I'm Pro-Abortion

[AlonzoMourning23]

Yes, I'm pro-abortion. I don't mean pro-choice, I don't mean pro-abortion in cases of incest or rape, I mean that I'm pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion because abortion is a great benefit to society. Now I'm not saying that I want to go out and kill fetuses for fun, that would be indicative of serious psychological problems, though barring late term fetuses I admittedly don't care one way or another about what happens to a fetus. It would be even better if these pregnancies didn't happen at all, but they occur at an astronomical rate that there is no real hope of removing the need for massive amounts of abortion.

We have significant issues with young mothers quitting school which means they have less opportunity to obtain quality jobs, and their children often lack the advantages that quality jobs can provide, such as quality schooling, safe and secure neighborhoods and quality health care. 31% of women will become pregnant as teenagers (link (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/reading/fact_sheets/complcnt.asp). What can we expect of a teenage mother who suddenly has a child to support? Statistically not much. Only one third of mothers who had children before the age of 18 graduated high school, and only 1% graduated college. It only gets worse from there. Over 75% of unmarried teen parents began receiving welfare within 5 years, are twice as likely to abuse or neglect their children versus mothers who wait until at least their twenties, and the children of these mothers are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school link (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/whycare/sowhat.asp) Between 1991 and 2002 teen birth rates dropped 30% link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51337-2005Apr13.html). What if this had not happened? Estimates are that an additional 406 thousand children would be living in poverty, an increase over the current rate by 8.3% link (http://teenpregnancy.org/whycare/pdf/tab3.pdf). Everything from economics to even crime rates can be tied to teenage pregnancies, and both reduced teen birth rates and access to abortion have been associated with reduced crime rates (link (http://www.nber.org/~confer/2002/si2002/levitt.pdf)).

The cost is economic as well, as 9 billion dollars a year of federal funding is spent on families that originated with a teenage birth, and an additional 1 billion is spent on children who had to be removed from their parents due to abuse or otherwise improper care. link (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/whycare/sowhat.asp) Considering children of these families are themselves are much more likely to live in poverty themselves, and to become pregnant as teens themselves, how much is saved in the future if we were to reduce the amount of children teens have?

Studies have found that children of unintended pregnancies, largely due to the lack of abortion availability or refusal to seek abortion, are at increased risk for a host of problems, and this is not an indication that they aren't loved by parents. One study in particular paired children of unwanted pregnancies with children of intended pregnancies. Both groups were born to healthy, intact marriages to women of similar socioeconomic status. They performed poorer in school, despite having equivalent IQ test scores. They performed poorer socially and were more likely to be described as problem children by both teachers and parents. By their early 20's they reported less satisfactory romantic relationships, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors. By their 30's they showed higher rates of mental health problems. (link (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_ocr2.asp)). Such widely divergent ends and the only significant difference at the start was whether or not the pregnancy was intended.

Beyond the affects on human societies, there is simply no need for additional humans. Humans have steadily taken away land, forests and resources that are essential to wildlife, and have polluted the lands they have directly claimed and in many cases simply decimated, if not wiped out, many species. From pollution of rivers, destroying of forests, and overfishing of oceans, stabilization of the human population, or even a reduction of it, is a significant step towards reducing the harm we inflict on the environment.

Forests: Nearly half of the world's original forest cover has been lost, and each year another 16 million hectares are cut, bulldozed, or burned. Forests provide over US$400 billion to the world economy annually and are vital to maintaining healthy ecosystems. Yet, current demand for forest products may exceed the limit of sustainable consumption by 25%.

Biodiversity: The earth's biological diversity is crucial to the continued vitality of agriculture and medicine -- and perhaps even to life on earth itself. Yet human activities are pushing many thousands of plant and animal species into extinction. Two of every three species is estimated to be in decline.

Stabilizing population: While population growth has slowed, the absolute number of people continues to increase -- by about 1 billion every 13 years. Slowing population growth would help improve living standards and would buy time to protect natural resources. In the long run, to sustain higher living standards, world population size must stabilize.

As population and demand for natural resources continue to grow, environmental limits will become increasingly apparent.6 Water shortages are expected to affect nearly 3 billion people in 2025, with sub-Saharan Africa worst affected.2 Many countries could avoid environmental crises if they took steps now to conserve and manage supplies and demand better, while slowing population growth by providing families and individuals with information and services needed to make informed choices about reproductive health.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.html

About 25% of all pregnancies in the u.s. end in abortion (link (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm)), and about 35% of women will have an abortion by age 35 (link (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html)). In the united states alone, since Roe vs. Wade, we'd be looking at about 50 million (47 millions at the end of 2005, and an estimate of about 2.5 million in 2006 and 2007) additional births (link (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/012006/01222006/161238)). Our consumption levels are through the roof with 300 million people, and for Americans it's at rates far beyond what is even remotely sustainable if we had 2 planets.

To clarify, my view on the environmental benefit abortion provides isn't some anti-human rant either, instead it's a pro-environment and, to some degree, even a pro-human argument. We simply do not need population growth, it's detrimental to the well beings of the humans already born and everything else on this planet. It's not some sadistic rant about how we should kill people or some barbaric "fuck em all" rant. But with abortion we have a method of preventing an even higher level of population growth without harming anyone who can actually feel harm or even understands what harm is. Simply put, the more humans there are the more destruction will be placed upon the environment, the more resources will dry up, and the more poverty misery will fall upon populations. And with things such as water and resources being used up, what is there will become much more valuable and risks fueling wars in areas where such resources are scarce.

With abortion the environment benefits from not having to provide for more humans, teenage and young women benefit from not being saddled with a baby they aren't equipped to take care of, and society benefits from having less people who need the help of social programs, or who are simply unequipped to get ahead. With more abortion there will be a lower percentage of abused and neglected children, there will be less women and their children in poverty, more people will be able to hold quality jobs and receive education. There will also be more money for programs designed to benefit those in poverty and others in need, as there will not be 9 billion dollars a year being spent on these families, and untold billions spent on the results of these children who often end up perpetuating the cycle of poverty or, in a worse case scenario, end up in the criminal justice system. For people in poverty who need every bit they have to advance in lives, and hopefully one day be able to provide children with a stable family in safe environment conducive to success in life, an unwanted pregnancy can be devastating to their future.

If you want my opinion, if you're a teenage pregnant woman then have an abortion. Even if you want the child consider how your current situation will will affect your future and your ability to parent. If you are considering the abortion then err on the side of caution and have the abortion. If the pregnancy is unwanted have the abortion. If you are not financially able to care for it have the abortion. If you are drug addicted have the abortion, and if you're in school or plan to be then have the abortion. People should have children only when they have established their lives and have a stable place in the world. They should not be attempting to raise a child when they really don't even know who they are yet or where they're going.

Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. But they should be, since society necessitates it for so many reasons, safe, legal and frequent. As to the medical procedure of abortion I'm indifferent. Get one, don't get one, unless it's more than 6 months old I don't really give a damn either way, and even then I wouldn't want to prevent anyone who wants an abortion to have one. Better that than an unwanted child.

[AnnEsthesia]

Great post. I disagree with you in places, but you presented your case with well thought out and well explained reasons.

[Scorpion]

Great Zo. Homicide when it's convenient. You're a real advocate for life when it's convenient, death when it's not. You're a self appointed supreme being, aren't you. Well, we'll let God be the judge of those like you.

my disgust aside, I support your right to an opinion, no matter how cavalier and ridiculous it might be.

[AlonzoMourning23]

How is wanting the environment to be healthy and for humans to have higher quality lives "cavalier and ridiculous"?

[Scorpion]

How is wanting the environment to be healthy and for humans to have higher quality lives "cavalier and ridiculous"?


It is if it's at the expense of indiscriminate human slaughter, sometimes referred to as abortion.

[preservanation]

How is wanting the environment to be healthy and for humans to have higher quality lives "cavalier and ridiculous"?


It is if it's at the expense of indiscriminate human slaughter, sometimes referred to as abortion.
Bourne, you obviously have no compassion for the body of the woman who happens to conceive.
Heartless.

[Pookie]

Zo, I might not always agree 100% with you, but I sure did appreciate that post. You presented your facts well and this was extremely well-written and thought out.
That post sure gives me something to think about. Well done!
Purrs,
Pookie

[AlonzoMourning23]

How is wanting the environment to be healthy and for humans to have higher quality lives "cavalier and ridiculous"?


It is if it's at the expense of indiscriminate human slaughter, sometimes referred to as abortion.


If it were "indiscriminate human slaughter" then you would be at risk of being aborted.

[PatrickHenry]

Hey alonzo...good thing yo mama didn't think like you...:D

[AlonzoMourning23]

Do you guys realize I posted this as an attempt to start a discussion? It seems that everyone is just typing a sentence or two but not really arguing. That's unusual for an abortion topic.

