whether it is valued but more a question of WHO gets to decide on a child's future. It must remain with the mother alone. The father may be dead or missing and the government could step in as his proxy. Or if we say society gets a say in what happens to the child a future fascist government could vote to force women to produce children( against their best interests) for the service of the state. This was the attitude in the Nazi world. Abortion was outlawed and women had a duty to produce children for the Fuherer(sp?) and they were the property of the state. Do we want to give up Roe v Wade and allow the republicans to force us to give birth to produce cannon fodder???

[Mari333]

52. TAKE ACTION

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/pryor_recessappt_0204/bei5ddr1jbwide

[Bonobo]

57. Godammit! Thank you!

I was reading that crap above talking about brains and 3rd trimesters and skin cells, blah blah blah. blah blah....

All missing the point. Stated crudely, here it is:

KEEP YOUR STINKING HANDS OFF WOMEN"S BODIES! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY LIKE WITH THEIR INSIDES!

And if you don't like them apples, too bad. Grow a vagina, get prgnant and THEN come back and give your opinion on life! All that is window dressing. Hell, we all love babies and care about life. It's just beside the point.

[Az]

58. There are two issues

One is the legal matter. That is clearly a womans body is their own to do with as they please.

Then there is the moral issue. This is where we lose the battle. Because we do not consider the moral argument involved it becomes muddied. The religious right can run this issue like crazy because we do not look into the face of this moral argument. Instead we have to go to the letter of the law. People do not live in the letter of the law. They live in what they believe is right and wrong. They live in what they believe is moral and immoral. If we do not tackle this aspect of the issue we will never be able to end the argument with those that wish to take away our rights.

[Bonobo]

59. One of those must take predominance.

Woman's right trumps fetus. Simple.

Woman = adult, tax-paying, fully-formed and able to make decisions.

fetus = Sorry, not there yet. Shit, even high-school kids "rights" are violated when adults find it necessary and expedient to do so.

[Az]

60. Life is not that cut and dry

The government does not have to address the morality issue involved. But if we wish to end this constant chipping away at our rights by the religious right then we have to face down the arguments they are running on.

Think of it as a seige. We are enclosed here inside the protective walls of our rights. In order to get at them the RR is going to chip away at every single defensive structure we have until there is nothing left. If we do not counter them in some productive way they will simply continue the attack.

Their strength is based on a moral argument. This is what we need to dismantle. To continue to shout about the rights of a womans body does nothing to them. Its not even a concern to them any longer. They will simply keep pounding away on multiple fronts until there is nothing left but a couple of useless words on some paper. They will pressure any doctor or clinic out of business. They will block women from gaining access. They will make the process so convoluted that it will be nearly impossible to use. We cannot afford to stay hunkered down and hope they will get tired and go away. The fight needs to be taken to them. Their moral highground needs to be pulled from beneath them. They need to be put on defense.

[Bonobo]

64. Disagree.

What you term the 'morality issue' is, I take it, the issue of "when does Life begin'. Am I correct? If so, let me say that that is a mushy, meaningless and irrelvant issue to the legal issue. It is mushy because "Life" itself cannot be adequately defined. It is irrelevant because, if anything, the issue should be one of viability outside the womb and not the issue of "life".
Also, your terming it a 'morality' issue is wrong because it seems to frame the issue of a woman's right to control over her own body to be outside the frame of morality -which it certainly is not. It is also a moral issue because it concerns an individual's basic civil rights.

This is a legal issue before it is anything else. Because to deny a woman her right to choose what happens in her body is to deny her something extremely, extremely basic to our conception of freedom. It is completely off the table to discuss. Freedom. To allow this issue to even fall into the disagreement over when life begins is to buy into the fundies misframing of the issue. Shit, if it was life they card about, why do they always only care about life until birth? After they're born, well fuck 'em. No family, raised by the state or the grandmothers or homeless or whatever... more broken people to be used up and spit out.

Sorry about the rant...

[Az]

66. Its not one thing

We agree on the legality of the matter. The law and the right is based on a woman's right to control her own body. You will find no argument from me on this subject.

To the forces attacking our rights however this is not the issue. They believe they are fighting a moral cause. Trust me on this one. When a people believe they have Good on their side they will do astounding things to people in their pursuit of morality. In the end it will not be won or lost based on a legal point.

The crux of my argument delivered against the moral claims of the religious right is that the question of when does life begin is a false one. We must be clear on that which we choose to defend and protect. In this way we can clearly define the choice we make. A woman's right to control her body still presides but we need to be able to stand on the moral and legal high ground to win this battle.

[outinforce]

78. Do You REALLY Think That Pro-Choice Folks..

With all due respect, Az, do you REALLY believe that pro-choice folks do not believe that they are fighting a moral cause?

Has it actually escaped your notice that pro-choice folks believe that they have Good on thier side, and that they will do astounding things to people in pursuiot of morality?

And I can't believe that you really feel that the question of when life begins is a false one when it comes to abortion. It is THE question. Look at the Declaration of Independence. Read what it says. It says that We hold these truths to be self-evident -- that all men (and women) are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life -- and the right to life -- comes before anything else. Before Liberty, because you cannot have liberty is you cannot have life.

