OMG! The sky is falling! It's coming true! -- Yet another abortion thread

[mosquitobite]

House Backs Controversial Abortion Measure (http://www.theindychannel.com/news/6674565/detail.html)

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana House has passed a bill that would require women seeking abortions to be told in writing that life begins at conception.

The bill passed with a 70-30 vote and is now heading to the Senate.

The bill would also require women seeking abortions to be told that a fetus might feel pain and could be given painkilling medication during the procedure if the fetus is past 20 weeks.

Some lawmakers say there is no medical, scientific or religious consensus on when life begins, and that no scientific evidence was presented when the bill was considered in committee.

The House has also passed a separate bill that would require abortion clinics to meet new building standards. Planned Parenthood officials said that bill would force the state's nine abortion clinics to shut down.


Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Tommy Ceez]

With the exception of the first sentence, it all seeems pretty normal, unless teh building requirement is something retarted.

[Tracer Bullet]

Some lawmakers say there is no medical, scientific or religious consensus on when life begins, and that no scientific evidence was presented when the bill was considered in committee.

Glad to see they're writing bills from knowledge.

The Indiana House has passed a bill that would require women seeking abortions to be told in writing that life begins at conception.

Give me a fucking break. Are they going to start requiring that all lottery tickets have Biblical admonitions against gambling printed on the back?

[bhk]

I'd still like to see a bill that minors seeking abortions have to get parental consent(unless suspiscion of incest etc) just like they have to get for even the most minor medical procedures(like vaccination).

[Bandoman]

Why don't they just require that women seeking abortions be told "Jesus says abortion is wrong!"? -ohbfrank-

I'm curious about the specific building standard changes, and how they would affect businesses other than Planned Parenthood.

[Ranger]

Reminds me of that law the governor of Wisconsin rejected.

[wendersfan]

I think Indiana should have a law stipulating that voters have to be informed in writing that not all state legislature candidates are able to pass a high school science class.

[Dead]

I think Indiana should have a law stipulating that voters have to be informed in writing that not all state legislature candidates are able to pass a high school science class.

Yup... it's amazing that some of them don't have the basic Biology I knowledged to realize that at conception the resulting being is both human and alive.

They can argue the value of this life if they desire, but not the existance or type.

[BigPete]

Know what'd be great? A way to remove all eggs at birth and replace them with blanks. And then when you are ready for kids, you can pull the blanks and have the eggs reinserted. And if you want reinsertion prior to age 18, you need parental permission.

[mosquitobite]

I'm just wondering if they're going to make the women sign a statement that says the clinic performed their obligation.

Would that not then be signing a statement acknowledging they could be essentially committing murder?

[mosquitobite]

Know what'd be great? A way to remove all eggs at birth and replace them with blanks. And then when you are ready for kids, you can pull the blanks and have the eggs reinserted. And if you want reinsertion prior to age 18, you need parental permission.

Or better yet!


http://ngfl.northumberland.gov.uk/dt/dtclip/textiles_alb/images/scissors_jpg.jpg

[VinVega]

Would that not then be signing a statement acknowledging they could be essentially committing murder?
I think in cases of a botched abortion, the Blastocyst should be put on the stand as it was the potential victim to the attempted murder.

[nemein]

Edited the title so it is a little more obvious from the main screen.

[maxfisher]

I'm curious about the specific building standard changes, and how they would affect businesses other than Planned Parenthood.

Can't find a copy of the proposed bill yet, but here's what our local news is reporting...

HB 1080, sponsored by Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Howe, would set standards for abortion clinics, such as the sizes of rooms and widths of hallways. The law would apply to current and future clinics. Any clinic that doesn't meet the standards by Jan. 1, 2007, could have its license revoked. The Indiana State Department of Health would be required to inspect every clinic by Aug. 1 of this year and inform the clinics by Sep. 1 if they do not comply.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS02/601270530

Edited to add: Here's the proposed bill concerning building regulations:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/HB/HB1080.1.html

And here's the one for information requirements:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/HB/HB1172.2.html

Since the second one's fairly short:

HOUSE BILL No. 1172
Citations Affected: IC 16-34.

Synopsis: Information on pain and anesthetic for a fetus. Provides that informed consent to an abortion includes the requirement that a physician inform a pregnant woman that: (1) a fetus may feel pain; (2) an anesthetic or other painkilling medication may be provided during an abortion to a fetus with a probable gestational age of at least 20 weeks; and (3) insurance may or may not cover the service. Provides further that notice must be given in writing at least 18 hours before an abortion concerning the availability of adoptions, physical risks to the woman in having an abortion, and that human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.

Effective: July 1, 2006.

[movielib]

Yup... it's amazing that some of them don't have the basic Biology I knowledged to realize that at conception the resulting being is both human and alive.

They can argue the value of this life if they desire, but not the existance or type.
I think when a fetus becomes a human being can most definitely be argued:

http://members.aol.com/REBissell/mmAbortion81.html

[maxfisher]

Yup... it's amazing that some of them don't have the basic Biology I knowledged to realize that at conception the resulting being is both human and alive.

They can argue the value of this life if they desire, but not the existance or type.

I see your point, but wouldn't cancer meet the same requirements? Maybe we should have a law requiring cancer patients to be informed that they're having something both human and alive removed from them. You know, just in case they're too ignorant to realize it, but would have religious objections if they did.

The 'human life starts at conception' aspect of this legislation is devised solely to have the gov't come down on one side of a moral argument, not because the legislature thinks women getting abortions need more information.