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry Zo. The only thing I disagree with was the idea that all teen mothers should have abortions. That is up to them. Other than that, I agree.

[Elrathin]

Do you guys realize I posted this as an attempt to start a discussion? It seems that everyone is just typing a sentence or two but not really arguing. That's unusual for an abortion topic.



Zo in regards to abortion I think it is wrong for a womne to do so. However, I think it ws also equally as wrong for society to force a women to carry a baby to term that she doesn't want to.

So what it comes to to is this. Do we side with the women, or do we side with the infant. What I notice is all the pro-lifers out there side with the infant but care nothing for the mother that has to go through the ordeal, noticeable most pro-lifers are men. Yes, there ARE women that are proi-lifers, but the most are either men or women that have never gone through childbirth.

Here is something that most pro-lifers don't know, men used to be able to control the reproductive bodies of women ALL the time. If there was an operation that would take away the ability for a women to reproduce men controlled all that if they were the husbands or fathers. They used to be able to dictate whether a women could have a life sving operation or not if it inclluded the ability for them to reproduce.

So now when people try to say that a women is forced to carry a baby to term, one can only look back and see the control that used to be placed on them. Maybe scientists should research on how to make the father carry the baby to term, and maybe we can finally see some rational of the males.

[preservanation]

Zo:
I'm pro-abortion because abortion is a great benefit to society.The Chicoms agree whole heatedly with you.
What'll be nice is when bio-tech gets to the point where we can determine not only physical characteristics but intellect. A mother then can weed out the undesirables and begin building a super race.
Eugenics euber allis.

[firefox]

its "ober alles," Preservation...

[AlonzoMourning23]

Sorry Zo. The only thing I disagree with was the idea that all teen mothers should have abortions. That is up to them. Other than that, I agree.


Maybe my pro-abortion view isn't as radical as I thought.

[preservanation]

its "ober alles," Preservation...

Thanks.
Hooooooo Boy.

[firefox]

Sie sind ein schmutingues Swein... (Just kidding; grammar might be very off as well)

[PatrickHenry]

Maybe my pro-abortion view isn't as radical as I thought.
Question, alonzo...Why be pro-abortion when you could instead choose to be pro-contraception?

Why is it better to do surgery to kill a baby than to avoid pregnancy in the first place?

[Deadshot]

Being adopted, I'd love to see more adoptions.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Maybe my pro-abortion view isn't as radical as I thought.
Question, alonzo...Why be pro-abortion when you could instead choose to be pro-contraception?

Why is it better to do surgery to kill a baby than to avoid pregnancy in the first place?


I am pro-contraception, but it does not work 100% and is often not even used properly. The biggest reason for condom failure is misuse.

Also, unexpected life circumstances often arise between conception and birth. A wanted pregnancy may suddenly become quite different if you lover leaves you, you lose your job etc.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonso, well written OP.

I agree and disagree, but will let you decide what kind of an issue that is after stating my position.

I am pro-individual rights. I support a womans right to choose for several reasons.

-A fetus is not an individual, its a parasitic life form that resides in a rights bearing individual, that only has rights by the extension of the will of the individual carrying it.

-A fetus is not a person, its a potential person. It does not have reason, it has a potential for reason. Its existence is solely reliant on the will of the mother, and even stress in the mother can kill a fetus if extreme enough.

-A fetus is not a citizen, nor a legal individual entity, nor a rights bearing entity, since it bears no similarity to a legal person, a legal citizen, a legal individual, or a rights holding entity. It is a POTENTIAL entity.

-An abortion is a privately contracted process, between a volitionally aware woman, and a volitionally aware doctor/surgeon. These people have rights, and one of which is a right to privacy regarding personal matters, and another the right to free-will, voluntary conscent contract. The fetus is not counted in this transaction, due to the fact that a fetus, is not a person, and individual, or a rights holding legal entity.

Those are the reasons I support a womans right to choose.

I don't think "valid reasons to have an abortion" should be an issue, as only the potential mother knows her individual situation regarding life, rationality, values and ability of herself, to perform what is required in any choice before her.

I obviously also, support contraception in all methods I have information on.

I do not think it is ethically viable, or legally tenable to create laws regarding abortion at any term of pregnancy, except birth and thereafter being a forbidden act, since that would be a person, and not a "potential" person.

I don't and never would support "population control" except in the sense of individuals being aware and rational in their choice on whether or not to reproduce, and to act responsibly whatever they choose.

I support adoption as choice, but I do not think the state or fed should play a role in this process at all regarding health and welfare, housing or labor costs.

I don't support state or fed paid abortion, adoption, etc.

[smj]

Do you guys realize I posted this as an attempt to start a discussion? It seems that everyone is just typing a sentence or two but not really arguing. That's unusual for an abortion topic.


Im working on this as a debate....I'll get back with you.:fight:[hr]
Alonso, well written OP.

I agree and disagree, but will let you decide what kind of an issue that is after stating my position.

I am pro-individual rights. I support a womans right to choose for several reasons.

-A fetus is not an individual, its a parasitic life form that resides in a rights bearing individual, that only has rights by the extension of the will of the individual carrying it.

-A fetus is not a person, its a potential person. It does not have reason, it has a potential for reason. Its existence is solely reliant on the will of the mother, and even stress in the mother can kill a fetus if extreme enough.

-A fetus is not a citizen, nor a legal individual entity, nor a rights bearing entity, since it bears no similarity to a legal person, a legal citizen, a legal individual, or a rights holding entity. It is a POTENTIAL entity.

-An abortion is a privately contracted process, between a volitionally aware woman, and a volitionally aware doctor/surgeon. These people have rights, and one of which is a right to privacy regarding personal matters, and another the right to free-will, voluntary conscent contract. The fetus is not counted in this transaction, due to the fact that a fetus, is not a person, and individual, or a rights holding legal entity.

Those are the reasons I support a womans right to choose.

I don't think "valid reasons to have an abortion" should be an issue, as only the potential mother knows her individual situation regarding life, rationality, values and ability of herself, to perform what is required in any choice before her.

I obviously also, support contraception in all methods I have information on.

I do not think it is ethically viable, or legally tenable to create laws regarding abortion at any term of pregnancy, except birth and thereafter being a forbidden act, since that would be a person, and not a "potential" person.

I don't and never would support "population control" except in the sense of individuals being aware and rational in their choice on whether or not to reproduce, and to act responsibly whatever they choose.

I support adoption as choice, but I do not think the state or fed should play a role in this process at all regarding health and welfare, housing or labor costs.

I don't support state or fed paid abortion, adoption, etc.


So by your example it should be a womans right to choose to sell her body or to use narcotics. What if my girlfriend got pregnant and I didn't want to be a father so I punch her in the gut which results in her loss of the b a b y. By your standards I cannot be held responsible to killing a " a parasitic life form".
Come on...talk to me. I really need an education.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So by your example it should be a womans right to choose to sell her body or to use narcotics. What if my girlfriend got pregnant and I didn't want to be a father so I punch her in the gut which results in her loss of the b a b y. By your standards I cannot be held responsible to killing a " a parasitic life form".
Come on...talk to me. I really need an education.


If you did so and the death of the fetus or embryo was accidental then charge you with assault plus something, or the max sentence for assault. Not sure what the charge would be for killing something that is very valuable to her but isn't a person. Though if she didn't want the fetus then just an assault charge.

Now if you punched her, intended to kill the fetus, and she wanted the baby then I could go with a 1st degree manslaughter charge. But to get into manslaughter or murder there would need to be 1. Intent to harm or kill the fetus and 2. the mother wanted the fetus.

[smj]

Warning; this is a large post. If your going to complain about its length take a speed reading course or don't read it.

Ok here it is AlonzoMourning23. Believe it or not this "is" the short version.

July 1998, Nina Burleigh (Times reporter) says about Bill Clinton; “I’d be happy to give him a [blow job] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”
The most relevant implication of premarital sex and immoral lifestyles results in 36 to 53 million abortions per year globally.

UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
Estimated number of abortions in the US since Row 40.5 million.

As a whole.

Forget about the fact that “Roe vs Wade was never considered by the American population as a whole but instead would better set an example of “legislation from the bench”. (Which I’ll address a bit later) Isn’t it considered to be an oxymoron that the lefts position on abortion is what it is but before going to war we need to convince every American that war is absolutely necessary. Four thousand abortions per day yet liberals claim they are worried about the 3000 who have lost their lives in Iraq? They loudly proclaim their support for the troops while running articles of illegal killings in a war zone and abuse of terrorist’s detainees. (Support for terrorist over American soldiers paves the way for a strong argument for the lefts position on wanting to see America fail.) Pro-choice is by its very name dishonest when it is nothing more than promotion of abortion.

The problem is choice?

