Marc, a couple of things:

1. I'm pro-choice, but I have come to understand and respect the pro-life argument a lot more since trying to honestly look at this question: "shouldn't it be of utmost concern to us to consider when life begins as a part of the abortion debate?" So yes, I think that you are right. The thing is, even if you come to a decision that the child in the womb is a life, it still doesn't finish the argument. I'm aware of how this sounds, but it is possible to come to the conclusion that one is snuffing a life, yet making a decision that overall causes less destruction than the alternative. (keeping the baby) that point alone merits a whole long discussion.

2. Even though I feel this way, I certainly think that the best course of action is to achive a goal of avoiding abortion at all costs. I really hate to say this, but regarding this statment you made: "I think it's fair to say that no one really likes abortion: no one is proud of their abortion, no one is rooting for their child to grow up to be an abortionist or to have an abortion." ...

After watching many of the people that I saw today, I think that you are wrong. I think that there are sick people that have fetishized this issue into something ... glamorous and family friendly, like getting pap smear or a mammogram ... or giving birth itself. just another choice.

I think that besides the hateful invective that I witnessed, this was the most disturbing thing that I watched all day. It's going to take some time to digest and write about ...

When I worked as a nurse, I used to think that a fetus wasn't a child until it gulped it's first breath of air. That's what we were told and that is what we were told to tell our mothers because things happen in pregnancy. Yes, we listened to heartbeats. Yes we saw ultrasounds.

Then, I became pregnant--twice. Life moved within my body. Kicked my ribs, made me puke, made me giggle. One child I lost through a miscarriage. I named her Nikki.

I chose to have each of these children. My son, is 23.

I now believe that life begins at the moment of conception. Yet, I don't have a problem with the paradox of being pro-choice.

As I said in answer to "that person" on the other post: The societial reality of young mothers and fathers that cannot support their children, mothers that are drug addicts, rape, diseased children, mothers with illnesses, etc. make rape an alternative. I wish it were not so, but it is so.

Until our society can support every woman, man, and child and provide for their education, healthcare, and life, sometimes there is no other option.

The universe has given women/the female of each species the ability, power, and responsibility to birth life. I am of the opinion that a woman must decide, regardless of what we, at this time in history categorize as 'human being', or not. Until that fetus is born, that mother has the responsibility for it's care--she has to decide, nature says so.

I am also Buddhist, so that allows me to believe that although I cannot know the order of the universe, all does happen in perfect order. Choices need to happen and sometimes a woman's choice is for the betterment of her own life versus the detriment of a child's. For a woman to subject herself and a child to poverty and drug addiction is a travesty.

What kind of life would that be?

It is a very hard question--this, and those you have asked.

I am pro-choice. I am also tyring to get pregnant and could never myself have an abortion...however, I still believe it is a woman's right to choose what happens to her life, her body and the life of her unborn child. I think Marge Piercy says it best in her poem, "Right to Life."

Right To Life - by Marge Piercy

A woman is not a pear tree
thrusting her fruit in mindless fecundity
into the world. Even pear trees bear
heavily in one year and rest and grow the next.
An orchid gone wild drops few warm rotting
fruit in the grass but the trees stretch
high and wiry gifting the birds forty
feet up among inch long thorns
broken atavistically from the smooth wood.

A woman is not a basket you place
your buns in to keep them warm. Not a brood
hen you can slip duck eggs under.
Not the purse holding the coins of your
descendants till you spend them in wars.
Not a bank where your genes gather interest
and interesting mutations in the tainted
rain, any more than you are.

You plant corn and you harvest
it to eat or sell. You put the lamb
in the pasture to fatten and haul it in to
butcher for chops. You slice the mountain
in two for a road and gouge the high plains
for coal and the waters run muddy for
miles and years. Fish die but you do not
call them yours unless you wished to eat them.

Now you legislate mineral rights in a woman.
You lay claim to her pastures for grazing,
fields for growing babies like iceberg
lettuce. You value children so dearly
that none ever go hungry, none weep
with no one to tend them when mothers
work, none lack fresh fruit,
none chew lead or cough to death and your
orphanages are empty. Every noon the best
restaurants serve poor children steaks.
At this moment at nine o'clock a partera
is performing a table top abortion on an
unwed mother in Texas who can't get
Medicaid any longer. In five days she will die
of tetanus and her little daughter will cry
and be taken away. Next door a husband
and wife are sticking pins in the son
they did not want. They will explain
for hours how wicked he is,
how he wants discipline.

We are all born of woman, in the rose
of the womb we suckled our mother's blood
and every baby born has a right to love
like a seedling to sun. Every baby born
unloved, unwanted, is a bill that will come
due in twenty years with interest, an anger
that must find a target, a pain that will
beget pain. A decade downstream a child
screams, a woman falls, a synagogue is torched,
a firing squad is summoned, a button
is pushed and the world burns.

I will choose what enters me, what becomes
of my flesh. Without choice, no politics,
no ethics lives. I am not your cornfield,
not your uranium mine, not your calf
for fattening, not your cow for milking.
You may not use me as your factory.
Priests and legislators do not hold shares
in my womb or my mind.
This is my body. If I give it to you
I want it back. My life
is a non-negotiable demand.

The taking of human life is NOT consistent with Buddhism. HH Dalia Lama has written that abortion
is never a viable option unless it is for certain that human existence will create a greater suffering for a medically hopeless newborn individual. A rare choice.

In the other post on this subject I said that individual human existence begins at conception.
That is scientifically provable and has nothing whatsoever to do with soul or ensoulment. These
ideas were researched from the writings of the Dalai Lama. Abortion or better said anti-abortion is not specifically a view limited to christians. In my view, abortion is a serious human disvalue that needs to be recognized under law. To date, US law recognizes permission to snuff human life. There is something wrong with this status quo and I find serious lack of leadership with politicians that cater to the view that that is the only position which the current law needs to address.