[Red Dog]

Oh brother. -rolleyes-

Looks like I was spot on in listing Indiana in that most-hated-state thread from last week.

[mosquitobite]

Oh brother. -rolleyes-

Looks like I was spot on in listing Indiana in that most-hated-state thread from last week.


So you'll never come visit me friend? :sad:

[Red Dog]

So you'll never come visit me friend? :sad:


You could always move.

[Dead]

I think when a fetus becomes a human being can most definitely be argued:

http://members.aol.com/REBissell/mmAbortion81.html


You can argue it, but it would take a medical and biological anomoly for it to not be a fact. When the DNA combines, it creates a human. A very immature one, but no less one. Again, it's only the *value* that can be realistically argued.


I see your point, but wouldn't cancer meet the same requirements? ...

Alive? Yes. Human? No, it would be a subset of a human, and will never grow to form an adult of the species.

[mosquitobite]

You could always move.

:eyebrow: I have to visit Vin & Vandelay first. :lol:

[VinVega]

:eyebrow: I have to visit Vin & Vandelay first. :lol:
If my wife signs off on it, come on down. :lol:

[maxfisher]

Alive? Yes. Human? No, it would be a subset of a human, and will never grow to form an adult of the species.

We're drawing nitpicky lines here. At conception, the zygote merely possesses the potential to become a member of the species. It could also become multiple members of the species, could turn into a clump of deformed tissue or simply be flushed from the body as-is. I know that the response to this would be 'in ideal situations, with ideal development, it'll become a person.' You could say the same thing about sperm though, assuming this ideal situation would involve joining it with an egg, and can imagine how silly it'd be for a Dr. to start advising pubescent boys 'Now if you masturbate, you're removing something from your body that's both human and alive...'

[dave-o]

We're drawing nitpicky lines here. At conception, the zygote merely possesses the potential to become a member of the species. It could also become multiple members of the species, could turn into a clump of deformed tissue or simply be flushed from the body as-is. I know that the response to this would be 'in ideal situations, with ideal development, it'll become a person.' You could say the same thing about sperm though, assuming this ideal situation would involve joining it with an egg, and can imagine how silly it'd be for a Dr. to start advising pubescent boys 'Now if you masturbate, you're removing something from your body that's both human and alive...'


Exactly. What it comes down to is the defnition of 'human'. So in Dead's (assumed) definition of 'human' there is no room to argue about when life begins. Whereas in movielib's definition of 'human' there is plenty of room for debate. How can one be sure which is the right definition?

[printerati]

How can one be sure which is the right definition?

"Women seeking abortions," as they are termed in the article, are well beyond the initial point of conception, since they're at a point where they know full well they are pregnant. IMO, there really is no question about what's in the womb at that point, which is why I find the "pro-choice" position untenable.

[CRM114]

"Women seeking abortions," as they are termed in the article, are well beyond the initial point of conception, since they're at a point where they know full well they are pregnant. IMO, there really is no question about what's in the womb at that point, which is why I find the "pro-choice" position untenable.

What business is it of yours what is in a woman's womb? Worry about your own wife, sister, mother.

[VinVega]

What business is it of yours what is in a woman's womb? Worry about your own wife, sister, mother.
printerati obviously believes it's murder, so I can understand the statement. I think you can do better than that CRM.

I don't think it's murder, so there we have our differences. I try to be a realist on this issue.

[tcoursen]

What business is it of yours what is in a woman's womb? Worry about your own wife, sister, mother.

Cool, I can kill my wife, sister and mother since it is nobody else's business.

[maxfisher]

"Women seeking abortions," as they are termed in the article, are well beyond the initial point of conception, since they're at a point where they know full well they are pregnant. IMO, there really is no question about what's in the womb at that point, which is why I find the "pro-choice" position untenable.

If we're still on topic, the legislation being discussed says a woman seeking an abortion must be told 'that human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm'. At that point, a woman wouldn't know full well that she's pregnant. An obvious reason that this differentiation matters would be future attacks on morning after pills. Any way you cut it, this is an attempt to put a religious stance/philosophy into law.

[printerati]

What business is it of yours what is in a woman's womb?

Well...if it is, in fact, a human life that the woman wants to terminate, then terminating that life is a form of murder, which our society happens to have laws against. It's "everyone's" business, in that case, not "mine."

Don't be obtuse. The "actual" result of terminating a pregnancy has always been the crux of the argument against abortion.

That said, I do have a problem with this bill since no evidence that life begins at conception was presented or applied. I happen to believe that it does begin at conception, but it's just that...a belief. What happens to abortion laws if it's ever scientifically, factually proven that life begins at conception?

[printerati]

If we're still on topic, the legislation being discussed says a woman seeking an abortion must be told 'that human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm'. At that point, a woman wouldn't know full well that she's pregnant.

Well, no, but I don't think that she would be going to the clinic seeking an abortion at that point, either. I doubt most, if any, women go seeking an abortion until they have an inkling that they're pregnant (missing a cycle, etc.).

Any way you cut it, this is an attempt to put a religious stance/philosophy into law.

I understand this sentiment, since it's typically "religious" people who insist that life begins at conception (or at the point God creates it, however you want to phrase it ;)). As I said in my reply to CRM, if it's ever scientifically proven that life does, in fact, begin at conception, it's no longer a religious issue/stance.

[maxfisher]

What happens to abortion laws if it's ever scientifically, factually proven that life begins at conception?