So the question does revolve around when human life begins.

ANd even your assertion that a woman's right to control her own body still presides is not quite accurate. Roe v. Wade allowed states to exercise control over what a woman may do with the growing human life within her during the final trimester of pregnancy. Roe said that states were perefectly free to pass laws that restricted -- or even forbid -- abortion during the final trimester of pregnancy, provided that abortions were not made illega when they are necessary to protect the health of life of the mother.

In other words, Roe said that states could forbid abortions to women (and I guess that means "control women's bodies) whose unborn children pose no risk tpo the woman's life of health (assuming that the baby is also healthy).

[Malva Zebrina]

55. Should the goernment take away a woman's right to choose to abort

in a safe, clean environment that would ensure her safety and survival, what then would be the consequence?

Women KNOW how to abort a fetus, or a four celled growth, in order to control their own families and their own lives.

It has been done that way for centuries and centuries. There is no government that can effectively prevent this. Nicholas Cecesque(spelling all wrong I know)tried to bludgeon women into forced pregnancies. They were required to be examined every three months by the state to determine if they were pregnant and to determine if they did have an abortion.

We know that since they were forced to bear these children who they could not feed or care for adequately because of the severe economic conditions in Rumania, that these women, fearful of being arrested for terminating a pregnancy in it's early stages, simply gave up the baby to the state orphanages. They could not care for the baby they were forced to birth. They were indeed, babies that were unloved and unwanted and we know the fate of babies and children like these in this type of psychological environment.

They were deposited in the state ophanage when the woman was so distraught because she could not feed or care for the child adequately. They were handed over to the orphanages.

The abandoned babies were laid on the floor, touching each other in thier babyhood, because there were not enough cribs too accomodate all of these abandoned infants. They were on the floor abandoned because no one could care for them. It was a tragedy, both for the women who were subjected to having their bodies invaded, catagorized, recorded and controlled by the state, to the babies who were given up to the state because the mother and the family could not feed the newly born child.

[jmowreader]

56. Ceaucescu's the guy we need to make Bush's running mate

Okay, so he's dead. But Nicolae Ceaucescu's Romania is what Bush wants to turn America into.

Ceaucescu was elected to the Romanian presidency on the strength of his promise to retire Romania's foreign debt, which at the time was staggering. He gained office, paid off the debt and bankrupted his nation in doing so.

Then he decided to correct the Low Birth Rate problem plaguing Romania. He announced that giving birth is the patriotic duty of every Romanian woman. He banned contraception. He banned abortion. Simple possession of a contraceptive by anyone in Romania, including foreigners, carried a five-year prison sentence. In order to receive certain government benefits (which ones they were, I have forgotten, sorry) a woman was required to become pregnant every two years. All this meant that certain alternate sexual practices would have become very popular except for the minor problem that oral and anal sex were capital offenses in Ceaucescu's Romania. Therefore, the most popular sexual positions in Romania were "back to back" and "man on the sofa, woman in the bed."

The Romanian army gave the Romanian people a Christmas 1989 gift by shooting this bastard and his wife on the town square. The first two things the Romanian military government did were to legalize abortion and legalize birth control, which meant that 25 percent of all Romanian married couples could finally consummate their marriages.

* * * * *

Now! How do we tie the brutal dictator Ceaucescu to the brutal dictator Bush? His abortion stands are a good start. Bush wants to ban abortion. Bush wouldn't mind banning birth control.

[Yupster]

67. I'm pro-choice, but

I still think Roe vs Wade was a completely indefensible ruling, one of the more nonsensical ones the court has ever come up with.

The issue should be decided in the state legislatures and that would be greatly to the benefit of the Democratic Party.

[Iris]

74. yeah, and to to the detriment of the women who are caught in the middle

in the meantime.

Nice.

[ima_sinnic]

68. point that is being missed:

it's been pointed out a couple of times in this thread that women have been aborting fetuses for eons--they always have and they always will.

When I was a teenager in the 50s, young women in my town had a couple of options if they got pregnant:

"Go to live with an aunt in the country" (or just plain disappear) for about a year. They came back pale and tragic, shamed and traumatized. In reality I guess they went to a home for unwed mothers, some Catholic place I believe.

Or resort to a painful and quite often fatal self-induced or back-alley abortion.

These are what Roe v Wade aimed to prevent. Thankfully by the 70s the issue had finally come out in the open. Too many women had died or been rendered sterile as a result of being butchered in clandestine, unhygenic, dangerous back-alley abortions.

How quickly we forget!

Point being: abortion is not going to end just because it is made illegal. It will just be out of sight and available only to those with a lot of money. The others will take their chances in slum apartments with coat hangers. No matter your stand on whether women should or should not get abortions, they need to be kept legal, a safe and hygenic medical procedure that is between a woman and her doctor.

[lapislzi]

72. point well taken, but I have a better idea

can we work towards a world where abortion becomes an irrelevant option? A world where every child is a wanted, cherished child? Where motherhood is valued as a career choice, and raising children is an honored occupation? Can we work towards a world where the only abortions that occur will be the ones that are medically necessary? Can we work towards a world where rape is uncommon? Can we work towards a world where joyful sexuality of all types is embraced?

Or am I just being naive?