Good Evening,
I enjoyed your blogging of the abortion rights demo today. Abortion is the United States toughest question because both sides are correct and can never see the other side. Abortion is wrong and is murder. Here is a question that that is almost impossible for a pro-choice person to easily answer: why isn't it legal to abort a child before the age of 18? What is the magical difference between 2 days before the due date and 2 days after birth? How about someone born premature?
On the other side: why should a bad decision affect someone's life forever? Lets face it, for most single women who get pregant before finishing college: life will be very difficult. Is it fair for both the mother and child? I tend to dismiss those who argue against parential notfication laws as being alarmist but a 16 year old with a child has a bleak life unless her parents are truely exceptional.
I wish there was a simple solution to the dilemma. What I do hate are the various politicians who use the issue for cheap political purposes. Kerry was a supporter today but tomarrow will say something to the effect that he wants abortion to be a personal issue. How can he argue that we need cars to reach 35 MPG when he believes in choice? Which is more important?
Here is what I wish Pro-life politicans would do: stand up and take charge. Provide an infrastructure so that when someone decides not to abort their baby, he or she can grow up in a good family. For those who claim to be pro-choice: please remember that having the baby is also one of the choices and should be the preferred one. If this issue can ever be solved in a moral manner both sides must come to an understanding: the United States has an pro-active interest in the unborn.

Very well put Marc.
I have tried on many occassion to put my very similar, possibly exact, thoughts on this issue into writing, but have yet to be able to do so with such concise virtue. Your restraint I think is something that many on the pro-life (What a silly idea. Shouldnt all living be in favor of the gift of life?) could learn from. If more were able to take your lead perhaps the debate would be less convaluted, more discernable, and more on point with the actual issues instead the hodge podge of emotional and visceral responses of ignorance and hate. I guess it can all be summed up in that little phrase,"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." But, for me, and I believe for many others, it is very hard to have such restraint or attempt to have understanding for those with such disregard (In the eyes of many on the Pro-Life side) for such a great endowment from above.
Great final conversation piece for your visit here in Dean's World. I will be looking forward to more reading in your world now that your time here is done.
Cheers!
jim

Katherine, I have a great deal of respect for you and your position. I also used to believe that an unwanted pregnancy was a complete and total disaster, but watching some very strong women go through it has completely changed my tune. Women can and do adopt out their children when they know their life is not conducive to raising a child. Six months of feeling lousy (I don't count the first three unless there's bad morning sickness ;-) isn't that long when you're talking about someone else's whole life.

It is true that some women have little to no support. Our society fails them miserably, from their friends and family to their employers. There is support out there, though not always easy to find. Abortion is an quicker way out of a bad situation. You said yourself that life begins at the moment of conception- so that makes abortion justifiable homicide, I guess.

I'm not against abortion to preserve the life of the mother- that would be murder in self-defense, I guess. Self-defense against suicide and domestic violence, included (since being pregnant quadruples the rate of domestic violence). What really grates me is the fact that one of the richest and most religious nations on the face of the earth can't do better by its most vulnerable citizens. I'm not blaming the government, and I don't have any answers. It's just maddening.

Between this and the other thread, I'm all worn out and I'm going to bed. Thanks, everyone, for keeping it relatively civil.

Catch 22:
Interesting argument. I can't agree with your premise, however based on the words "unless..."
Paradox exists, yes? You cannot say something does not support a thing if it presents a clause for which it would support that thing taking place.

Within the human condition, a condition of unnatural order, there will always be suffering and the imperfectness of perfection--thus some seemingly imperfect solutions to those conditions.

I would not presume to interpret HH's words or apply moral uprightness to them. To do so in such an intolerant way is sad. To state my opinion as a Buddhist is one thing, but to use HH's words to support my point is one leap I just wouldn't make. If you reread what I wrote, you will see that I was making my statement if reference to order and acceptance, not abortion.

I didn't know HH had an opinion on abortion. Do you have the reference?

On the other side: why should a bad decision affect someone's life forever? Lets face it, for most single women who get pregant before finishing college: life will be very difficult.
Yes in some cases, no in many others.
And lets just remind ourselves that their is a remedy that does not cause one of the parties involved to be dead at its end. That is adoption. Current stats show that upwards of 250,000 families are awaiting children. And each year more and more adoption is done from around the world into the US. So of the 38 million legal abortions done since the Roe v. Wade decision how many could have found homes with a families wanting for a child of their own?
Funny (Moreso tragic than funny I guess), how a situation where the presence of a God is so evident, birth/new life, could cause one to question his existence or temperment by not allowing those who desire the child the chances to have their own.
Sorry for going theological in this discussion, I believe it is the lack of sleep.

This is an issue that I very seriously doubt will be answered in our lifetimes.

I am pro-choice, but I have always believed this should be the LAST resort in cases of unwanted pregnancies/non-use of birth control.

Adoption would be the ideal end if the mother is unable and/or unready to care for the child herself. That doesn't happen as often as it could or should, and we end up with a vicious cycle of unprepared families and mothers trying to raise a child.

I won't even get into the state of child protective agencies in the US.

As far as when life begins, I tend to look at this on a neurological level. The nervous system and complex brain functions take longer to develop; no one can know when consciousness TRULY begins. We can approximate it at best. Thus, if an abortion is to be performed, then do it early- before those neural pathways develop.

One last note about the value of life. (And please keep in mind I am NOT talking about anyone here, or in a previous thread. Just my own thoughts.)

Many of the most rabid anti-abortion people seem to have NO problem whatsoever killing doctors, workers, etc who are involved with abortion clinics. The hypocrisy in that stymies the mind. Many Christians (to use an example) who claim to be pro-life can turn around and advocate violence against others. And then don't bat an eye.

I'm pro-choice, but I am also pro-responsibility. From the mother to the father to the parents, family, and society. Everyone needs to step up to the plate, and not just on this.

Thanks for reading.