Well, considering it's estimated that 75% of first pregnancies (and 50% of all pregnancies) end with a miscarriage within the first 14 days, I suppose we'll have to outlaw natural conception and move to strictly regulated artificial insemination, so as to put a halt to the epidemic killing billions of people.

[CRM114]

Cool, I can kill my wife, sister and mother since it is nobody else's business.

Sure, if their only survival means living inside your body as a parasite. What is in your body is no concern of mine whatsoever.

[movielib]

You can argue it, but it would take a medical and biological anomoly for it to not be a fact. When the DNA combines, it creates a human. A very immature one, but no less one. Again, it's only the *value* that can be realistically argued.
Again, I totally disagree. I am completely and abolutely convinced to my own satisfaction that Bissell's argument of the fetus not being a human being (with human rights) until the time of "brain birth" is sound, scientifically and morally, and I have been convinced for almost a quarter century since I first read the article.

The difference between you and me is that I can understand the merits of your argument and why many people hold to it, even though I am in total disagreement with it; you cannot see the merits of my argument or understand why many people adhere to it (in that form or something resembling it).

You are dogmatically stating that your argument is indisputable scientific and medical fact; yet many scientists and medical doctors (I suspect a majority although I don't have the evidence to back that up) dispute it.

[Tommy Ceez]

Im pro-life, but am perfectly satisfied to wait for the point when medical science proves the life contention for one side or the other conclusivly

[movielib]

Im pro-life, but am perfectly satisfied to wait for the point when medical science proves the life contention for one side or the other conclusivly
I think you'll have a long wait (try forever). That is because both sides have reasonable arguments and science behind them and (1) some people are going to be convinced one way or the other based on rational examination of the arguments and science; and (2) some people are going to be convinced one way or the other based on what they desire as a result and use whichever arguments and science that supports that result. Either way, I don't think there will ever be "conclusive" evidence that convinces everyone or even an overwhelming majority in this matter.

[Vandelay_Inds]

I think you'll have a long wait (try forever). That is because both sides have reasonable arguments and science behind them and (1) some people are going to be convinced one way or the other based on rational examination of the arguments and science; and (2) some people are going to be convinced one way or the other based on what they desire as a result and use whichever arguments and science that supports that result. Either way, I don't think there will ever be "conclusive" evidence that convinces everyone or even an overwhelming majority in this matter.

If there is uncertainty, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting life? I mean, what if we find later on that we have in fact been committing genocide for all these years (as I suspect)?

[movielib]

If there is uncertainty, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting life? I mean, what if we find later on that we have in fact been committing genocide for all these years (as I suspect)?
Just how are you ever going to "find that out?" Do you honestly think there is any way to "prove" that a conceptus is a human being when vast numbers of people will never accept that a living thing without anything even close to a human brain is human (while those on the other side will never accept that a living thing with a full complement of human DNA is anything but human)? The science will never "prove" who is right because the two sides have different criteria. It will always come down ultimately to clashing philosophies that cannot be reconciled or "proven."

If you can even conceive of something that would be actual scientific "proof" either way I'll be very glad to listen.

And no, I do not think we should "err on your side." Assuming we could "prove" my side, then we would "find out" that outlawing abortions is an overwhelming violation of the rights of women. Of course, as I said, there is not now nor will there ever be "proof" when such different criteria are being held.

[Vandelay_Inds]

Just how are you ever going to "find that out?" Do you honestly think there is any way to "prove" that a conceptus is a human being when vast numbers of people will never accept that a living thing without anything even close to a human brain is human (while those on the other side will never accept that a living thing with a full compliment of human DNA is anything but human)? The science will never "prove" who is right because the two sides have different criteria. It will always come down ultimately to clashing philosophies that cannot be reconciled or "proven."

If you can even conceive of something that would be actual scientific "proof" either way I'll be very glad to listen.

And no, I do not think we should "err on your side." Assuming we could "prove" my side, then we would "find out" that outlawing abortions is an overwhelming violation of the rights of women. Of course, as I said, there is not now nor will there ever be "proof" when such different criteria are being held.

The burden of proof is not on me. Those who want to make legal the abortion of entities that may or may not be fully human and alive must prove beyond a scintilla of a doubt that the latter is in fact the case. The criteria for that of course must be medical, biological and scientific. The only input from religion that is needed is the lesson that life is sacred and should not be discarded as refuse.

[movielib]

The burden of proof is not on me. Those who want to make legal the abortion of entities that may or may not be fully human and alive must prove beyond a scintilla of a doubt that the latter is in fact the case. The criteria for that of course must be medical, biological and scientific.
Why is the default position yours? That is not clear to me at all. I also don't think the default position is mine. I do not think there is a default position in this case.

Besides, my side is proven to my satisfaction. Your side is proven to your satisfaction. Both our positions ultimately come down to differing assumptions and philosophy, not to pure science (and always will).

The only input from religion that is needed is the lesson that life is sacred and should not be discarded as refuse.
I too believe life is "sacred" (although I would not use that religious term; I'd say life is the fundamental human right). Bringing in "discarding as refuse" is clearly an emotional appeal, especially if one holds that a conceptus is not a human being.

[Vandelay_Inds]

Why is the default position yours?

Because I am not the one who wishes to engage in an activity that could potentially be understood as murder. Those who defend abortion are responsible for proving they are not killing another human being. And the criteria for doing so is not as nebulous as you make it out to be. You must simply show that at a given time, a fetus has not developed the organs necessary for cognition. If it can feel pain or respond to stimuli, it is alive.