The left seems to be immobile on abortion in particular because of the phrase the “right to choose”. Abortion is a choice and clearly one group had a choice and one did not. A soldier in an all volunteer Armed Forces had the ability to choose a course of action while those at work on 9/11 in the WTC did not. Liberals arguments always seem to gravitate to the death penalty when the topic of abortion takes place so I’ll ask. Do you believe Ted Bundy, Ted Kaczynski and Charles Manson had a choice? They had the same abilities as the rest of us to have lived their lives in a socially acceptable way but instead chose to inflict carnage, death and destruction upon the rest of us while Sharon Tate did not. (She is unavailable for comment). Abortion to me conjures up the same principles concerning choice and where I find the arguments of the left seems to fall apart. In the results of abortion one choice wasn’t even consulted.
Why should the “pro-choice” people care if a woman is talked out of an abortion? Is choice here really the objective? Isn’t there a possibility that they fear an upset to their political agenda? Follow the money. Abortion, R&D and clinics with the medical staff providing services is a huge business in this country pulling down 450-500 million per year plus. Consider that when the French RU-486 pill was developed it was the pro-choice people who agreed with the right to life groups to outlaw the drug. Only after the contradiction became obvious did the pro-choice people change sides.
Pro abortion groups gave 1.4 million in hard money to national democrat candidates, more than twice what pro-life groups did while the political action committee (PAC) groups such as the American Medical Association made the top 10 list of donors contributing over 2 million according to federal election committee data in the 2000 election.
Slavery was never a “pro-choice” issue but despite the states making that choice, its immorality had more backing from the constitution than abortion does and this nation fought a war to abolish it. Politics as a whole seems to be very much at the heart of this issue, as it should with one exception. The truth of the matter is no prominent democrat will ever sit around the inner circles of the democrat campfire of liberal ideology without openly supporting abortion. Pro-abortion zealots demand democrats swear allegiance to the abortion issue and that’s wrong. Democrats who chose to support this issue occasionally make it too obvious and back peddle with the mantra;”we need to keep abortion safe, legal and rare.” Evidently 3000 Americans sacrificing their lives in Iraq is enough reason to drastically change the direction of US policy but 3700 deaths in abortion clinics per day is categorized as “rare”.


It’s not about choice.
Can a woman legally choose to be a prostitute, defend her use of narcotics insisting that she had the right to choose, or steal, using her own body? She can try but it will not help her. Society has already established what she can and can’t do with her body and while she still retains the choice, her choice has consequences when our society agrees that theft, prostitution and illegal drug use are not beneficial in the interests of our society.
Choice? Hardly, it’s about control that makes women relevant to men and society as a whole. It’s about payback for traditional male dominance of our society. It’s about shedding the stereotypical functions of a woman and shoving them in the face of everyone who disagrees with the “non-traditional” roles of the new woman. It’s about the feminization of men and asserting that control to fit their agenda and its upset of the religious overtones that have until recently been prominent within the inner family unit. It involves infiltrating groups that have historically been “men only groups” such as Golf terminates and other sporting events such as football. Social clubs and military educational facilities like VMI and the Citadel not to mention military front line units involving the infantry, artillery and armor. It may be of interest to note that other army’s in the past have incorporated women in combat roles and the results increased casualties exponentially. (But since the left hates the military the loss should have minimal impact on democrats as a whole. Ironically, since those who abort are ideologically liberal, children of liberals will never be allowed to make any sort of impact at all.)
Politically it sets itself up for a vast array of legislation we have yet to see outside of the shadows. Euthanasia and eugenics are two of the more obvious ones. Abortion Drs. and Dr Death (Kevorkian) types who kill seniors at their own request leaves the Hippocratic Oath in a comma from which it may never recover. Then there are those who even today told that their child has some deformity and are aborted. Would you still feel the same about abortion if women were commonly aborting healthy babies because they were the wrong color? If not why would it be any more correct to abort a child with the wrong color hair, a heart murmur or a child with a learning disability?

It is about choice.
Give me liberty of give me the right to have unprotected sex. Is that what it’s all about? Like it or not, liberals as well as conservatives need to realize every movie every TV program, every piece if literature that our children are exposed to helps them to form opinions about their ideologies. Parents play the more obvious roles in the lives of children which is why for me, I think it will greatly benefit our society for the liberals to catch up and produce evidence that shows men and women have an equal role to play in the lives of our children. Not as divorcees or every other weekend parenting but as husband and wife. The argument that two people should not live under the same roof goes less to having children witness their parents fighting and more to making better choices in the first place. The divorce rate is now above 50% of all people who get married. Why, because our children have been conditioned that they can have it and have it now. Action movies start off with some intense action scene and horror flicks start off with trying to scare the hell out of you within the first 5 minutes because of our short attention spans. If it doesn’t grab and hold our attention, it’s boring…throw it away. Drugs and alcohol provide a certain level of entertainment that holds their attention and quickly replaces the stresses of their surroundings. Sex provides perhaps a level of attention and compassion their not getting from home and to make matters worse, we’re showing them how to do it. Programs allowing for condom distribution are sources of temptation that only sends the message that premarital sex is not only allowed but expected. Not in the sense of educating them when they are ready but in a sense that suggests they are ready now. Gangs help establish their identities and relevance, provide protection and street education as adolescents. Traditions of “their” culture are being discarded while they gravitate towards cultures having long histories of victimization to shed the guilt and loyalties associated with their defining culture. The list goes on and on.
Our world is constantly changing. Honesty would prevent more than 50% of brides from wearing white, fashions expose body parts originally reserved for the bedroom and we have desensitized words like “bitch” which is now a badge of honor among young women. Society creates a market for sexy adolescent girls in fashion shows, silk screen “hot stuff” on their underwear and drops them off at a child care then we feel we have the right to act flabbergasted that our child has become the victim of sexual abuse?

The culture war is a term I think that best describes what has happened to our society as a whole. The confinements of our parents have been shed by their children in the name of social progress which arguably have improved our society. Separation of church and state, blue laws and self reliance and responsibility have seemingly been graduated to the past while the foot of promiscuity, unrighteousness and lawlessness rest on top of the head of those in opposition.

All mainstream media outlets continue the drumbeat for the gay lifestyle, abortion on demand and pornography. They champion single parenthood and feminism yet dismiss any claims that father’s have any right to their unborn children at all. It’s Jerry Springer’s world, we just live in it. Our country has been lowered to the expectations of the lowest common denominator and as individuals we are powerless to stop it. We have this “right” and that “right” while no one seems to stand apart from the be suggesting if we should be exercising that right simply because we do have it. Liberals are the only known species who’s power of reasoning are not improved by the benefit of hindsight. A woman elects to have an abortion rather than to expose her child to all of the cruelties in the world and the way she is going to prevent that is by killing the child. (Huh?) What message does that send to her “other” children? How about her teenage niece or the neighbors daughter?
So when does life begin.
We are all aware that an ameba is a living organism. Even germs are living things no one disputes that. An acorn with a split husk, root descending into the ground and stem containing a singe leaf would be considered an oak tree and nothing less but for some reason liberals view the results of a woman’s egg and a mans sperm to be something less.
For me personally a baby is conceived the moment the sperm and egg have ceased becoming separate entities and together are permitted to split the cell. With its splitting the growth of that cell becomes autonomous and there is life, it cannot begin anywhere else. If it were ever admitted by the left that their view of conception agreed with mine the argument is over. They would lose. There is no argument. Even in the face of doubt, wouldn’t it be morally correct to err on the side of life than death?
What abortion does.
First off I should explain that I do not expect to change the way you look at abortion. I have my beliefs which I think are right and I’m sure you think your right but your not.
Let’s start with some figures;
A mid 90’s survey found that just 7% of abortions are hard cases. Of that 7%, only 3% are aborted due to the baby’s health, 3% are aborted due to the mother’s health and 1% are abortions performed after rape or incest.
Of the remaining 93% they breakdown this way; 16% of mothers aborted their children because of the way a baby would change their lives. 21% said they weren’t ready for the responsibility and the same percentage said they couldn’t afford a baby. 12% blamed their decision on problems with the relationship, 11% claimed they weren’t old enough, 8% claimed to have all the children they wanted while “other” reasons totaled 4%.
To no ones surprise abortion is being used as a form of birth control. The question is in what you believe to be right and what you don’t but in the end the present solution only cheapens life. It contributes to the decline in our society, morals and values which indirectly promotes values the dissolution of the family unit as a whole and callousness towards the living, particularly the elderly. Recall the “right to die” bill?
Supporters suggesting that an individual’s choice to have an abortion affects no one but themselves are wrong too. First will we ever really know if one of the children who were aborted today could have been the person who cured AIDS or invented a renewable clean energy source? I agree the likelihood is remote however if you consider your own life and concede who and what you are is based on your interactions with teachers, police officers, musicians and movie stars you might identify with the probability that someone in your past or present had some sort of effect on your life that has made you, “you”. The benefits do not stop there however. I’m certain there were many people whom you viewed as those who you didn’t want to be like at all and helped to mold your opinions and views for you as how “not” to live your life. In essence you were helping to create a standard for your community with your opinions, likes and dislikes.