Marc, that might be the fundamental question, but let's get realistic here: The answer will never, ever be agreed upon, so the point is rather moot. When does life begin? When the baby comes out of the womb? When the baby grows limbs? When the egg is fertilized? When the sperm/egg is created? When the parents meet? When the parents are born?

Anyway, you get the picture. Even if every scientist in the world suddenly agreed that life begins at X stage in the cycle, that won't change a thing.

The questions are definitely interrelated. Until the question of "when life begins" is resolved, the question of "undue government regulation" is unresolvable. "Abortion is not a government job" assumes an answer to the first question.

When does life begin? I can think of many answers to that question. But, if we're going to involve governmental regulation, then we need to answer the question in a relatively empirical way, not relying on emotion, religion, or superstion.

I would suggest that we apply the same criteria to the beginning of life as to the end of life. Currently, that seems to be the presence of higher brain functions. Once upon a time it was the presence of a heart beat. What will it be in the future? Who knows.

Science can tell us about when higher brain activity generally begins in a fetus. Be conservative. Draw the line a month before that.

Will this please those who believe that life begins at conception? No. But we're not talking about personal belief systems here, we're talking about making laws that impact the entire society.

I'm a man. I'll never have to face the choice of having an abortion. But I've sat with women I loved who needed to grapple with that choice. I have a wonderful daughter because one of them chose not to abort. Another, very important woman to me chose to have the abortion -- and she's been fine with that decision.

But again, it doesn't boil down to personal preferences, it should boil down to principle, to what we empirically know. Before "life begins," government intrusion is unwarranted. After life begins, government needs to balance the life of the child with the life of the mother (should a mother be forced to risk her life to carry a child to term?) when necessary, acting to protect the life of the child whenever possible.

Elderbear
Fighting creeping fascism one HTML tag at a time.

When you have significant reason to suspect that an action will kill someone, then taking that action except in certain cases such as war and self-defense and the execution of capital criminals is clearly wrong.

So, we may doubt when life begins, but unless we are strongly sure that it does not begin at conception which seems the most clear-cut point, then we are risking what we have no right to risk.

And before you support viability, consider that the person injured in a car wreck may not be viable, right then, but his current life while not viable is valuable.

We already legislate what women can and cannot do with their bodies. They are not allowed to wander naked in the streets, and the same stricture applies to men.

The fact that a woman made a mistake, and now regrets it, well no doubt many in prison can say the same thing. Should we not commute their sentences first since that involves no direct harm to what is possibly human life?

The fact that our society should do better with adoption, and other procedures for taking care of children is true, but is the fact that another person or group is not living up to a 100% of their responsibilities justification for totally shucking your responsibilities?

In Roman days, the child born was brought before the husband, who either accepted it, or sent it out to be placed on a hilltop for the wolves. If you ever wondered if the Romans were a bunch of swell people what with their tendency to crucify in job lots, then the wail of an abandoned child on a hill should end the wondering.

We've progressed beyond the Romans. Now its not the father who has the right to declare someone human, but the mother. What marvelous progress! How enlightened!

And its nice to know that fear of being poor with a child is sufficient reason to kill. And hey, why kill an innocent, when there are real jerks out there? I mean, I'm poor, relatively speaking, have children; why can't I be a contract killer, and make lots of dough?

"I will choose what enters me, what becomes
of my flesh...."
The problem of course is that abortion occurs when the woman does NOT do this, and regrets it later.
This is just what Dean pointed out before. A desire to remain ignorant of the main issue (is a fetus a person?) and an attempt to pass this off as an argument.

I blogged about child-killing yesterday after I saw pro-abortionists walking to the rally on the National Mall as I walked to church.

I think Jesus would have opposed abortion *and* the death penalty. The ability of many people to oppose the former while supporting the latter has more to do with our genetic predisposition toward babies than it has to do with morality or religion or choice or anything. When it comes to reproductive rights, I do not believe that reason has much sway.

I think abortion should be legal in the first trimester. Exceptions should include risk to the mother and severe birth defects (children born w/out brains, for instance). Then again, it bothers me that you need a license to drive but literally anyone with functioning genitalia can reproduce, which is where the reason in my perspective breaks down.

Value of life, yadda yadda yadda. We need to admit that as a society we're damn fricking selective about which lives we value. I know I am. We're willing to kill a scad of Iraqi kids in the hopes of liberating the ones who survive. We're willing to try 12 year-old children as adults (when most adults in prison really need to be treated like children). Acceptable losses and all that.

There's so much inconsistency and irrationality surround the abortion issue (and the larger life/death issues that surround it) that I get impatient and think back to my younger days watching National Geographic. We're living by some seriously instinctual rules, with a lot of rhetorical window dressing.

"In the other post on this subject I said that individual human existence begins at conception.
That is scientifically provable and has nothing whatsoever to do with soul or ensoulment."

I have to disagree with you on this Catch 22, for many this issue is very much about ensoulment, not for all mind you, but for many. I will agree that life, as biologists define it, does begin at conception(actually, both the sperm and egg cells are life as well, by these definitions). Also I sort of disagree with 'individual' human existance begins at conception, because identical twins come from a fertilized egg splitting after conception, but you are still right saying that, by scientific definitions, the human life process begins at conception.

The soul, that which is said to give us the qualities that make us 'human' rather than animal, is a very abstract concept in itself. Much of the abortion debate is trying to determine when exactly the fetus becomes human, not human by means of being human DNA and cells, but human as in having that which makes us human. Since neither side can prove anything, it is a very gray issue.

Now, just to stir up debate and ideas, I'll post a few of the ideas about ensoulment, and my thoughts and questions about them. I'd also like to note that I don't purport any one of the following theories, as I am not God, and thusly can't even explain what a soul is(outside of a vague, abstract concept) much less say when it enters the fetus. Also, I'd like people to check out this website about Christian beliefs concerning abortion through history: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Let's start with the most obvious - immediate ensoulment. This is the theory that the soul enters the fetus immediately upon conception. This, like all other theories, including the ones I will present later, can not be proved, as once again the soul is an abstract concept. This also raises many questions. Does this soul contain anything, good or evil, or is it a blank slate? What happens to the soul if the fetus is naturally terminated by the body(please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but as I understand it half of all pregnancies are naturally terminated within the first ten weeks, so medical doctors won't say a pregnancy is 'viable' until after that point), or if the mother dies, or if an abortion occurs? Does it go to heaven, or does it just get sent to another fetus, or something entirely different?