[dave-o]

Because I am not the one who wishes to engage in an activity that could potentially be understood as murder. Those who defend abortion are responsible for proving they are not killing another human being. And the criteria for doing so is not as nebulous as you make it out to be. You must simply show that at a given time, a fetus has not developed the organs necessary for cognition. If it can feel pain or respond to stimuli, it is alive.

Wow, now that we have got that all wrapped up...anyone wanna take a stab at solving the gay marriage issue? ;)

[Dead]

Again, I totally disagree. I am completely and abolutely convinced to my own satisfaction that Bissell's argument of the fetus not being a human being (with human rights) until the time of "brain birth" is sound, scientifically and morally, and I have been convinced for almost a quarter century since I first read the article.

The difference between you and me is that I can understand the merits of your argument and why many people hold to it, even though I am in total disagreement with it; you cannot see the merits of my argument or understand why many people adhere to it (in that form or something resembling it).

You are dogmatically stating that your argument is indisputable scientific and medical fact; yet many scientists and medical doctors (I suspect a majority although I don't have the evidence to back that up) dispute it.

I'm not presenting an "argument", just a simple biological fact. :)

Take a closer look at what you yourself mention... "Bissell's argument of the fetus not being a human being (with human rights) until the time of "brain birth" is sound". The statement here doesn't match with what I said and is in fact immaterial to it. I didn't make any comment about whether or not this human should have any rights. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that it agrees with what I said about the point that should be argued... when does this human have *rights*. It seems that he avoids the use the term human with those prior to a certain point in the development process not because of any medical or biological reason, but for an ethical one. This is because he believes being human automatically assigns rights, but he also believes those early in the develpment process do not deserve rights.

Biologically, the concern of rights is neither here nor there. Rights aren't related to being a particular "animal", such as a human, nor do they have any inate tie to the designation of "alive".

[grundle]

I am against the government getting involved in this.

[movielib]

Because I am not the one who wishes to engage in an activity that could potentially be understood as murder. Those who defend abortion are responsible for proving they are not killing another human being. And the criteria for doing so is not as nebulous as you make it out to be. You must simply show that at a given time, a fetus has not developed the organs necessary for cognition. If it can feel pain or respond to stimuli, it is alive.
I am not for a second disputing that a conceptus is alive (although it is still awhile before it can feel pain or respond to stimuli). But as I said, I am convinced a fetus is not a human being until "brain birth." As far as I am concerned it is proven. I do understand that not everyone agrees with me. I think those who disagree have a respectable argument but I think they are wrong. On the other hand, you refuse to see that the other side has a respectable argument, even if you disagree. I don't see how we are going to make any more headway.

[movielib]

I'm not presenting an "argument", just a simple biological fact. :)

Take a closer look at what you yourself mention... "Bissell's argument of the fetus not being a human being (with human rights) until the time of "brain birth" is sound". The statement here doesn't match with what I said and is in fact immaterial to it. I didn't make any comment about whether or not this human should have any rights. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that it agrees with what I said about the point that should be argued... when does this human have *rights*. It seems that he doesn't want to use the term human not for any medical or biological reason, but for an ethical one. This is because he believes being human automatically assigns rights, but he also believes those early in the develpment process do not deserve rights.

Biologically, the concern of rights is neither here nor there. Rights aren't related to being a particular "animal", such as a human, nor do they have any inate tie to the designation of "alive".
And I disagree completely. I do not think the question is "when does a human being have rights?" I think all human beings have rights, period. Therefore, the key question is "when does a fetus become a human being?" As soon as that happens (whether at conception, viabilty, "brain birth," physical birth or whatever) it is a human being and it has rights. My answer is "brain birth."

And I think Bissell agrees with me.

If we have different criteria for the assignment of rights we obviously are not going to come to any agreement.

[Dead]

And I disagree completely. I do not think the question is "when does a human being have rights?" I think all human beings have rights, period. Therefore, the key question is "when does a fetus become a human being?" As soon as that happens (whether at conception, viabilty, "brain birth," physical birth or whatever) it is a human being and it has rights. My answer is "brain birth."

And I think Bissell agrees with me.

If we have different criteria for the assignment of rights we obviously are not going to come to any agreement.


Yes, Bissell agrees with you. As I just said though, he takes the position he does as an *ethical* step not as a *biological* one... and you appear to be doing the same. He's discussing human as a "rational being" and by similar characteristics instead of being a member of the species homo sapien, which is the most common definition of human.

My point has nothing to do with ethics though, but instead only with the biology involved. Biologically, it is both alive and human.

[movielib]

Yes, Bissell agrees with you. As I just said though, he takes the position he does as an *ethical* step not as a *biological* one... and you appear to be doing the same. He's discussing human as a "rational being" and by similar characteristics instead of being a member of the species homo sapien, which is the most common definition of human.

My point has nothing to do with ethics though, but instead only with the biology involved. Biologically, it is both alive and human.
Again, I disagree. It is alive but it is not a human being until brain birth. Biologically. I think Bissell agrees with that.

Having human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for being a human being. A pre-brain birth fetus or a post-brain dead person is alive but is not a human being. Biologically.

Now I know you will pounce on that and say does that mean we automatically can dispose of anyone who is brain dead? No, because that former human being had the right to designate how they would be treated in such a case and we honor that just as we honor anything in a person's will (made when the person was a human being). We also can honor a relative's wishes in case the brain dead person did not leave instructions. But a pre-brain birth fetus is not and never has been a human being and thus does not have the right to leave such instructions to be honored, nor is it capable of doing so.

