So when does a fetus become a person? The best medical evidence suggest that consciousness occurs some time eartly third trimester. I would perfer to error on the safe side and say the very begining. As stated earlier it is human from conception, but it not a person with rights superseeding that of the woman. It is my opinion that is also immoral to equate a fertalized egg with a full grown walking, talking, feeling human being with hopes, and dreams of their own.

1) “Nipping a human life in the bud.” Literally.

2) “One life in precarious progress fending off a blameless hijacking by another barely begun.”

Society needs to decide if/when a fetus is a human life, and when/if it deserves rights and protections. Thats the point that needs clarification, not whether a woman has a right to control her body, I’m not disputing that.

Heck… I would be happy if people said, “Pregnancy is a unique and special case of the human condition, and will be legislated(or not) as such.” This would be the best of all worlds, because we could all stop using stupid analogies comparing fetuses to dangerous parasites, and lumps of cells to squalling babies. It would requre new law, but it would be a much better situation than trying to contort normal law to cover a uniquely special situation.

I am NOT pro-life, nor do I agree with everything William has had to say here. However, I do agree with this statement of his:

“If large number of people believe that abortion is morally wrong, it doesn’t matter WHY they believe that. If they can muster the legislative numbers to enforce their will, they can. Thats how democracy works.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter whether our laws are based on English Common Law (which they are) and influenced by Christianity (which they are) or based on the Third Modification of Codified Law of the Planet Betelguese 3 and influenced by the Surpeme Galactic Churh of Nothingness, they are what they are because the majority of the participants of this democracy share certain cultural commonalites. That is simply how a democracy works and as a practical matter, there is no such animal as a law that ALL of the people it governs agree with. Best we can hope for is the majority thinking, “ok, I can live with that.” That’s also why there is a Theocracy forming in Iraq. We “gave” them a democracy and they used it to choose a Theocracy.

Moreover, fervently as I believe in the separation of church and state (and I DO), and whether I think that it should be so or not, I must concede that it is simply not possible to deny the religious background of the majority of Americans as an influence on our laws – right back to “if the majority believes it, it will end up law.”

In fact (and William will probably come along and correct me on this any minute now, because he seems to be an attorney or a judge or something and I’m feeling too lazy to look this up right now) if I am recalling the Constitution correctly, separation of church and state is a really good NON-religious (some on the religious right would say anti-religious) example of something that persists throughout our culture, laws and courts, because the majority of the people want it so and believe it to be so. I think what the Constitution actually says about this is very simple and very limited: Congress shall make no law respecting religion. Congress. Not your city council, or your state reps. Congress. Yet the concept of church and state is so deeply entrenched in our democracy that no city council that does not wish to be sued would display a cross on city property. Because, I think, we have as a people so deeply embraced the concept of separation of church and state, that courts find it easy to support lawsuits that are based on other grounds, such as discrimination. And they’ll do it in a heartbeat, because the majority of people are listening to the details of the case, they are thinking “oh, separation of church and state, that’s ok then”

I think that’s why people keep trying to do things like place monuments to the ten commandments on public property, because they are a.) relying on the actual fact that separation of church and state in every way and at every level of government is NOT constitutionally mandated, and b.) they are hoping they can change enough minds so that the “will of the governed” will let them get away with it regardless.

Also there are a great many people who believe the bible says a great many things – that doesn’t make it so, or make it likely that their belief will be codified in law unless they can bring the majority of the people to believe it would make good law.

You also said this regarding some comment of William’s
“You say that fetuses are humans, and your argument is that since life begins at conception, a fetus (regardless of it’s dependancy on it’s mother) should be granted all rights under the constitution, even if it usurps the rights of the mother.”
I don’t remember William saying this, or saying for that matter that he is pro-life, but again, am just feeling too lazy right now to go back and read all his comments! Nevertheless, if William DID say that, then he’s not quite as knowledgable about the law as I thought he was, because I don’t even feel the slightest guilt at being too lazy to look this one up: One American’s right’s end where they impose harm on another American.

That is about as settled as settled law can be. Moreover, the courts at all levels have used this to strike down, among many, many other things, one abortion law after another that make no provision for the safety and health of another.

Again, I don’t remember William stating he is pro-life, and I am not. But I can tell you I have spent enough time facilitating public meetings in communities that I know for a fact that what I think is “right” or “moral” is wholly irrelevant, and woe betide the local government that decides issues without sufficient time for public debate – the whole community can and will end up locked in bitter and uproductive debate for decades to come and the potholes just get bigger and the sewers just leak more while people snipe bitterly at their neighbors over some marsh in a back cornfield that most of them have never seen. True. Fact. I’ve been in that meeting. Many times.

And that’s why I again agree with William in regards to the abortion debate. As long as we are locked in debate over abortion at the national level, a lot of stuff is NOT getting dealt with. And Roe v Wade DID undercut the public debate. There are increasing numbers of pro-CHOICE people who are sick of this and want to have it out once and for all too. And lots of moderates certainly want that to happen too, because it really is truly idiotic that abortion drives everything from party identification to where individuals end up standing willy-nilly on, say, environmental issues because of which party an individual feels they must offer their allegiance to because of it. It’s a ridiculous way to run a country. And we will never be free from it until we let the public have their say.