Let's move on to the opposite of immediate ensoulment - the fetus only gains a soul when the baby is born. Once again, not proveable by any means, and raises many questions, but it is probably the hardest stances to argue. So the fetus had all the same working organs a minute ago but no soul until it exited the womb? Once again, is the soul blank or full of something? Does the soul grow over time as the child grows, or is it always the same?

Another theory, which is in that link I provided earlier, is that the fetus receives a soul upon conception, but it is not yet a human soul. The fetus starts with a 'vegetable' soul, and as it develops grows into an 'animal' soul, then eventually a 'human' soul. Once again, not proveable, the soul is abstract. This raises the question as to whether the soul can grow in status or is it always one way. It also seems to indicate that plants and animals have souls, just souls of lesser prominence. So is it murder to kill a plant or an animal too? If so, every living thing on this planet is a murderer, as nothing can survive without killing something else, even plants(such as a tree blocking the sunlight needed by a smaller tree).

The last theory I'll present is one I thought up last night(once again, I don't support this theory, as I can't prove it, it's just a thought I came up with). What if the soul enters the body upon the fetus' development the brain organ? The brain is what contains our memories, thoughts, and a variety of other higher processes, and without the brain we die(the brain controls all the other organs, so without it they all fail, and other organs can be replaced but not the brain). But the questions this theory are no less complex than those raised by others. Is the soul always the same, or does is grow as the brain develops? If it grows as the brain develops, does a mentally retarded person have a lesser soul than a normal person, and by that respect does someone with a better brain than a normal person have a more developed soul? If you get brain damage later in life, have lost part of your soul?

There are many more theories on ensoulment, and yet none of them is proveable, but there are many who claim their beliefs on ensoulment is true, regardless of having no proof and no proof as to what actually makes up the human soul. This part of the abortion issue is really what makes the whole thing so gray, as we constantly kill other cells, be they germs by our immune systems or plants and animals for food, but we don't normally view these as cells that containers of souls. So, how can we prove that an undeveloped human fetus has a soul? So is abortion at any stage indeed the slaying of a sentient being? Neither side can prove anything.

I would like to say one other thing in regards to abortion, not having to do with ensoulment, but the man's rights in abortion. A good friend of mine left his first wife, reason being that she aborted his child without his consent or knowledge. I know in many cases the man is some deadbeat or some teenager who knocked the girl up and runs from the issue entirely, and sometimes nobody even knows who the father is, but in the cases where the father is known and the father does indeed wish to take responsibility one way or another, does the man have no right to be part of the determinination of the fate of his own child as well as the woman?

"Many of the most rabid anti-abortion people seem to have NO problem whatsoever killing doctors, workers, etc who are involved with abortion clinics."

How many? It's big news when one such person does that, and it hasn't happened in quite a while.

"So, we may doubt when life begins, but unless we are strongly sure that it does not begin at conception which seems the most clear-cut point, then we are risking what we have no right to risk."

The most clear-cut point to me is not when cells bearing human DNA are present, but when a brain is present. When you get right down to it, the brain is the person; the rest of the body is there to feed him nutrients and data and carry out his commands.

Now once a brain is present, no matter how small, then you're taking too much of a risk of killing a person if you abort it.

And if you're not prepared to raise him, adoption is our friend.

Since I mentioned in my last post that characteristics that biologists define as life, I figure that some people might be curious as to what those are - go here if you don't know: http://mimi.essortment.com/characteristics_rbrc.htm

John?
What if you don't believe in a soul, and you think it's immoral to kill a "person"?

John Kusch,
It seems obvious (to me at least) that the tendency of many people to favor the death penalty over abortion has not to do with liking babies, but with the historically popular idea (you could look it up!) of killing people as a punishment for crimes, and not killing innocent people.

The reason that we as a society and as individuals struggle so much with this issue is a simple one. You cannot have two bearers of full rights within one skin. Inevitably the interests of women and the interests of babies will conflict.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then should sexually active women mourn each menstruation as the potential loss of a person? Should we ban IUDs? Birth control pills? Depo? (This goes for you buddhists too. If every fertilized egg is a life, then it's a sin to kill it by doing anything to prevent it implanting.) If you believe that the zygote becomes a person at implantation then what qualities make it unique? Why then? If you believe that life begins when brain waves begin (absence of brain waves is considered death for most legal purposes,) then you must favor restricting abortion much more than it currently stands. If it's fingerprints or a heartbeat then it's so early that abortion becomes nearly impossible anyway.

If you believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest, how can you justify the killing of a person simply because of the manner in which they came to exist? If you believe in abortion in the case of risk to the mother, who decides how much risk she must bear before she may be allowed to abort?

Why should a child have any less right to life because the mother didn't consent to carry it? Why should a woman have her bodily freedom limited because she was raped? What if the woman is an alcoholic and faces 9 months of agony while carrying the child? Or what if she depended on some medication that she couldn't take while pregnant? Whose rights take precedence and why? Who decides? Does she have an obligation to this person whom she did not willingly bring into existence? Even if it poses a risk, a hardship, or a burden to her? What claim does an unborn person have upon the woman?

There's a famous analogy. It's not comprehensive but it's food for thought. http://users.telerama.com/~jdehullu/abortion/absjtho1.htm

Who decides which exceptions should be allowed? The details of a situation matter a great deal when making moral decisions. Do you want to grant the government that kind of power over your private information and your body?

I'm pro-choice because I don't trust the government to choose for me or for anyone else.