[Thor Simpson]

People here do realize that Christians aren't the only people on the planet against abortions. Right?

[movielib]

People here do realize that Christians aren't the only people on the planet against abortions. Right?
Absolutely. I even know libertarian atheists who are anti-abortion. Well, I know of them, anyway.

[tdirgins]

This argument will be going on until the end of time. Before Dennis Miller became a shill for right wingers ;), his rant on abortion hit the mark perfectly IMHO:

Dennis Miller on Abortion
Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, because basically tonight's topic is a minefield - Abortion. I couldn't be anymore on tiptoes if the show was being produced by George Balanchine. This is the Big Debate, and I'm talking bigger than who was the better Darren on Bewitched. Abortion is our nation's "Final Jeopardy," and I'll wager, Alex, that if our nation fights another Civil War, it will be about this. And I would remind you that this all from my perspective, the male perspective, a one-step-removed perspective, because I will obviously never have to decide on whether or not I should have an abortion. And by the way, my belief is that if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortions would be easier to get than food poisoning in Moscow. Having men decide the fate of a woman's reproductive system makes about as much sense as asking Quentin Crisp to coach the Raiders.

All right, enough qualifying, let's get on with it. There's no doubt that passions run high on both sides, and this issue has created a divide in this country not seen since Carly Simon last yawned in public. The prevailing opinions on a woman's freedom to choose are going further to the right than a Greg Norman tee shot.

Pro-life activists attempt to paint anyone pro-choice as having no morals. On the other side of the ledger, pro-choicers are tagging pro-lifers as crazed and backward bible-thumpers bent on running the lives of the people who disagree with them. The truth, as always, is, the case of human endeavors lies somewhere in between. As much as the advance scouts on either side of this issue might not want to admit it, good people do get abortions and other good people are pained by their decision to get one.

Where do I stand? Well, I'm like most of you, I presume, I think there are far too many abortions performed in this country. And I also believe that at the end of the day, as much as I might disapprove, none of them are really any of my business. Look, there are always going to be arguments on this issue. The debate will rage until the end of time no matter what the whim of the Papal infallibility or the politics of the decade. But the simple truth is, that such a passionate and personal decision dictates that the choice be left to the individual. And you know, that's really all we can do, because we're just human beings, stumbling around in the dark, trying to get to the bathroom and kicking the shit out of our shins on the way there.

Now there's some things all right-minded human beings should agree on. We should all agree that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, incest and when the mother's life is at risk -- that's just common sense. But excluding that obvious assumption, everything else in the abortion arena is "in play." There are many quagmires complicating this issue. Religion. Now it seems that religion is most often the backboard for every bank shot put up by someone making it their business to get into your business. Roman Catholic doctrine forbids abortion. Fine. Take that into consideration when you make your decision. Right-to-life proponents contend that abortion is immoral. Fine. Take that into consideration when you make your decision. Another pothole on the road to a sensible resolution to abortion is "when does life begin?" At conception? When a heartbeat is detected? At the first drawn breath? You know, for me it wasn't until last Tuesday. Until then I was just a sperm with an accountant! Okay, so those are the variables, and there are obviously millions more variables that make each individual case unique. But the more you think about it, and the more it makes your head spin, and the more confused you get trying to figure out someone else's life for them, it becomes increasingly apparent that it has to be the call of the individual who is pregnant, because the collective, one way or another, won't have to suffer the consequences of that most personal of all decisions.

My fellow Americans, it is time to suck it up. Look deep into your immortal soul (if you believe you have one) and do the right thing. Have the courage and strength to live your own life, by your own standards, and stop trying to call the shots for everyone else. We all live with glaring inconsistencies, and sometimes, when you see something going on right in front of you that offends you to the very core of your being, sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away, because you know that's exactly what you would want them to do for you. There's only one judge on all this and that's God. And you don't get to meet him until you go backstage after the play is over. And believe me, you do not want to get a "thumbs down" from the guy who created thumbs, all right? In the interim, everybody has got to tend their own garden vis-a-vis abortion. And remember, when it comes to your body, only you wear the robes, and only you carry the gavel.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Suprmallet]

We're drawing nitpicky lines here. At conception, the zygote merely possesses the potential to become a member of the species. It could also become multiple members of the species, could turn into a clump of deformed tissue or simply be flushed from the body as-is. I know that the response to this would be 'in ideal situations, with ideal development, it'll become a person.' You could say the same thing about sperm though, assuming this ideal situation would involve joining it with an egg, and can imagine how silly it'd be for a Dr. to start advising pubescent boys 'Now if you masturbate, you're removing something from your body that's both human and alive...'

That's not quite comparable, because sperm contains only half of the human genome, while a fetus contains the entire human genome.

That's a moot point, though, because abortion is legal and I am willing to bet this law will not make it very far before being vetoed or overturned.

[maxfisher]

That's not quite comparable, because sperm contains only half of the human genome, while a fetus contains the entire human genome.

Fair enough, I went a bit overboard to illustrate a point. Still, every zygote contains the entire human genome and half of them are flushed from the body within 2 weeks of forming. If people want to claim life begins at conception because of a religious view, they have to acknowledge that the god they believe in has allowed over half of the world's all-time population to naturally die before seeing the outside of a womb. If people make the conception claim for non-religious reasons, I don't understand why they claim 'life' to be such a sacred thing at that point, given how much of it is automatically lost through natural processes.