In the 1960’s an estimate of 200,000 to 1,200,000 illegal (back alley) abortions were performed where 1 in 5 mothers died during the procedure. In my view I do not see the mortality rate of mothers from abortion as any different as abusing narcotics. In most cases they involve unhealthy lifestyles and I lose little sleep feeling sorry for them. They made their choice and whether they wanted to accept the responsibility for their poor choices or not, in death they did because they had no other choice.
There are those suggesting we will relive these days and a women will just have the procedure done, risk their own health by getting it done in the “back alleys” become again compelled to break the law. Taking the crime out of the “back alley” argument does not hold water either. People abuse drugs regardless of its legality. Providing a way for those people easier access to drugs will not lower deaths due to overdose or reduce drug use as a whole. Suggesting the legalization of abortions keeps a woman from breaking the law is not valid.
If the crux of the issue here is “unborn children shouldn’t have to suffer” why don’t we rip the uterus out of those most likely to have an abortion. So who’s most likely to get an abortion? Women over 25, white protestant, never married, middle class, socially screwed up, probably killers of babies before who tried to make themselves feel better about their sins by aborting as soon as possible. If wanting to keep a child from feeling hate, suffering, poverty, discrimination and injustice were valid reasons to kill an unborn baby none of us would have been born because that is the reality of the world we live in. One in which a “woman’s right to choose” only adds to the negative aspects that makes up our society’s flaws yet no one suggest this because it is an extremist position yet it is the exact opposite end of the abortion argument and allows for the same result just in different ways. Abortion in this day and age is an extreme practice that can be, at least minimally be reduced yet the left clings to its ability to kill babies.

Alternitives.

Abortion changes lives. There is no practical reason why we cannot, to reach consensus particularly at this point in time, review certain constructive areas that will encouraged people in a way that should be non-controversial when it comes to abortion. Why in this day and age must the abortion issue ride simply on a woman’s right to choose? Why must a woman’s right include the death of something so powerless? Why can’t we consider, since the pregnancy wouldn’t have happened without a father his rights? In other words if you have an over whelming desire to have sex you cannot blame pregnancy on the lack of technologies available to leave an innocent life out of your tryst.

Contraception:
A major thrust of pro-abortion rhetoric has been the assumption that if only young people were given adequate education in how to use contraceptives, and then adequate access to them, the problem would be solved.
A portion of the pro-life side has serious moral reservations about contraception per-se. Many other pro-lifers do not share this. Almost universally, however, pro-lifers feel that pushing contraceptives onto teenagers encourages fornication and at younger ages. Most pro-lifers oppose contraceptives for premarital sex, for adultery, and for homosexual liaisons.
Title X, the U.S. federal family planning program which has expended billions of dollars giving contraceptives to teenagers over the last three decades, has proven to be a colossal failure. Wherever its clinics have been established, an intense campaign has been launched to teach contraceptive use to unmarried teens. This resulted in a rise in pregnancy and to no ones surprise sexually transmitted disease has gone up. The abortion rate has gone up. The age of first sexual encounter is younger. Planned Parenthood has reported that 60% of women getting abortions had used contraceptives the month they became pregnant. (Does anyone detecting a link in educating teens and a rise in abortion here?) This evidence, along with other studies, has convinced many that the siren song of "give them contraceptives and the problem will be solved," is not part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.
While the use of contraceptives for the young has failed I think it is fair to guess that if the older women in our society knew abortion was not an option to pregnancy, there would be a noticeable decline in unwanted pregnancies due to the choice of having to be responsible for a child or finding a means for contraception.


Adoption.
Certainly, the pro-life side has been warmly supportive of this. There are many families’s that could not otherwise have children and would jump at the chance to love a child they could call their own. Tragically, the pro-abortion side, while giving lip service to adoption, nevertheless, has in practice strongly discouraged adoption to the point of not so subtly condemning it. The advice given by the Planned Parenthood clinic advises young unmarried teenagers considering adoption is adoption is “worse than death” because the mother will need to carry the child to term and we all know what happens to the body of a woman during pregnancy. (No fresh young man in your life due to the changes of your body making for sagging breasts and stretch marks.)
Reasonable sacrifice and adoption of minimal ethics alone would exclude a great deal of abortions in this country because despite what most liberals say when the topic is up for discussion abortion is used as a contraceptive!
The verdict
Morality and its lack thereof has implications reaching, changing, molding public opinion and given a long enough time line will be the heart of the eventual conversation in the description of the eventual demise of abortion.

Del Tocqueville attributed America’s strength and character to its women. “No free communities have ever existed without morals, and morals are the work of women.”
Not anymore. Bill Clinton who vetoed twice a bill to end partial birth abortion and Larry Flynt have become liberal icons. Soccer moms choose feminism, drinking and drugging, fashion and cell phones, abortion and daycare to any suggestions of social order. Yup…you’ve come a long way baby. Obligation to families, children and GOD have steadily decline. Sex is just another activity and marriage is trivial and can be broken at anytime for any reason, become a matter of conjecture more than ethics. Marriage can’t be trusted, parents can’t be trusted, teachers and tradition can’t be trusted

Ronald Reagan said of the Soviet Empire; “The only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.” Liberals see the truth much in the same way, an irrelevant category only open to debate only when the lie doesn’t support their twisted mentalities. They seem willing to defend them at any cost, overlook impropriety and injustice if their cause will be furthered. How self centered they have become abrasively declaring to anyone old enough to listen, GOD is dead. There is no GOD. Created in GODS image man has the choice to ignorantly dismiss the lessons of history and the students of such a ridiculous philosophy are called “liberals”. They are god. What else would give them the right to kill the unborn? Where is the source of their mandate to discriminate through “affirmative action” “right to die” “separation of church and state” “gun control” ”wealth redistribution” and “abortion”? They revere the UN and not the US because they are not Americans, they are gods.

Paul Johnson warned;” Those who deliberately inflict violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on the human beings if the power is acquired. Those who treasure the meaning of the language will treasure truth, and those who bend the language to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones.” The terms “embryo” and “fetus” are supposed to make a woman feel better about her sin because their association removes the thought of “life” and “baby”. Liberals choose to talk about abortion in terms of a medical procedure not only so they can lie to us but so they can lie to themselves.

Solution.

The solution to this problem is in my opinion is simple. For those who hold choice in such a high regard and keeping with the traditions of the law, the only way to keep the constitution legitimate on this issue is to put it to a vote. Rescind judicial activism which gave us this proclaimed right in the first place and put it before the American people (AKA democracy).

Jane Fonda said she wants the government to stay “out of her womb”. But isn’t that exactly what she’s asking for when she wants to retain a woman’s right to abortion on demand. After all she is insisting that pregnant women be counseled on their “abortion” options? Many areas use tax money to pay for elective abortions. What pro-abortion forces have not achieved has been to mainstream this procedure into the day to day practice of medicine. They also have not achieved a status of respectability, as the word "abortionist" still is one of low esteem, or even condemnation. Also, abortion is still strongly condemned by substantial segments of the cultures of both U.S. and Canada.

About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women. I conclude that since my taxpayer dollars are being used to perform abortion wouldn’t that decidedly move it out of the judicial side of government and into the legislative side?
If liberals felt that there was such strong support to abortion why haven’t we voted on it? It’s because they know that in the light of an open forum when presented to the American people they will lose. Feminists don’t often put pro-abortion issues to the ballot because they lose more than they win. There is no overwhelming majority that supports the procedure being used as birth control and many states have already placed laws on the books prohibiting “partial birth” abortions.

[Elrathin]

In regards to abortion conservatives are wanting their cake and eat it too.

Conservatives bitch about abortion, but then bitch when women that have to go on welfare. So make up your minds, either you want the kid born or you don't.

[smj]

In regards to abortion conservatives are wanting their cake and eat it too.

Conservatives bitch about abortion, but then bitch when women that have to go on welfare. So make up your minds, either you want the kid born or you don't.


I don't see how that is my responsability either. You wouldn't consider paying to enroll my kid in a christian school would you?[hr]

In regards to abortion conservatives are wanting their cake and eat it too.

Conservatives bitch about abortion, but then bitch when women that have to go on welfare. So make up your minds, either you want the kid born or you don't.


I don't see how that is my responsability either. You wouldn't consider paying to enroll my kid in a christian school would you?
It's not my responsibility to pay for food, rent, telephone, clothing and schooling for a mother or father who does not want to help themselfs. I am willing to help someone who wants to put forth some sort of effort to get on their feet but that is not the way welfare is set up. Benefits are reduced if the family should help the recipient in getting a late model car. Reliable transportation not purchased by the recipient to help turn an individuals life around. Don't ask me to do more than that, give me a break. I didn't have these kids, they did. I would like to see time limits on welfare be enforced. Enact programs that are more like this and watch how people are able to adapt. (Sometimes you have to shoot a hostage.)