A family member went through a terrible pregnancy. They learned late that the baby would never survive birth. (The brain was outside the skull among other problems.) They wanted to have a late term abortion but couldn't find anyone to do it. So instead they all had to suffer for days through an induction. Today, the procedure that would have saved that baby hours of pain is outlawed because it's brutal and gruesome.

I'll tell you what's brutal and gruesome. Watching the faces of those parents watching the heart monitor as their baby was crushed to death over the course of hours. The baby was going to die anyway. He could have died in half an hour, instead he died slowly while his parents watched. Today that choice has been taken from those in similar situations. I find that abhorrent.

The government's hands are much too clumsy and blunt to handle situations like that. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Let's put our efforts towards the rare part. You'll never eradicate it entirely. There will always be desperate women in desperate situations. Build a better saftey net and accept that you can't wave a magic wand and make the world perfect. I would if I could. Every abortion is a tragedy, but it's not always the worst possible tragedy.

Maor, that's a good question, but it also gives rise to other questions. What makes a person a person? When does a person become a person? Is it at conception, when the brain develops, or at birth? Is a small lump of human cells a person? Also, when I said 'soul', I did not necessarily mean in a spiritual or religious sense(though it was somewhat implied), but that which makes us different from the rest of the lifeforms on the planet, be it some gift from God or merely a much more powerful brain. As I said, 'ensoulment', or becoming a human being, is not a proveable issue as to when it occurs. That's what makes the entire abortion thing a gray issue.

"That's what makes the entire abortion thing a gray issue."

I cannot agree with that statement. With regard to buddhism,I was pointing out that life is considered "precious human life". Most scholars of buddhism do not believe in a creator god, and do not believe in a soul, YET they value human life outside those categories.

Categorizing abortion as a philosophical "gray" area misses the point entirely and relegates
the unborn as expendable by the action of others.

"Many of the most rabid anti-abortion people seem to have NO problem whatsoever killing doctors, workers, etc who are involved with abortion clinics."

Ken, while there hasn't been recent violence, there has been plenty of it in the past. And I think it's foolish to say that there won't be any more. For some of these people, who are so anti-abortion that they'll kill to stop it, I think it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

John Dibble is exactly on-target here. The central question is "what makes a person a person"? What makes them different from "mere" animals?

Is it just the human DNA? Brainwaves? Heartbeat? Presence of a soul? Decide that question, definitively, and then the status of any given fetus is clear. Avoid answering that question and it's all just religious opinion and the Gov't should butt out.

Even if you decide that at some point in the pregnancy the fetus becomes human, you're not done. At that point the issues Rachel brings up apply.

If the fetus is not human, then by what right does society constrain the actions of the woman?

If the fetus is human, then there is a balancing act between the rights of two humans in the same skin. NEITHER should have unlimited rights.

Anyone arguing the abortion question has to first answer the question "what makes a human a human?" If you don't start there, the rest of the discussion is either dishonest or pointless, imo.

Rachel, just a technical point on your post regarding partial-birth abortion. Your family member with the afflicted child would have had to go through labor anyway. That's why it's called "partial-birth abortion". (I am assuming that's the procedure you were talking about, because it is the only one that's illegal). The cervix has to be dilated enough to permit the baby to pass through it largely intact until the last few minutes.

This was also an incredibly rare procedure, and unless it was being performed by someone who's done it, the risk to the mother is tremendous. I suspect that even before it became illegal your relative would not have been able to find someone to do it. Did anyone discuss a C/S as a possibiity? And why, pray tell, was anyone monitoring that baby's heartbeat? That was cruel.

The whole partial-birth abortion fracas was inflated in its importance by people on both sides of the issue. The fact of the matter is, dealing with a dead or dying baby in the second half of pregnancy is just a tough, tough thing. The partial-birth abortion ban affects an infinitesimally few people. That whole debate was politics and posturing, plain and simple.

Views on abortion are utterly linked to one's views on religion. If you are christian believer, and are told repeatedly that your divinity demands protection of a fetus from the time of its conception, then, of course, you will oppose any and all forms of abortion and, probably also, you will oppose any efforts to stop male fertilization of female eggs, i.e., birth control.

But if you are a secularist, meaning a "bright" or agnostic (maybe there's a god, maybe there isn't); or an atheist (it's impossible for there to be a god); or an apatheist (couldn't care less if there is or isn't a god), then you will, of course, oppose any and all restrictions on women to terminate their pregnancies whenever and however they wish, based on their own willingness and perceived ability to bring a child into the world and raise him or her for some 20 years.

There really isn't much wiggle room here; you either believe or you don't believe; you either support abortion rights or you do not.

For someone like me, the choice is simple. There are no gods; godlets; sons of gods; mothers of gods; saints and other lesser divinities; souls; sins, heavens, hells, angels flapping around in the skies blowing unearthly trumpets or woodwind instruments; reincarnations; resurrections; corpses arising from graves; immortality; and all the rest of this stuff and nonsense that has been passed along by ignorant and bigoted priests and parishioners alike since the stone age.

For people like me, life begins at birth and terminates at death. One person, one life, no exceptions.

For people like me, human life is merely a form of a higher organism, a sort of highly intelligent monkey. If I have a soul, then so too does that monkey. And so too does my pet cat. And so too does the occasional mouse that he catches and kills in my garage; and so too does the lowliest cockroach that I hope is not scurrying about in that garage; and so too does every individual tree, shrub, blade of grass, or fungus patch on my rural woodland property. We and they are all organisms that are born, grow to maturity, pass into death, and rot into nothingness.

So there you have it, in a nutshell, so to speak. Your ideas about life and death either are rooted in religion, or they are rooted in biochemistry and evolutionary speciation.

Now the entire point about freedom of religion is freedom from religion for those who insist or even prefer it. And those of you who are believers have neither business nor right to enforce your views on others who are non-believers. Or, for that matter, on believers who nonetheless insist on the right of any female to abort a fetus she is carrying.