I very much get your point about people not speaking to each other on this issue and therefore not finding middle ground. However, you also say something which I don’t get at all:

“Reproduction is an issue to tremendous social importance. It touches on every aspect of human life, far beyond the confines of the mother’s womb. If there is ANY issue that deserves to be put explicitly to the people, it is this one. ”

I cannot fathom what interest society at large has in reproduction that is greater than one person’s control over their own body. Maybe if you came up with some sort of weird desert island after a nuclear war scenario where we must reproduce to keep the species alive…. Maybe. But seriously what issue of reproduction is so important that we vote on what another human will do with their uterus? I was just thinking that we do have an example of a societal interest in what a woman does with her body, and that is the case of the one child policy in China. There, it has been declared that the interest in reducing population is so great to society at large that it overweighs the rights of a woman to bear a second child. It seems that both pro-life and pro-choice positions could be considered inconsistent here. If the reason to punish people for abortions is because society has some greater interest in forcing someone to bear a child, then this same societal interest should be correct in mandating abortion in China. On the other side, if a woman’s possession of her own body always outweighs societal interest, then pro-choice people should be opposing the China one-child policy. Of course, this is not how things fall out in the current debate.

Makes me wonder if this isn’t even the right discussion. Or maybe we are all inconsistent.

You are missing or most likely ignoring the true point to the Pro-Life movement. It mandates a religious opinion by veilling it in a constitutional issue. Like it or not, that is what you and other pro-lifers are doing. You have to reduce your argument to the point of truth. You say that fetuses are humans, and your argument is that since life begins at conception, a fetus (regardless of it’s dependancy on it’s mother) should be granted all rights under the constitution, even if it usurps the rights of the mother. But what you and all have left out of your argument is how that fetus derives greater value for life than the mother. There is the rub. The fetus has greater value because the pregnancy was ordained by God. The fetus, having never had to encounter free will is “Saved” by the crucifixion of Jesus and there for is Free of Sin. The Mother on the other hand is wrought with sin, most likely going to burn in hell, and definitely will if she commits murder (abortion) and does not repent that murder. So in no uncertain terms, you are definitely mandating religious morallity of the majority upon the beliefs of the minority.

In that end, There are a great number of Americans that feel that the bible specifically forbids interracial marriage. Should the majority of Americans come to the decision that the religious morallity of this belief usurp the rights of a few americans, should that be allowed too? Of Course Not. So the same should apply to the rights of the mother to have power over the fetus that is a part of her body, and her body in general.

Don’t Like Abortions. Don’t have ONE. The greatest message of a free nation where the individual has the right to choose what is best for them free from religious opinion.

“Every social issue touches the moral, therefore religious sphere. Religion is intimately involved with the moral development of its followers, that is part of the point of religion. Most of the moral(vs. legal) evolutions of any age are tied in with one religion or another. If large number of people believe that abortion is morally wrong, it doesn’t matter WHY they believe that. If they can muster the legislative numbers to enforce their will, they can. Thats how democracy works. Its how slavery was abolished, how child labor was banned, how alcohol was banned, how alcohol was unbanned. all of these movements had a strong religious component, but were not inherently religious arguments. Abortion is the same.”

I guess as an agnostic, I agree with your point, and I just don’t like it. I suppose that is the same reason this country outlaws prostitution and some types of drugs. Things would be safer for everyone if those things were legalized and regulated, but our country won’t stand for them because a majority of us (excluding me) think they are immoral. I am just an extreme believer in separation of church and state.

My test for whether a law should be a law is this: Is the main reason something is illegal that it’s immoral? If so, and there is no other “good” reason to make it illegal, such as it violates the rights of others, then it should absolutely not be illegal. I realize that abortion does fall into the category of violating the rights of others (if you think life begins at conception), but the test I articulate above is just a starting point. There are other questions to ask after that, such as balancing the rights of self vs. others, and that’s where abortion fails to be something which should be illegal, at least in my eyes. But, then again, by majority/Christian standards, many of my activities would be considered immoral.

I guess that would depend if both parties made the choice to reproduce.

I agree that the state’s should be responsible for funding children’s programs within their borders. Absolutely. However, not all of these children are cared for by parents, churches, etc. There are so many kids that slip through the cracks with no one there to help them. The case of the 11 adopted special needs children in Northeast Ohio is a prime example of that. Yes, they were eventually rescued from the parents that kept them in cages, but probably not in time. I would love to see all children of neglect and abuse have the same kind of passionate champions as the unborn. I would love to see all of the forgotten children get this kind of attention and reverence.

As for your inference that father’s are involved with these children, I have to say from experience there are men out there that will gladly father child after child and then walk away. That’s why it’s so important to educate boys as well as girls, as far as I’m concerned.

Please understand that I’m not one of the pro-choice who considers a fetus to be an unwanted parasite in a woman’s body. Those kinds of terms and tactics by “my side” appall me. I do believe that once abortion is outlawed then there will be more attacks on women’s health issues. More “biblical” issues forced on women. There already are- pharmasists refusing to fill a birth control prescription for an unmarried woman, for instance. I believe the best solution are education and prevention so that abortions become almost unnecessary. Unfortunately, there are too many people that think “abstinence only” is the best way to go.