[Elrathin]

If conservatives don't like welfare, then they should shut the hell up about abortions. You aren't going to get both ways, I'll see to that one.

[PatrickHenry]

What is wrong with contraception as a more acceptable alternative to abortion on demand?

[smj]

If conservatives don't like welfare, then they should shut the hell up about abortions. You aren't going to get both ways, I'll see to that one.


If liberals are going to continue their tax and spend ways they should establish for themselves a list of priorities before the taxed producers of this country revolt.

[Elrathin]

Well if there weren't those that supported Bush's Spend and Tax cut policies others wouldn't have to pay for bills he spent.

[smj]

What is wrong with contraception as a more acceptable alternative to abortion on demand?


Contraception for our youth has failed but I am not against establishing some sort of deal between the sexually active youth and the system that would allow for the potential future recipient to receive benefits in the future if they were to volunteer to enroll themselves onto some sort of long term contraceptive implant or simular idea.[hr]
Well if there weren't those that supported Bush's Spend and Tax cut policies others wouldn't have to pay for bills he spent.


Since the war on poverty has begun this country has spent over 4 trillion dollars. Are you really trying to tell me we aren't spending enough? Get real.

[AnnEsthesia]

Contraception is all well and good, but there are even some on the right who are against all contraception that stops implantation, as they feel that is akin to abortion. Some insurances will pay for an old man to get a hard on, but they won't pony up for a woman to get birth control pills or an IUD. I wanted to get an IUD, but I would have had to pay for it myself and getting the pill was far cheaper.

[smj]

Contraception is all well and good, but there are even some on the right who are against all contraception that stops implantation, as they feel that is akin to abortion. Some insurances will pay for an old man to get a hard on, but they won't pony up for a woman to get birth control pills or an IUD. I wanted to get an IUD, but I would have had to pay for it myself and getting the pill was far cheaper.


I think that is unreasonable.

[Osborn F. Enready]

smj said:
So by your example it should be a womans right to choose to sell her body or to use narcotics.

That would be correct, as, even YOU noticed, it is HER body.

We all own our own bodies, and are responsible for our own health and well being, as well as life choices, which means you are also responsible for the effects of those choices.

smj said:
What if my girlfriend got pregnant and I didn't want to be a father so I punch her in the gut which results in her loss of the b a b y.

That would be assault, and a violation of her rights.

If she intended to keep the baby, she could press charges against you for assaulting her, as well as assaulting and/or murdering the child.

If she didn't intend on keeping the baby, she could press charges against you for assault.

The fetus ONLY has rights by the extension of the legal rights of the mother.

smj said:
By your standards I cannot be held responsible to killing a " a parasitic life form".
Come on...talk to me. I really need an education.

What specificly don't you understand?

The value of the fetus is based on the value assigned by the mother, as is her right, since SHE owns her own body and the fetus resides within her body until birth. If the mother intends to carry the fetus to term, but that "opprotunity" is robbed from her by someone assaulting her, she has the RIGHT to hold that person accountable for VIOLATING HER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

If the mother doesn't intend to keep the fetus, or carry it to term, she has NO RIGHT to press charges for the loss of that life, but STILL has the RIGHT to press charges for the assault against HER.


So , SMJ, I have a couple questions for you.

Under what pretense would a fetus be considered to have rights as an INDIVIDUAL LEGAL CITIZEN when it meets none of those qualifying criteria?

Under what pretense would a fetus's rights (assuming you claim a fetus has a right) outweigh and take precedent over a mothers rights?


Patrick said:
What is wrong with contraception as a more acceptable alternative to abortion on demand?

Nothing, and I consider contraception a part of a RESPONSIBLE individuals life since it shows a person is taking charge of their reproductive abilities and attempting to make responsible choices. Never the less, it should only be ONE option among many options.

[American Infidel]

Yes, I'm pro-abortion. I don't mean pro-choice, I don't mean pro-abortion in cases of incest or rape, I mean that I'm pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion because abortion is a great benefit to society. Now I'm not saying that I want to go out and kill fetuses for fun, that would be indicative of serious psychological problems, though barring late term fetuses I admittedly don't care one way or another about what happens to a fetus. It would be even better if these pregnancies didn't happen at all, but they occur at an astronomical rate that there is no real hope of removing the need for massive amounts of abortion.

We have significant issues with young mothers quitting school which means they have less opportunity to obtain quality jobs, and their children often lack the advantages that quality jobs can provide, such as quality schooling, safe and secure neighborhoods and quality health care. 31% of women will become pregnant as teenagers (link (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/reading/fact_sheets/complcnt.asp). What can we expect of a teenage mother who suddenly has a child to support? Statistically not much. Only one third of mothers who had children before the age of 18 graduated high school, and only 1% graduated college. It only gets worse from there. Over 75% of unmarried teen parents began receiving welfare within 5 years, are twice as likely to abuse or neglect their children versus mothers who wait until at least their twenties, and the children of these mothers are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school link (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/whycare/sowhat.asp) Between 1991 and 2002 teen birth rates dropped 30% link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51337-2005Apr13.html). What if this had not happened? Estimates are that an additional 406 thousand children would be living in poverty, an increase over the current rate by 8.3% link (http://teenpregnancy.org/whycare/pdf/tab3.pdf). Everything from economics to even crime rates can be tied to teenage pregnancies, and both reduced teen birth rates and access to abortion have been associated with reduced crime rates (link (http://www.nber.org/~confer/2002/si2002/levitt.pdf)).

The cost is economic as well, as 9 billion dollars a year of federal funding is spent on families that originated with a teenage birth, and an additional 1 billion is spent on children who had to be removed from their parents due to abuse or otherwise improper care. link (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/whycare/sowhat.asp) Considering children of these families are themselves are much more likely to live in poverty themselves, and to become pregnant as teens themselves, how much is saved in the future if we were to reduce the amount of children teens have?

Studies have found that children of unintended pregnancies, largely due to the lack of abortion availability or refusal to seek abortion, are at increased risk for a host of problems, and this is not an indication that they aren't loved by parents. One study in particular paired children of unwanted pregnancies with children of intended pregnancies. Both groups were born to healthy, intact marriages to women of similar socioeconomic status. They performed poorer in school, despite having equivalent IQ test scores. They performed poorer socially and were more likely to be described as problem children by both teachers and parents. By their early 20's they reported less satisfactory romantic relationships, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors. By their 30's they showed higher rates of mental health problems. (link (http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_ocr2.asp)). Such widely divergent ends and the only significant difference at the start was whether or not the pregnancy was intended.

Beyond the affects on human societies, there is simply no need for additional humans. Humans have steadily taken away land, forests and resources that are essential to wildlife, and have polluted the lands they have directly claimed and in many cases simply decimated, if not wiped out, many species. From pollution of rivers, destroying of forests, and overfishing of oceans, stabilization of the human population, or even a reduction of it, is a significant step towards reducing the harm we inflict on the environment.

Forests: Nearly half of the world's original forest cover has been lost, and each year another 16 million hectares are cut, bulldozed, or burned. Forests provide over US$400 billion to the world economy annually and are vital to maintaining healthy ecosystems. Yet, current demand for forest products may exceed the limit of sustainable consumption by 25%.

Biodiversity: The earth's biological diversity is crucial to the continued vitality of agriculture and medicine -- and perhaps even to life on earth itself. Yet human activities are pushing many thousands of plant and animal species into extinction. Two of every three species is estimated to be in decline.

Stabilizing population: While population growth has slowed, the absolute number of people continues to increase -- by about 1 billion every 13 years. Slowing population growth would help improve living standards and would buy time to protect natural resources. In the long run, to sustain higher living standards, world population size must stabilize.

As population and demand for natural resources continue to grow, environmental limits will become increasingly apparent.6 Water shortages are expected to affect nearly 3 billion people in 2025, with sub-Saharan Africa worst affected.2 Many countries could avoid environmental crises if they took steps now to conserve and manage supplies and demand better, while slowing population growth by providing families and individuals with information and services needed to make informed choices about reproductive health.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.html

About 25% of all pregnancies in the u.s. end in abortion (link (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm)), and about 35% of women will have an abortion by age 35 (link (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html)). In the united states alone, since Roe vs. Wade, we'd be looking at about 50 million (47 millions at the end of 2005, and an estimate of about 2.5 million in 2006 and 2007) additional births (link (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/012006/01222006/161238)). Our consumption levels are through the roof with 300 million people, and for Americans it's at rates far beyond what is even remotely sustainable if we had 2 planets.