If you wish us to respect your views, and, for that matter your right to have such views and to live your lives in accordance with them, you had better begin to start respecting ours, including our right to have such views and to live our lives in accordance with our own tenets.

Otherwise, you believers -- the entire lot of you -- are ethically no better than the dreadful islamofascists who are attempting to destroy our free western civilization between we mostly disagree with their visions of and relationships to their divinities.

And don't, whatever you do, feed us this crap that you are merely trying to protect the bodies and souls of our fetuses whom your regard as our "babies". Just butt out. You take determine what to do with your fetuses. We will determine what to do with ours.

If you think you can succeed in shutting down all the abortion clinics in the United States, go try it. There are still many times more than those in other countries all over the world, and if necessary, American women will find their way to them, if you turn this country into some American version of an islamofascist state.

And in any case, availability of pregnancy terminated chemical compounds such as RU-486 is becoming internationally ubiquitous. Morever, one day, if supply is not available, women will know how to find the chemicals they need right on the internet.

All told, find something else to divert your spare time to.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Maor, my post agrees with the fact that a fetus is a life...perhaps you did not read the sentences before the poem was included. The point of my argument is three fold. First, a fetus is a life but not an independent life. It is like a parasite because it cannot live without or independent of its host, the woman who carries or does not carry the child to term. The next purpose of the poem is to point out that an unwanted child whether given the chance to live or not is a payment that will become due eventually. I have seen crack babies, abused children and children who grow up to become criminals because they were unwanted although born. The final point of the poem is to point out that whether a woman wants to carry a child to term is her choice. Why? Because she is the host of the life that cannot live or grow without her body.

It is intellectually shallow at best to suggest that the abortion debate is "about religion." Bullshit. There are countless atheist pro-lifers, as well as agnostic and basic non-theists. There are also countless very religious people who are pro-choice on abortion. Yes, religion informs some people's views, just as it informs their views on slavery, child abuse, civil rights, and countless other important issues. That's not relevant, and makes their views neither more nor less valid.

Even more offensive are cheap, bigoted, assertions that men have no right to an opinion or "cannot understand." Both are deeply inflammatory and wrong. Just as wrong is the assertion that pro-lifers act from an urge to "oppress women." This is utter nonsense and always has been. While I am pro-choice, I understand that pro-lifers have no such urge toward women. Indeed, anyone who does their homework knows that women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were dedicated anti-abortion activists who spent as much of their lives actively opposing abortion (legal or illegal) as they did trying to win the vote for women, and no more due to "religious conviction" in the one case than the other.

While I am fundamentally pro-choice I'm sick of cheap bigotry toward the pro-life side of the argument, probably because I've got too many friends and relatives who are pro-life. Most of them women, many of them highly irreligious. If you doubt me, have the stones to actually attend a pro-life rally some time and you'll almost certainly notice one salient fact: women usually outnumber men at those rallies, and many of them are women who've had abortions who have regretted it their entire lives. (Go read this woman's weblog for example, and send her mail--she's a heck of a nice lady and no lunatic.

The truth: young women today are MORE prone to call themselves pro-life than pro-choice, despite 30 years of feminsits trying to portray this as a "men vs. women" issue. The pro-choice extremists used to suggest that all those pro-life women were just old fuddy-duddy women and that the younger generations would be more "enlightened" and thus be pro-choice. Now that a majority of young women call themselves pro-life, they try to claim that these young women are just stupid and "don't know what it was like. Bah. The truth is that pro-lifers aren't stupid, most of them aren't zombies or religious crazies, and they don't have evil hidden agendas. Yes, you can find this, that, or the other wingnut among them who wants to outlaw all forms of birth control. Then again you can find moonbats on the pro-choice side who suggest that a baby isn't human and should be subject to termination by its parents up until it's able to speak (and no, I'm not making that up either, I've known people who say things like that).

Here is the simple truth: this is a very complex and difficult issue. Stereotyping people on any side is offensive. Hell, my big gripe remains the same: the Supreme Court overstepped its authority in the Roe v. Wade decision back in 1973. Had they not done so, we would long ago have come to legal compromises that everybody could live with, because the truth is that the vast majority of people, women and men alike, support some limitations on this procedure but want it basically legal in the early parts of pregnancy. If the courts would go back to allowing the democratic process to work--which is what they should do--the abortion debate would stop doing so much to fracture and damage our politics.

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I'm tired of the extremists on both sides of this debate---and I've got too many pro-life friends and relatives (MOST OF THEM WOMEN) to put up with cheap generalizations from my fellow pro-choicers.

And as a father, I have no patience for anyone bigoted enough to suggest I have no right to an opinion on this matter.

Dean, when I wrote that one's views on abortion are utterly linked to one's religious beliefs, I meant this to mean religion in the larger sense of one's cosmology. In other words, is the fetus a person or isn't it?

If you really think that a fetus is a person, then I cannot imagine how you or anyone else could ever agree to killing that "person" through abortion. For whatever reason. The health of the child. The health of the mother. Whether or not the child would be born as a physical monster. All these considerations would be utterly irrelevant.

There is no doubt that there are formally religious persons who support abortion rights and others with little or religious connection who oppose abortion. But I would argue that in these cases, their religious views or affiliation are out of synch with their cosmologies.

Nor do I make argument anymore that men are not entitled to a viewpoint about abortion vs carrying a fetus to full term. At least if the fetus will be born as their child. I am happily married and a father of four. That is exactly the way Stefi and I run our family. These considerations notwithstanding, my wife and daughter have primacy in our family over questions of womens' reproductive rights.

Most of the political push and shove regarding abortion that I say these days is from those who want to strip away abortion rights from women, not from those who want women to be able to choose for themselves.

If this keeps up, good Republicans and conservatives around the country will begin losing elections to Democrats and liberals over just this issue. Exactly the way Democrats and liberals in recent years have seen their stregth ebbing away in one state legislature after another and in the US Congress as well, over the question of citizen gun rights that those on the left typically oppose.