[mikehunt]

I'd still like to see a bill that minors seeking abortions have to get parental consent(unless suspiscion of incest etc) just like they have to get for even the most minor medical procedures(like vaccination).

I agree



WRT the first sentence.
I also agree that life begins at conception, those cells are obviously alive, but unlike most that use that phrase I don't necessarily consider it a person at conception

[Dead]

...
That's a moot point, though, because abortion is legal and I am willing to bet this law will not make it very far before being vetoed or overturned.

Even if the law stands, it really is a meaningless act in the long run. When a woman goes to have an abortion, she knows exactly what she's doing. IMO, having her sign a paper saying that someone told her what she already knows isn't going to change her decision. It might change ever so slightly how she justifies her actions, but she'll justify it none the less.

[kms_md]

Fair enough, I went a bit overboard to illustrate a point. Still, every zygote contains the entire human genome and half of them are flushed from the body within 2 weeks of forming. If people want to claim life begins at conception because of a religious view, they have to acknowledge that the god they believe in has allowed over half of the world's all-time population to naturally die before seeing the outside of a womb. If people make the conception claim for non-religious reasons, I don't understand why they claim 'life' to be such a sacred thing at that point, given how much of it is automatically lost through natural processes.

actually, iirc, 1/3 to 1/5 of conceptions end in spontaeous miscarriage. the number classically used was about 1/5, however, when checking people that are chemically pregnant (ie, hCG -- the "pregnancy hormone" is detectable for a period of time) the number actually increases to 1/3.

once implantation occurs and fetal heart motion is visualized (at around 6 weeks from the start of the previous menses), about 90% of these pregnancies survive to viability. typically, voluntary terminations are only performed when an intrauterine pregnancy is identified. left alone, approximately 90% of these pregnancies would last until viability.

[Dead]

... A pre-brain birth fetus or a post-brain dead person is alive but is not a human being. Biologically. ...

This is where you are making your mistake. They are both human beings *biologically*... not mature or no longer functioning at a particular level, but both are indeed biologically homo sapiens, that is, human.

You're putting a maturity or functionality level as the determinant, which might be reasonable from an ethical or social standpoint, but it make no sense biologically. It's not changing species as it matures or dies.

[Suprmallet]

But if we're talking biology, then it doesn't matter if we kill them or not, because the idea of whether or not it is right to kill a fetus or a brain-dead person is ethical. Biologically, whether or not you kill them is irrelevant. Making a woman sign that paper is an attempt to get her to acknowledge a certain ethical view, not a biological statement, and you know it.

[movielib]

This is where you are making your mistake. They are both human beings *biologically*... not mature or no longer functioning at a particular level, but both are indeed biologically homo sapiens, that is, human.

You're putting a maturity or functionality level as the determinant, which might be reasonable from an ethical or social standpoint, but it make no sense biologically. It's not changing species as it matures or dies.
We're obviously splitting hairs here. I concede that these entities are possessors of human genes but I must insist that any entity without a human brain is not a human being and that includes biologically. You are arguing that any entity with human genes is a human being, even if that entity has yet to develop a human brain or that brain has ceased to function.

I'm not saying it's changing species, I'm saying it is merely an entity with human genes at these stages; it is not really a member of any species as membership in the human species requires that brain. It's a potential member or a former member.

If you want to insist that those entities are human beings, OK (although I don't agree). It's definitional and not subject to proof. If the conceptus is a human being (your definition) than I will say a human being has rights only between brain birth and brain death. It doesn't change the fundamental argument except that I will now add this qualification. As you conceded, that functionality might make sense ethically. And abortion is fundamentally a moral/ethical question.

EDIT: I guess another way I could put it is that a conceptus, while biologically human (in deference to your definition), is not biologically a person, and rights belong only to persons (a human would qualify, biologically, as a person between the points of brain birth and brain death). After all, if there are intelligent beings on other planets, I believe those beings have the same rights as any human being, although they would clearly not be human beings. But such an alien is a person (between the points of its brain birth and brain death). So "personhood" is the necessary criterion for rights.

In fact, that is probably the best way for me to put it. Ignore everything else I've said. ;)

[sjrab16]

Why don't they just require that women seeking abortions be told "Jesus says abortion is wrong!"? -ohbfrank-

Maybe because Jesus never said abortion was wrong. Neither did Paul when writing to the Romans...even though Abortion was going on back then.

[Numanoid]

Still, every zygote contains the entire human genome and half of them are flushed from the body within 2 weeks of forming. If people want to claim life begins at conception because of a religious view, they have to acknowledge that the god they believe in has allowed over half of the world's all-time population to naturally die before seeing the outside of a womb. If people make the conception claim for non-religious reasons, I don't understand why they claim 'life' to be such a sacred thing at that point, given how much of it is automatically lost through natural processes.A very succinct encapsulation of something I've stated here time and again. :up: I've never once received a valid rebuttal.

[maxfisher]

actually, iirc, 1/3 to 1/5 of conceptions end in spontaeous miscarriage. the number classically used was about 1/5, however, when checking people that are chemically pregnant (ie, hCG -- the "pregnancy hormone" is detectable for a period of time) the number actually increases to 1/3.

once implantation occurs and fetal heart motion is visualized (at around 6 weeks from the start of the previous menses), about 90% of these pregnancies survive to viability. typically, voluntary terminations are only performed when an intrauterine pregnancy is identified. left alone, approximately 90% of these pregnancies would last until viability.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but I honestly would be curious to see where they're coming from.