To clarify, my view on the environmental benefit abortion provides isn't some anti-human rant either, instead it's a pro-environment and, to some degree, even a pro-human argument. We simply do not need population growth, it's detrimental to the well beings of the humans already born and everything else on this planet. It's not some sadistic rant about how we should kill people or some barbaric "f_ck em all" rant. But with abortion we have a method of preventing an even higher level of population growth without harming anyone who can actually feel harm or even understands what harm is. Simply put, the more humans there are the more destruction will be placed upon the environment, the more resources will dry up, and the more poverty misery will fall upon populations. And with things such as water and resources being used up, what is there will become much more valuable and risks fueling wars in areas where such resources are scarce.

With abortion the environment benefits from not having to provide for more humans, teenage and young women benefit from not being saddled with a baby they aren't equipped to take care of, and society benefits from having less people who need the help of social programs, or who are simply unequipped to get ahead. With more abortion there will be a lower percentage of abused and neglected children, there will be less women and their children in poverty, more people will be able to hold quality jobs and receive education. There will also be more money for programs designed to benefit those in poverty and others in need, as there will not be 9 billion dollars a year being spent on these families, and untold billions spent on the results of these children who often end up perpetuating the cycle of poverty or, in a worse case scenario, end up in the criminal justice system. For people in poverty who need every bit they have to advance in lives, and hopefully one day be able to provide children with a stable family in safe environment conducive to success in life, an unwanted pregnancy can be devastating to their future.

If you want my opinion, if you're a teenage pregnant woman then have an abortion. Even if you want the child consider how your current situation will will affect your future and your ability to parent. If you are considering the abortion then err on the side of caution and have the abortion. If the pregnancy is unwanted have the abortion. If you are not financially able to care for it have the abortion. If you are drug addicted have the abortion, and if you're in school or plan to be then have the abortion. People should have children only when they have established their lives and have a stable place in the world. They should not be attempting to raise a child when they really don't even know who they are yet or where they're going.

Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. But they should be, since society necessitates it for so many reasons, safe, legal and frequent. As to the medical procedure of abortion I'm indifferent. Get one, don't get one, unless it's more than 6 months old I don't really give a damn either way, and even then I wouldn't want to prevent anyone who wants an abortion to have one. Better that than an unwanted child.

I guess it's a good thing for you that your folks didn't feel that way about abortion.

[PostmodernProphet]

Under what pretense would a fetus's rights (assuming you claim a fetus has a right) outweigh and take precedent over a mothers rights?


do you believe that all rights are of equal weight....the law constantly balances the rights of one party against the rights of another....for example, the freedom of speech versus the right to be free from discrimination.....

how do you rank the right to life in balance with a right of privacy?....in adjudicating the matter, to which should the courts give precedence?.....[hr]Under what pretense would a fetus be considered to have rights as an INDIVIDUAL LEGAL CITIZEN when it meets none of those qualifying criteria?

why should those rights be denied to a fetus, which scientifically cannot be classified as anything other than a living human being......

INDIVIDUAL LEGAL CITIZEN

at one point in our history, blacks weren't individual legal citizens either......

[Osborn F. Enready]

prophet said:
do you believe that all rights are of equal weight.

All individual rights, yes. Without any given one, the rest will fall within a period of time.

prophet said:
...the law constantly balances the rights of one party against the rights of another....for example, the freedom of speech versus the right to be free from discrimination.....

How do you arrive at this conclusion?! :grrrr:

You say it "matter of factly", yet show no compelling reason as to why you believe this, and I don't agree. :unreal:

prophet said:
how do you rank the right to life in balance with a right of privacy?

The right to life is an INDIVIDUAL right. A fetus is not an individual, not a legal entity, not a citizen. Where would a non-born fetus be recognized for rights, if not through extension of the rights of the mother? If the mother doesn't intend or wish to carry the fetus to term, the fetus has no rights, period, since it never becomes an individual, a person, a legal entity or a citizen.

prophet said:
....in adjudicating the matter, to which should the courts give precedence?.....

In adjudicating the matter, the only precedence that can be recognized is the tangible, objective reality, which is that there is only ONE rights holder in the mother/fetus equation, that being the mother.

The mother is an:
Individual, therefore posesses rights as an individual.
Citizen, therefore posesses rights as a citizen, recognized in law.
Legal entity, thereby, recognized in law as a rights holding PERSON.

The fetus is a:
POTENTIAL person, which entails these characteristics: Not an individual, but a parasitic life form fully and entirely dependent on a host....Not a legal citizen, or recognized as a legal citizen recognized in law..... Not a rights holding entity with an inherant right to life. A fetus that is not born has not yet experienced life, only a fraction of life of total dependence, and has no concept of rights, or life outside the womb.

The only rights to be respected between fetus and mother, are the rights of the mother, since that is the only party involved who actually has achieved and recognized rights as a person, an individual, a citizen and a legal entity.

prophet said:
why should those rights be denied to a fetus, which scientifically cannot be classified as anything other than a living human being.

In order to DENY those rights, a fetus would first have to obtain them, which it cannot. A fetus is a POTENTIAL person, not a person.

It is classified as a human being, because it has the potential to become a human being, and its part of the human species. It is not however a rights holding entity, or a PERSON, INDIVIDUAL, CITIZEN or LEGAL ENTITY. Birth rights come at birth, Individual rights are inherant to the INDIVIDUAL, Citizens are BORN or NATURALIZED to be recognized, and a fetus can be none of the above, since its not born, not legal, nor an individual.


Prophet said:
at one point in our history, blacks weren't individual legal citizens either.....

Gee, no kidding?!?

The rights of individuals is obvious, and was only a matter of time until the WORLDS notion of race based slavery was broken by the logic and philosophy of individual sovereignty. Unfortunately the forefathers lacked a solid philosophy to back their ideas on liberty, seperation of church, economics and government and layed its foundation upon "rights granted by our creator" as opposed to a solid foundation and explanation of the philosophy of individual liberty, such as Ayn Rand put forth with Objectivism.

One of the single biggest tools of encroachment on our individual rights in the U.S. has been from the bowels of religion and the results of its brainwashing since before our nation was even conceived.

Why you ask?

Because of this foul philosophy relating to being thy brothers keeper and unconditional love, two of the biggest myths ever perpetrated on man, with a purpose..... to erode what love really is perceived as, as well as to erode the concept of self ownership and ability.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
-C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock (originally published in the UK as Undeceptions - Essays on Theology and Ethics)

“The new version of rights are not any kind of rights that our founders fought for and created a government over, and the idea that law should be an instruction manual telling us exactly how high our railings should be and how many square feet the nursery school is, is not anything that existed in our country when I was growing up. It's a brand new invention, and it doesn't work.”
-Philip Howard, author of The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America, on C-SPAN's Booknotes 1995-Feb-12

[Muser]

Warning; this is a large post. If your going to complain about its length take a speed reading course or don't read it.

Ok here it is AlonzoMourning23. Believe it or not this "is" the short version.

Very thoughtful post - you brought up several excellent points for discussion. I didn't agree with everything you wrote (i.e. anti-Liberal slant), but agreed with much of what you express concern for (i.e. abortion as birth control). If I get some time later I'll respond more indepth, but for now, this is the best compromise/meet-in-the-middle solution I can personally think of:

- Abortions legal through 12-20 weeks
- Abortions illegal after 20 weeks, except in rare case of risk to mother or baby's life

Through 20 (or so) weeks, the fetus is not yet a fully-formed human being and is not capable of sustaining life outside the womb. Religious types would be unhappy about this, but nevertheless they'd have to stop mandating "life at conception" and instead learn to compromise and accept the scientific facts about a 5-week-old blob of unviable human tissue.

After 20 (or so) weeks, the fetus is a fully-formed human being and is capable of sustaining life outside the womb (even if with a little assistance) - at this stage it should be considered a human, ergo unabortable except in risk to mother's or baby's life. Pro-choicers would be unhappy, but they, too, must learn to compromise (just as the pro-lifers above must) - there's no excuse why a woman should not have already availed herself of the 0-20 week option above; if she hasn't gotten an abortion by the 20th week, sorry 'bout your luck, she doesn't deserve one and would have to live with her choice of not taking advantage of the window of opportunity.

I'm for abortion through 20 (or so) weeks; I'm thoroughly anti-abortion at any time after that (particularly the vile and murderous partial-birth abortions).

Without question, efforts are best placed at prevention; the stats clearly show the majority of abortions are "convenience" abortions. Abortions-as-birth-control is fscked up and needs to stop. There are at least a brazilian reasons why this has come to be - all it takes is one look at US society and the answer is obvious: Americans have been quickly sliding towards ignorance, stupidity, hedonism and irresponsibility. "It's the fabric of our lives".