And I think I know a lot more about these trends than you do, because I am a local Republican party regular, insider, and activist and I am certain that you are none of the above. Although maybe I am wrong about that, inasmuch as I don't follow you around in metro Detroit.

You might ask, what then is my interest in the Republican party and conservatism. And I would answer, gun rights, low taxes, fewer government programs, better national defense, free trade.

You say that there is some legal compromise over abortion, and I agree with what you are driving at because I too dislike late-term abortion. But I am sure you realize that the forces -- religious or otherwise -- that are driving anti-abortion and repeal of Roe vs Wade want no abortions whatsoever, and many of them even want an end to birth control.

In any case, I know of no pro-abortion people getting convicted for murdering anti-abortion preachers such as the killer recently executed in Florida. Sure, the anti-abortionists will claim, the pro-abortion people are "murdering babies".

But that gets right to the heart of the entire argument. Those of us who support abortion rights will never agree that they are "babies" rather than fetuses that are merely an appendage to the mother's body until birth.

Under these considerations and circumstances, I cannot see much room for compromise. This is simply an issue over which the political cleavage is both sharp and total.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I agree there are extremists on both sides of this debate. But, I do believe most people lie somewhere in the middle. I am pro-choice and yet, would never have an abortion. If I ever became pregnant I would absolutely involve the father in the decision. But, I do ultimately believe the final choice rests with the woman. Why? Well, if the guy says "no way, I don't want a child"...who will still be left with the responsibility? The woman, of course. Did you know the leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder (by the father of the child)? But, my question to you Dean is why are you pro-choice? Or, what makes you pro-choice?

The points Rachel and Arnold raise are why I'm in favor of having abortion be a state by state issue, just like I am in favor of drug and gun control being returned to the States where they belong.

It is only due to the Federalization of these issues that we are looking for one, perfect solution.

Since fundamental cosmology and beliefs will always determine one's opinion on these subjects, we're probably not ever going to agree on the "one best way" to handle them.

Which is precisely why the Federal govt. had a very short list of enumerated powers: social issues will always be driven by local moral standards. The people of California and Kansas (as a random comparison: pick any 2 states who went strongly one way or the other in the last several elections) will probably never see eye to eye, and they shouldn't have to.

It's only because the stakes are so large (all or nothing on a national scale) that the debate gets so overheated and irrational.

David has developed a strong point here. (Just one week ago I was badgering him up, down and back again over legalization of drugs.)

Possibly the fairest solution to a number of these issues is simply to de-federalize them altogether. This certainly is being done over gun rights. Perhaps the same solution could be used in regard to abortion, and, yes, even drug control.

Perhaps the time has come again for stronger focus on states' rights, as the US Constitution was designed around just that concept.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

wow, great responses. I fully intended to participate in this discussion, but there's so much here and I haven't had time to check in very often that I think i'll just respond to this on back at my homebase. If you're interested, click on over to marcland.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, folks. I appreciate it.

Dean:
"And as a father, I have no patience for anyone bigoted enough to suggest I have no right to an opinion on this matter."

It seems to me that simply as a citizen, you have a right to an opinion on the scope of the legal definition of murder, if that's the way people are going to frame the issue. I will concede that you have more right to an opinion on the concrete spiritual effects of a hypothetical abortion than, say, I do.

That, Arnold, is my main goal in talking about any of my personal experiences regard the War on Drugs.

Not "pity points" as you put it in that other thread (that closed before I could comment further).

I think that a return to the interpretation of the Constitution we had before the New Deal would do more than anything else to sort out the nasty problems that increasing Federalization has wrought.

Oh, and toss education into that list too. Loss of local/State control as the Dept. of Education has mushroomed since the Great Society days ("New Deal Part II: The Final Federalization" were it a Hollywood blockbuster) has almost perfectly matched the erosion of basic reading and math skills. Coincidink? I think not.

There never was and never will be a One Right Way to solve vexing social problems, and the "Laboratory of the States" was supposed to work around that. Imposing uniform, usually flawed, "solutions" nationwide does not help work the bugs out of social policy and find out what works, it merely inflicts the unintended negative side effects of policies on EVERYONE, UNIFORMLY!

If we wanted that, we would have stayed in Europe, no?

"I would not presume to interpret HH's words or apply moral uprightness to them. To do so in such an intolerant way is sad. To state my opinion as a Buddhist is one thing, but to use HH's words to support my point is one leap I just wouldn't make....I didn't know HH had an opinion on abortion."

" Do you have the reference? " (Katherine)

I do not have my original reference but here are three Dalai Lama related references:

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1999/8/9_1.html

'the Dalai Lama has denounced abortion as a sin against "non-violence to all sentient beings," opposed contraception and criticized proponents of euthanasia - much as the pope has done. Although he has affirmed the dignity and rights of gays and lesbians, he has condemned homosexual acts as contrary to Buddhist ethics. Indeed, during a teaching in San Francisco in 1997, he was surprised to find himself criticized by gay Buddhists.'

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1993/7/1_7.html

'On abortion and homosexuality, which have deeply divided other religious faiths, the Dalai Lama said he believed life is sacred and abortion is wrong - though there may be special circumstances, such as saving the life of the mother, when it might be an option.'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/nytimes.htm

“Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative,
generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child
will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception."

Abortion Is The Foremost Issue:

"The Church's stance on abortion is a matter of doctrine. That is, the Catholic Church teaches as a matter binding upon Catholics that direct procured abortion is always wrong, and may never licitly be pursued. This is the ancient and constant teaching of the Church. (CCC 2271) Furthermore, human life and personhood are defined as beginning at conception (CCC 2274). Because it is always and absolutely wrong, one may not sanction, permit, or participate in it, even indirectly. (CCC 2272) Finally, because it is a grave crime and offense against human dignity, Catholics are obliged to oppose it and work for its elimination. (CCC 2273)."

http://thrownback.blogspot.com/

I posted this like earlier, but it doesn't look like you read it Catch 22 - http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

If you are going to use Catholic Church doctrine, then you need to consider that Catholic Church doctrine has not always been constant. Here's a few tidbits of information from the link above:

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16 1/2 weeks).