According to a support site for miscarriages, 93% of first pregnancies end in miscarriage:
http://www.pregnancyloss.info/statistics.htm

According to this Christian site, which I'm assuming is going to err on the low side, 20% of known pregnancies end in reported miscarriages, with the actual number being between 40% and 50%, due to women who don't know that they're pregnant miscarrying:
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm

www.webmd.com also states that studies show that approximately 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/54/61521.htm

The BBC estimates that up to 60% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/miscarriage1.shtml#how_many_women_are_affected?

From what I can tell, the numbers you sited were accepted until the late 90s, when more in-depth studies revealed that there were a lot of women miscarrying without ever knowing they were pregnant.

[Tommy Ceez]

If people want to claim life begins at conception because of a religious view, they have to acknowledge that the god they believe in has allowed over half of the world's all-time population to naturally die before seeing the outside of a womb. If people make the conception claim for non-religious reasons, I don't understand why they claim 'life' to be such a sacred thing at that point, given how much of it is automatically lost through natural processes.
For the same reason I believe that stabbing a 99 year old with cancer is murder

[kms_md]

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but I honestly would be curious to see where they're coming from.

According to a support site for miscarriages, 93% of first pregnancies end in miscarriage:
http://www.pregnancyloss.info/statistics.htm

According to this Christian site, which I'm assuming is going to err on the low side, 20% of known pregnancies end in reported miscarriages, with the actual number being between 40% and 50%, due to women who don't know that they're pregnant miscarrying:
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm

www.webmd.com also states that studies show that approximately 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/54/61521.htm

The BBC estimates that up to 60% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/miscarriage1.shtml#how_many_women_are_affected?

From what I can tell, the numbers you sited were accepted until the late 90s, when more in-depth studies revealed that there were a lot of women miscarrying without ever knowing they were pregnant.

thanks for the questions. i will try to address them individually. first, both the american college of ob/gyn and the american society of reproductive medicine (link to ASRM fact sheet (http://www.asrm.org/Patients/FactSheets/recurrent_preg_loss.pdf)) both state that the rate of clinically identified pregnancy loss in the first trimester is approximately 20-25%. when i deal with patients in these situations, i typically use "between 1 in 5 and 1 in 3". these are pretty basic numbers that most people can wrap their brains around in a pretty stressful period. in my post, i was, as well, referring to clinically identified pregnancies (ie missed period, positive pregnancy test, etc...).

first, in regards to the pregnancy loss website statistics page -- here is the information i believe you were looking at:

75% (this includes eggs that never grow past fertilization, and it would have been impossible to know you were pregnant; after implantation, which occurs 7-10 days after ovulation, the odds go down to 31%)

this basically agrees with my assertion that ~1/3 of "chemical pregnancies" end in miscarriage. if you total the percentages to be 93%, then this is an inappropriate use of the statistics as these numbers are NOT additive.

second, the about life challenges site states (emphasis is my own):

Miscarriage statistics can be dramatic. Miscarriage reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However, according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent. Of the number of women who miscarry, 20 percent will suffer recurring miscarriages.

they initially state the 20% figure, however, then state that according to "some sources" this may be an inaccurate number. i would have to review their sources prior to making any comment on their additional figures.

third, the webmd page states:

Of pregnancies that the mother knows about (because she has missed her period or her pregnancy has been confirmed by a healthcare provider, or both), approximately 10%-20% end in miscarriage, making miscarriage a very common occurrence. In most cases, miscarriage may be considered a natural-selection process because it is the ending of a pregnancy that would not have developed into a healthy baby. Only placental tissue, not a fetus, had formed.

which, again, bears out what i said before.

finally, the bbc site says the following (again the emphasis is mine):

Miscarriage is common - one in four women who become pregnant will experience at least one miscarriage and some lose many babies (about one in 100 women suffer recurrent miscarriage).

Putting the statistics a different way, one in six of all recognised pregnancies end in stillbirth, and many more pregnancies are lost at such an early stage that the mother doesn't even realise she's pregnant. In fact, one estimate suggests that 60 per cent of all conceptions, or potential pregnancies, are lost. Miscarriage is more common in older women, especially those over 35.

which, again, agrees with what was posted earlier. the 60% of "conceptions" most likely refers to wash out studies (where a woman's uterus was flushed with fluid and the contents reviewed with a microscope -- this would show blastocysts which had failed to implant). this does not refer to clinically apparent pregnancies, because for a pregnancy to become clinically apparent, it requires implantation, which triggers the release of BhCG, which in turn makes one's pregnancy test positive.

if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

kms

[AGuyNamedMike]

Shit, I don't consider most people to be human until their mid-twenties, and even then some will never earn that designation. I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life, I don't think it's something the feds should be involved with (nor should taxes go to either side in any way). If anything, I'm pro-eugenics. It's time to start mass sterilizations. Now. Before it's too late.


Crap. I just had a look at another MySpace page. It's already too late.

[maxfisher]

thanks for the questions. i will try to address them individually. first, both the american college of ob/gyn and the american society of reproductive medicine (link to ASRM fact sheet) both state that the rate of clinically identified pregnancy loss in the first trimester is approximately 20-25%

I'm going to do my best to respond to all of your post, but I didn't have a chance to check email today and it's now quite late, so forgive me if I miss anything.