[PostmodernProphet]

You say it "matter of factly", yet show no compelling reason as to why you believe this, and I don't agree.

whenever the courts are compelled to determine the constitutional rights of a citizen, it involves determining the balance of one person's rights against those of another....how can the law say it has insured the right of a black person to sit in a restaurant if it cannot restrict the right of a restaurant owner to decide who he will serve......can an unmarried couple have a right to cohabitation if the rights of a person to reject tenants on the basis of his religious beliefs is not restricted?....

an enforcement of rights on the behalf of one person requires a restriction of rights on behalf of someone else.....

given that, rights cannot be of equal weight.....would you enforce a right of free speech if there was a high likelihood someone might lose their life (shouting fire in a crowded theater?)....no, the right to life is of more weight than the right of free speech....

balancing rights has always been the method the courts used to resolve these issues....[hr]A fetus is not an individual, not a legal entity, not a citizen.
only because the law wrongfully denies them that right.....at one point in our history blacks were not citizens, not legal entities, were not even considered as humans by some.....during WW2 some believed that Jews were not humans with rights.....

every conceived child is a human, who's DNA can identify it as an individual distinct from either of it's parents....anyone who respects science should recognize they are human beings entitled to any rights you or I hold......

A fetus that is not born has not yet experienced life, only a fraction of life of total dependence, and has no concept of rights, or life outside the womb.

so do we then measure "human"-ness by how much life has been experienced?.....or the ability to have a conception of rights?......how much experience, how much conception does a day old, birthed infant have?......[hr]In order to DENY those rights, a fetus would first have to obtain them, which it cannot.

obviously an illogical statement.....is it not possible for me to deny you the right to enter my restaurant even if you have never been in my restaurant before?.......a person who has always been denied something is still being denied.....[hr]The rights of individuals is obvious, and was only a matter of time until the WORLDS notion of race based slavery was broken by the logic and philosophy of individual sovereignty.

I look forward to the same breakthrough with respects to the rights of the unborn.....[hr]accept the scientific facts about a 5-week-old blob of unviable human tissue.

so, how about a compromise at the point we are looking at a blob of unviable human tissue....would you be willing to ban abortions at the point brain waves are detectable?....

[Osborn F. Enready]

prophet said:
whenever the courts are compelled to determine the constitutional rights of a citizen, it involves determining the balance of one person's rights against those of another....how can the law say it has insured the right of a black person to sit in a restaurant if it cannot restrict the right of a restaurant owner to decide who he will serve.....

It can't and it never should have taken the case based on business restrictions as an answer, except by banning race as a "valid" reason for discrimination.

Owners of property have the right to determine who can and cannot enter their property, its a basic fundamental right inherant under property rights as recognized in the BOR, and today people still restrict their services and property access based on a multitude of issues, from clothing, finances, credit, and actions.

The way for the government to ensure equality for all races, is to ensure that all races have EQUAL LEGAL ACCESS to pursue their business intrests, open their own restraunts, and to ban business discrimination "based on" race.

However, banning "race" as a valid reason for businesses to refuse service is not fairly applied, even today, and most likely never could be, since all that is required to go around the legislation is to give another reason for refusal to serve.

Do you agree or disagree that a business has a right to set clothing standards for service by a customer?

Do you agree or disagree that a business owner who smokes, or doesn't smoke, has the RIGHT to cater to only the group he sees fit to cater to based on his OWN personal choice and the fact that it is his investment, property and effort that provided the service available to the public in the first place? (smokers and non-smokers)

Yes, there is a balance of rights in cases like these, but, in many of these cases which set precedent, there was flawed "interpretation" of individual rights, which ended up benefitting government more than anyone since it allowed further encroachment of law into private lives, against the lines drawn by the BOR. (further extended the rights of the state and fed over individuals, beyond government forbidden auspice)

prophet said:
can an unmarried couple have a right to cohabitation if the rights of a person to reject tenants on the basis of his religious beliefs is not restricted?....

Personally, I feel the property owner has the right to set the rules for those whom seek his services. In a free market this wouldn't be a problem since there would be no possibility of monopolization of services into a small controlling group, but without the free market, as it is today, this could be very damaging in a variety of ways.

There is a lot to this question that entails other issues and tangential regulatory issues.

In summary, the direct answer to your question is that the property owner has the right to limit his services as he sees fit, as it is his investment, his property, his rules. The couples have other choices, and not every couple has a right to live in any given establishment IF THEY DON'T meet the requirements of the service provider or the property owner.

prophet said:
an enforcement of rights on the behalf of one person requires a restriction of rights on behalf of someone else.....

Yes, assuming both parties are "persons, legal entities, citizens". A fetus is none of those, nor could it be recognized as one, since it can't meet the criteria. Could the criteria be changed? Yes, it could, but it would contradict all historical precedent and all logic of what makes a person, a person, in law. Reversing logic to appease an activist group is not in the best intrest of citizens.

prophet said:
given that, rights cannot be of equal weight.....would you enforce a right of free speech if there was a high likelihood someone might lose their life (shouting fire in a crowded theater?)....no, the right to life is of more weight than the right of free speech....

That is the case when THERE IS NO FIRE, and the statement is made of malicious intent or without the person taking responsibility for what happens..... that view changes if there is a fire, in a crowded theater, and you are prohibited by law from saying so.

Really, these issues you bring up are all seperate problems per case, as is the abortion issue, which makes it wrong for the state or fed to take a position, since all cases are individual issues, and the state or fed have no right to come between a rights holding entity, and a non-rights holding entity that is living parasiticly within her.

prophet said:
balancing rights has always been the method the courts used to resolve these issues....

In cases where rights come in direct conflict, it must be done, logic dictates.

The thing that makes it so difficult today, is the bad precedents and multiple interpretations of the law the bi-partisan monopoly have put forth and recorded into law in the name of protecting people from themselves, which is no right of theirs to begin with.

prophet said:
only because the law wrongfully denies them that right.....at one point in our history blacks were not citizens, not legal entities, were not even considered as humans by some.....during WW2 some believed that Jews were not humans with rights.....

Jews and blacks were both, individuals, legal entities, and not PARASITIC LIFE FORMS LIVING WITHIN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WHO IS COMPETENT AND IN FULL CHARGE OF HER RIGHTS. Nice strawman, no comparison whatsoever.

prophet said:
every conceived child is a human, who's DNA can identify it as an individual distinct from either of it's parents....anyone who respects science should recognize they are human beings entitled to any rights you or I hold......

They are humans, no doubt. They are not persons, individuals or LEGAL RIGHTS HOLDING ENTITIES, nor could they be without mangling and perverting the logic of what defines a person, an individual and a citizen.

prophet said:
so do we then measure "human"-ness by how much life has been experienced?

Nice attempt at a redirect.

Its not about being classified as "human", its about being classified as a "person". Not all humans are persons, but all persons are humans.

Persons are recognized as individuals, a fetus is not a person.
Individual persons have recognized rights, rights that no fetus can comprehend nor in any way conceive, since they are not individuals, but parasitic life forms living within another RIGHTS holding entity.
Fetus's cannot speak for themselves, nor can anyone determine anything of their intrests, except by claiming the obvious which is that all fetus's intend to live until delivered..... its recorded in our DNA and instincts to do this, so it is NOT a conscious act.
A fetus is not a legal entity, so it can't have full rights by any definition, though some would construe that a fetus can hold partial rights. That is a bogus argument due to what I have listed prior to this, since recognizing the rights of the fetus would null and void certain rights of the mother, and the fetus has no self-motivation to do this, only by extension of lawyers who CLAIM to speak in their name.

The entire argument for fetus rights is a perversion of logic, and a crude attempt by pro-life people to once again, subvert and undermine the rights of all women, making them second class citizens by removing their rights to medical choices once impregnated, and all at the behest of people who make up special intrest lobbies, that don't represent a majority, let alone fairly and adequately address the issue of what is and IS NOT a person.

prophet said:
.....or the ability to have a conception of rights?......how much experience, how much conception does a day old, birthed infant have?......

Neither is relevant, since once the child is born, IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, A LEGAL ENTITY, AND A CITIZEN, all because it classifies as a PERSON within our borders, under our Constitution and BOR.

prophet said:
obviously an illogical statement.....is it not possible for me to deny you the right to enter my restaurant even if you have never been in my restaurant before?.......a person who has always been denied something is still being denied.....

You misread my statement, due to your perception bias.

A fetus can't obtain rights, or be recognized as having rights because it does not meet the criteria which is the BASIS of rights in the United States. Could this basis be redefined? Yes, but not without removing logic from the equation to appease a group who rejects and refuses logic as the basis for civillization, the very basis which we have built ours upon.

prophet said:
I look forward to the same breakthrough with respects to the rights of the unborn.....

Exactly, you prefer subjective illogical premise to be valued over logic and foundational ideals.

prophet said:
so, how about a compromise at the point we are looking at a blob of unviable human tissue....would you be willing to ban abortions at the point brain waves are detectable?....