John,

All I presented was (An )OFFICIAL Catholic Church teaching on abortion and pre-natal life. I didn't use doctrine in a manner intended to confuse. I did so in a fashion that was succinct,
direct,not my own words. The essay by Fr. Rob is excellent background material whatever one's own position. http://thrownback.blogspot.com/

I did scan your link. While it is scholarly, it does not present OFFICIAL Catholic teaching. There are plenty of catholic politicians and living catholic scholars and institutions that are presenting plenty of dis-information on the issue of pre-natal human life and what catholic church teachings ARE.

I believe that those who wish to make an informed decision ought to have at least the official Catholic church teaching on abortion because life is important. I did the same thing with respect to HH Dalai Lama. Certainly, buddhism has an entirely different ethical approach, yet, it respects life.

I have profound respect for Thomas Acquinas who has been conveniently kicked around campuses like a football for many years. Now he is suddenly resurrected by apologists for abortion in that he may have once written, "he also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder." That's fine, He was a great theologian but he wasn't the last word on the matter. In fact, he once said near his own death, (I paraphrase), "Everything I have written is like straw compared to what has been revealed to me."

So my point is only to give readers a place to find authentic teachings or at least the beginning steps of that process.

So I close with this comment by Fr. Rob as I think he has another excellent point:

"Furthermore, it has now been revealed that Kerry, with Sen. Kennedy and some quisling priests such as Fr. Robert Drinan, has set out deliberately to obfuscate Catholic teaching on abortion, in order to create the appearance of a "pro-choice" loophole that he and other politicians could exploit. Kerry cannot claim some sort of well-intentioned "differing interpretation". He knew and knows exactly what he is about. Isn't it interesting that the paragon catholic political family patriarch is pro-snuffing out pre-natal life ?

And:

"I think there is nothing that Kerry and Kennedy would like better than to have abortion eternally "tabled" for discussion, as we await the fulfillment of all their ideological fantasies."

Read it here: http://thrownback.blogspot.com

A good read Catch, I should've read it earlier but I was at work, so I guess I shouldn't have, lol. I'm still pro-choice, and it didn't change my view any(I've always regarded abortion as something to be done only in very extreme conditions, usually involving health hazards to the woman or the child, and even in the case of rape I would ask the woman to consider bearing the child). Abortion is a really messy, wierd issue, and it's hard to prove or argue anything either way.

Let me just briefly talk about another issue argued against abortion - the potential of human life. While we can't prove that a human being gains a soul at one time or another, we can safely say that every fetus has potential. Many would ask "What would have happened if we had aborted Jesus, or Einstein, or *insert great person here*, ect?", but it can just as easily be asked "What if we aborted Hitler, or Genghis Khan, or *insert evil bastard here*, ect?". The thing about human potential is that it goes both ways - humans have potential for both good or evil, and I don't believe they are inherently either. Now does this make the argument moot? By no means. It's just as moot as saying that a human gets a soul at conception or at birth. Just one more argument about abortion that makes things so much more complicated(and complicated isn't a bad thing on this, people should think long and hard before determining their stance on an issue like this, not make a blind decision because one argument just sounds better, because with this issue the other side can come up with an argument that sounds just as good).

If one were free to pick and choose from the bowl of moral relativism, one can always find another jelly bean more suitable to one's liking.

The issue is more serious than mental gymnastics or rationalizations. Our nation recognizes in law only the right to snuff human life while in the womb. There is something wrong with this picture.

There is something wrong with this status quo and I find a serious lack of leadership with politicians that cater to the view that that is the only position which the current law needs to address.

Catch 22, you can argue that 'moral relativism' isn't important all you like, but an essential reason that this debate continues on and on and has for centuries is that we can't prove one way or another if a fetus at any stage is just a 'lump of cells' or a 'human'(a sentient being, more than just a collection of human cells), though I think most would agree that it's more arguable that it is 'human' after it develops somewhat, which is why more people are against abortions in the later terms of pregnancies. I'm trying to argue as to why this debate continues and will continue for many years, not the rightness or wrongness of abortion.

On moral relativism - I believe you can't prove right or wrong in a divine sense. However, there is right and wrong as is conducive to a civilized society, and this right and wrong is based on logic, reason, and science rather than on any religious grounds. Murder for instance, is so blatantly against a civilized society that I can't even think of one civilization that's legalized it. Self-defense is logically conducive to a civilized society, as the life of an innocent, law-abiding citizen is more important to the society he belongs to than that of someone who will take the life of anyone he pleases(not saying that the murderer's life necessarily has no value, but between one or the other we all know that we'd rather the murderer die than the innocent). The problem with abortion however, is that logic, reason, and science can not prove that abortion is murder or not(or, it has not so far, if we were to find a definite answer the debate would probably end), so religion and philosiphy enters into the debate.

What's that Catch 22? Every hear of justifiable homicide (self defense)? The death penalty?

In many states it's legal to use lethal force to stop a rape, murder or grevious bodily harm, not just to yourself but if anyone's the victim and you happen upon the crime in progress.

Oh, and just to mess with both sides' heads, there are many cultures in the past where the penalty for murder was (and in the middle east, often still is!) a "blood price" determined by the occupation/status of the person you whacked. If you or your tribe/family can't pony up, then it's (variously) slavery, indentured servitude, or death.

Oh, and aside from 'leave it to the States', what's my personal position? No 3rd trimester abortions (those babies are now viable with intensive neonatal ICU), 1st trimester on demand, and in the middle, ah, that's the rub, no? I'm in favor of a moving line that changes with viability. If you'd like an abortion, but Whoa! it's viable! then we'll yank it out gratis and put it up for adoption.

How's that sit with everyone? If they aren't viable, they aren't a "person" quite yet, no?