In the link you provide here, it's talking about recognized pregnancies. As stated before, the statistics I was looking at estimated that 75% of first pregnancies and 50% of all pregnancies ended within 2 weeks of conception. I don't think I'm incorrect in assuming that the vast majority of these would not have been recognized prior to their occurrence and would not be included in the 25% figure.

this basically agrees with my assertion that ~1/3 of "chemical pregnancies" end in miscarriage. if you total the percentages to be 93%, then this is an inappropriate use of the statistics as these numbers are NOT additive.

Actually, I think we're both correct, but talking about different things. I do believe that the number I sited is taken from statistics that are additive. According to the information on that page, it includes conceptions that do not result in 'chemical pregnancies'. That is, it includes instances where conception (defined as sperm joining an egg) occurs, but no pregnancy results, because it is flushed from the body without ever implanting itself within the uterus. If we're debating whether life begins at conception, I think it's a relevant number.

the 60% of "conceptions" most likely refers to wash out studies (where a woman's uterus was flushed with fluid and the contents reviewed with a microscope -- this would show blastocysts which had failed to implant). this does not refer to clinically apparent pregnancies, because for a pregnancy to become clinically apparent, it requires implantation, which triggers the release of BhCG, which in turn makes one's pregnancy test positive.

Again, I think we're agreeing somewhat on the numbers, but defining them in different ways. If we're looking solely at conception, instances where it occurs, but fails to result in pregnancy, should be included.

If you have numbers that contradict these, I'd be interested in seeing them. From what I've found, a huge percentage of 'conceptions' don't even result in pregnancy. Of those that do, a significantly large percentage are naturally discarded. Both of these figures overwhelmingly imply to me that conception is a poor standard to gauge when life begins. Disclaimer-because-I-know-it'll-be-brought-up-if-I-don't: I'm talking about where life begins from a moral standpoint, not a biological one.

For the same reason I believe that stabbing a 99 year old with cancer is murder

So if a 99 year-old with cancer is brain-dead and on life support, do you believe that disconnecting that life support is murder? If not, you're not addressing the point.

[Mark_vdH]

So I was just reading the Bible and found the following (Exodus):

Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.

Now, doesn't this implicitly prove that the Bible does not see "life before birth" as true life? I mean, if it were, it wouldn't be necessary to sanction the killing of a fetus with a seperate punishment (oh my, a fine!), because the normal sanctions ('life for life') would apply.

[Venusian]

So I was just reading the Bible and found the following (Exodus):



Now, doesn't this implicitly prove that the Bible does not see "life before birth" as true life? I mean, if it were, it wouldn't be necessary to sanction the killing of a fetus with a seperate punishment (oh my, a fine!), because the normal sanctions ('life for life') would apply.
I read it the same way until i read it in other translations (i havent gone back to the seputant (sp?) yet). Other translatiosn interpret "seriously injured" as causing a miscarriage

[Numanoid]

I read it the same way until i read it in other translations (i havent gone back to the seputant (sp?) yet). Other translatiosn interpret "seriously injured" as causing a miscarriageHow about the KJV?021:022 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. That pretty much clinches what I've always believed (and I hadn't remembered this verse). Of course, the fundies will be forced to come up with a new translation to correct this "error". :lol:

[Venusian]

haven't verified this, but a quick google found:

The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth.
bullet It is very important to note the same writer used the normal word Hebrew word for miscarriage "shakal" just two chapters later in Exodus 23:26. This clearly indicates the writer had something besides miscarriage in mind for the Exodus 21:22-25 passage.

[Mark_vdH]

haven't verified this, but a quick google found:

The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth.
bullet It is very important to note the same writer used the normal word Hebrew word for miscarriage "shakal" just two chapters later in Exodus 23:26. This clearly indicates the writer had something besides miscarriage in mind for the Exodus 21:22-25 passage.Common sense logic tells me that it is far more reasonable to assume the writer wouldn't call it a miscarriage because it was 'wellcarried' by the mother but 'came out' dead because of violence by someone else.

Wouldn't it also make sense by the 'google logic' that the 'proper' word for miscarriage would then be used in the second part of the verse? Now the argument seems to be something like 'the first part can't be about miscarriages through violence because it doesn't use the proper hebrew word for a miscarriage, so the second part must be about miscarriages through violence even though that part doesn't use the proper word either'.

Would you agree that if the 'regular' version of the verse is correctly translated as it is, it clearly indicates God makes a distinction between 'life before birth' and 'life after birth'?

[Venusian]

yes, if the correct translation is "miscarriage" then it would indicate abortion is not murder.

[kms_md]

If you have numbers that contradict these, I'd be interested in seeing them. From what I've found, a huge percentage of 'conceptions' don't even result in pregnancy. Of those that do, a significantly large percentage are naturally discarded. Both of these figures overwhelmingly imply to me that conception is a poor standard to gauge when life begins. Disclaimer-because-I-know-it'll-be-brought-up-if-I-don't: I'm talking about where life begins from a moral standpoint, not a biological one.

i agree that you and i are coming at this from different angles. i just did a pretty extensive pubmed/webmd search, and i could not find any recent data concerning failure of a spontaneously conceived blastocyst to implant. most current data discusses failure of implantation during IVF cycles. i know that i have read the wash out study data (maybe it was in Speroff's text, i cannot recall). when looking at that data, you have to look at the patient population involved and whether or not they were at risk for miscarriage (age, pre-existing condtions, etc...).

my point has been that in clinically recognized pregnancies (ie those that have implanted and are making BhCG), one third to one fifth will spontaneously miscarry or fail to make viability.

where "clinically recognized pregnancies" falls in the debate of when life begins i am not able to say.