Also, the pro-lifers people don’t “forget” about the babies after they are born. Babies that are already born HAVE people to look out for them. They have mothers, perhaps fathers, churches, vast state bureaucracies, teachers, doctors and others to look after them. The law already covers those children. Pro-Lifers believe an unborn baby is just as important as important as an already born one, however the unborn DON’T have the same legal protections.

Disliking wasteful government spronsored social programs that spend money on children, is not the same as hating or ignoring children. I’m entirely too Pro-State’s Rights to mourn the loss of a federal entitlement program(or matching funds), no matter how compassionate it is. I firmly believe that the State is the proper level of government for all Social Welfare programs, if they exist at all.

The source of the moral conflict (as opposed to the legal one) is the act of abortion itself. Roe didn’t decide on abortion, it created a right to privacy, and used that Federal Constitutional Right to take it out of the state’s hands. A right to privacy is good, however you have to stretch our constitution to make it say that.

If two parties are in a dispute, and the court says, “You can’t talk to eachother anymore”, then the dispute is over, but nothing gets resovled.

Reproduction is an issue to tremendous social importance. It touches on every aspect of human life, far beyond the confines of the mother’s womb. If there is ANY issue that deserves to be put explicitly to the people, it is this one. By making it an issue of Federal rights, it denied the people a voice in it. A definative answer is one where each state votes, explicitly, on the issue.

Right now, in states like South Dakota, rules and regulations are added a little at a time. Parental Notifications, Late-Term abortions restrictions, restricting “morning after pills” on health and safety grounds. Roe makes the Anti-Abortion people unable to directly tackle the question(until now), so they tighten the noose with regulation.

People who want to keep abortion legal, are forced to adopt extreme positions to avoid slippery slopes. It hard to accept any legal restrictions(even popular ones) if your argument is based on it being a personal privacy issue.

With Roe gone, it can be unambiguously a state issue. The SD law is only one possibility. With Roe gone, absolutist positions are no longer necessary, because the people themselves will have to decide. Both sides of the abortion debate are behaving like an opposition political party, with all the sniping, backbiting, slurs, and grandstanding because they have no responsibility. Roe v. Wade relieved both sides of the burden of compromise.

I thought Michael’s post made a lot of sense because most pro-lifers forget about these babies after they’re born. Most pro-lifers are also against government programs that would help educate young girls and boys about sex, babies,and stds. They’re not worried about the kids that are home alone right now because their parents are out smoking crack. Or the little girls that are forced to turn tricks for their mommy’s boyfriend. By supporting an administration that cuts so many domestic programs (because of this single issue) they are turning their backs on the babies that are here right now. Why is there such an effort to cut welfare programs that feed these children- the ones already here? Why should they be the ones punished for their parents’ sins? And yet that type of thing becomes a non-issue when a pro-lifer is confronted with it. It’s not about the babies suffering now. They will just feel better know the babies were born, without giving thought about what kind of lives they’ll have to suffer through later.

But I don’t think it’s about controlling sex, per se. I think it’s about legislating someone else’s personal morality. They would like all of us to live by their moral code, all the way down to if a woman can buy a dildo in her home state (Tennessee).

I sincerely feel for the women who are now mandated to continue through 6 months of pregnancy, knowing that their baby will die within a day of delivery.

I take issue with this statement because I am a mother who knew her baby was going to die before he was born. He was diagnosed at 15 weeks gestation with a fatal birth defect that was “incompatible with life”. I had a choice to either go to a clinic and have him disposed of as biohazard waste or carry him to term and give him a funeral. I chose the funeral. I’m very happy with that choice because the memories of my pregnancy are the only ones I have of my child. There are thousands of women every year that go through what I did and there is no need to pity us. I only say this because I hear it so much, and I am very happy with my choice to continue my pregnancy. I talk about it on blog here if you’re interested in another perspective.

I suppose I have moved away from Michael’s original point about when life begins, or more particularly the nature of the unborn child. The reason I have moved from that question is that it seems the question of whether or not an unborn child is human or not only gets us so far. We actually know quite precisely that we have a human growing inside another human, where the first is going through rapid stages of development. Now the question is what legal rights do each human have, and if they are rights, then they cannot be voted on. (And please note that I am intentionally using the words baby, child, and human, not fetus, to make it clear that I am not denying the human-ness of the unborn.)

The parallel to slavery is interesting, but not perfect. For a long time, certain humans were not granted the same legal rights as other humans, both by the judiciary and the legislature. One could argue that the government finally gave full human legal rights to people and this trumped the other person’s right to own property. The parallel is of course saying that if we grant human-ness to unborn children, then it trumps the mother’s rights over her own body and medical care. But this analogy is not perfect for obvious reasons. Slaves are not part of the same physical body in the way unborn children are. Additionally rights to one’s own body are greater than rights to property. We will grant the seizure of recognized property long before we would grant the seizure of body parts.

So is this a question of legal rights or a legislative choice?