No. :unreal:

[PatrickHenry]

Osborn, I object to the entire "parasitic life form" argument.

A baby isn't a tapeworm.

The mother's own behavior placed her baby in her womb.

And it wasn't from eating contaminated food or breathing someone else's sneeze.

She did something very overt that caused conception.

She could have availed herself of a means of CONTRACEPTION, but didn't.

In essence, the mother created the human baby living in her body.

It is certainly arbitrary to extend the rights of a human being to someone who has been birthed, but not before they poke their head out of the birth canal.

And once we start down that road, of extending rights to babies, where do we draw the line?

I see you draw it at birth. I know you would never allow anyone to harm an infant, even a new-born.

For me, I favor allowing mothers to decline implantation of the zygote, but once implanted, the baby has a right to life...just like any other person.

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you agree or disagree that a business has a right to set clothing standards for service by a customer?

sure, but it's a right that the court's have determined carries less weight than the right of the individual to be free from discrimination based on race, creed, etc.....

that is simply a fact of the legal system.....[hr]there was flawed "interpretation" of individual rights

that can happen.....as in the case of a failure to enforce the individual rights of the unborn......[hr]In summary, the direct answer to your question is that the property owner has the right to limit his services as he sees fit, as it is his investment, his property, his rules.

uh no....the direct answer is that you would LIKE the property owner to have that right.....under US law, he currently doesn't.....[hr]nor could it be recognized as one, since it can't meet the criteria

admittedly arbitrary criteria which does not conform to scientific reality.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

Patrick said:
Osborn, I object to the entire "parasitic life form" argument.

No problem Pat, I respect your debate and your objection.

The fact is though, the baby can't live without nourishment from the mother in a natural setting. The mother can be replaced by a machine, but that isn't natural.

For all intents and purposes of the argument of abortion, the fetus is indeed a parasitic life-form, not independent, and is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. Under that definition, it is a parasitic life-form, meaning without the "host", it would die naturally.

What do you object to?

Patrick said:
A baby isn't a tapeworm.

Never said it was. :ponder:

Patrick said:
The mother's own behavior placed her baby in her womb.

No, the mother and at least one other person, or the parts from another person placed that baby in the womb. Two RIGHTS holding entities, created a non-rights holding entity between them, and until that fetus is born, its a non-rights holding entity meaning the future of that fetus, or potential person, is entirely in the hands of those who conceived it, and their WILLFULL EXTENSION OF THEIR RIGHTS TO SECURE ITS FUTURE. The fetus only has rights by extension of the rights holders who created it.

Patrick said:
And it wasn't from eating contaminated food or breathing someone else's sneeze.

She did something very overt that caused conception.

It takes two to tango. Conception takes two people, or parts from two people.

The mothers rights trump the fathers rights, who by all means is a legal rights holding entity, a citizen and an individual. The courts have rules the mothers rights trumps the fathers rights time and time again.

By logic, the fetus is lower that the father regarding "say" in the issue, so how on earth could logic allow the fetus to trump BOTH of their rights?!? Nonsensical.

On multiple levels, it contradicts logic to recognize a fetus as a rights holding entity.

Patrick said:
She could have availed herself of a means of CONTRACEPTION, but didn't.

How do you know?

Contraception fails, I know, its happened to me! Ever happen to YOU?!? Even when using MULTIPLE methods, I have had failures as I am sure so have many others.

If we KNOW that it sometimes fails, that means there must be a clear path for when it does, assuming the MOTHER doesn't want to carry to term or near term for reasons ONLY SHE can place the value on.

Regardless, contraception is only one method of many to PREVENT UNWANTED BIRTH, which is the topic of discussion. Abortion is another of many methods to do this, and it is within the mothers rights to contract this act, without state or government interference.

Patrick said:
In essence, the mother created the human baby living in her body.

Yes, if you disregard all reasonable and rational attempts that were taken to prevent that impregnation in the first place, which wouldn't be intellectually honest nor would it recognize the effort taken by the RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE to prevent that from happening.

Also, situations, life goals, and non-forseeable events change daily, and the mother has the perogative to change her mind should these issues place her future in danger by giving birth.

Patrick said:
It is certainly arbitrary to extend the rights of a human being to someone who has been birthed, but not before they poke their head out of the birth canal.

It certainly is not....nor do I see how you could say such things?

A person is a person, and a fetus becomes a person when it is severed at the umbilical cord, given a legal identity, and recognized as an individual which has INHERANT rights by birth, not conception.

There are three issues keeping a fetus from having rights, and all are soundly rooted in logical, rational thought process.

Patrick said:
And once we start down that road, of extending rights to babies, where do we draw the line?

You can't, if you base lines on logic, since extending rights to a fetus controverts all logic of what defines a person, both legally and using common sense. (not a human, a PERSON.)

Patrick said:
I see you draw it at birth. I know you would never allow anyone to harm an infant, even a new-born.

I draw the line at seperation from the mother, which is often before natural birth in cases of early removal of the fetus.

Patrick said:
For me, I favor allowing mothers to decline implantation of the zygote, but once implanted, the baby has a right to life...just like any other person.

In your opinion.... certianly not mine or many others.

[PostmodernProphet]

all logic of what makes a person, a person, in law

pray tell what logic at law defines a person.....what event occurs in the scientific development of a human being from conception to adulthood that creates "human"-ness....the snip of a scissors on an umbilical cord?.....I suggest the only logical moment that defines "human"-ness is conception, at which point the individual DNA of that being establishes him as unique among all other humans...

that is the logical point to say, this is a person.....[hr]a non-rights holding entity that is living parasiticly within her

all this boils down to is a circular argument.....this person is not a rights holding entity only because you have denied them their rights.....and you justify denying them their rights by saying they are not rights holding entities.....[hr]PARASITIC LIFE FORMS LIVING WITHIN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WHO IS COMPETENT AND IN FULL CHARGE OF HER RIGHTS. Nice strawman, no comparison whatsoever.

sorry, but that dodge is lame.....I love it when people start calling children parasites when they want to kill them.....liberal woman at work to her co-worker "when is the baby due?"....Co-worker "Oh, it isn't a baby, its a parasitic lifeform living within my body.....we're having a Parasitic Lifeform Shower Saturday, want to come?".........

don't waste our time with dishonest answers.....

[Wndrtch]

Osborn, I object to the entire "parasitic life form" argument.

A baby isn't a tapeworm.

The mother's own behavior placed her baby in her womb.

And it wasn't from eating contaminated food or breathing someone else's sneeze.

She did something very overt that caused conception.

She could have availed herself of a means of CONTRACEPTION, but didn't.

In essence, the mother created the human baby living in her body.

It is certainly arbitrary to extend the rights of a human being to someone who has been birthed, but not before they poke their head out of the birth canal.

And once we start down that road, of extending rights to babies, where do we draw the line?

I see you draw it at birth. I know you would never allow anyone to harm an infant, even a new-born.

For me, I favor allowing mothers to decline implantation of the zygote, but once implanted, the baby has a right to life...just like any other person.

Bravo, Pat! I'm with you on this one.

I've never been able to understand, how the difference between existance and non-existance, is a mere micro-second as the child crests the birthcanal.

[PostmodernProphet]

perverting the logic of what defines a person, an individual and a citizen.

again, show me some logic in the definition....it is totally arbitrary.....

[AnnEsthesia]

So why aren't you off fighting a war against periods? After all, think of all those fertilized eggs that people are just tossing into a landfill!

Down with periods! Make women stop having periods! They are killing our future children!

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html

The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant
According to both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus; however, state definitions of pregnancy vary widely. The differences may be more than academic. Debates over emergency contraception have put the question on center stage, with potentially serious implications.
By Rachel Benson Gold

The question of when life begins is an eternal one, debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries, and likely destined to forever elude consensus. However, on the separate but closely related question of when a woman is considered pregnant, the medical community has long been clear: Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus. The definition is critical to distinguishing between a contraceptive that prevents pregnancy and an abortifacient that terminates it. And on this point, federal policy has long been both consistent and in accord with the scientists: Drugs and devices that act before implantation prevent, rather than terminate, pregnancy.

At the state level, however, definitions of pregnancy—generally, as part of larger measures enacted to regulate abortion or prescribe penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman—vary widely. Some of these laws say that pregnancy begins at fertilization, others at implantation. Several use the term "conception," which is often used synonymously with fertilization but, medically, is equated with implantation.

To date, none of these laws has been used to restrict access to the array of hormonal contraceptive methods that can sometimes act between fertilization and implantation, but such restrictions are a long-standing goal of at least some antiabortion and anticontraception activists. And although attempts to legislatively impose the belief that pregnancy begins at fertilization have been repeatedly (sometimes narrowly) rebuffed—most recently by Congress in 1998—the current debate over emergency contraception has moved the issue back to center stage once again.
When Does Pregnancy Begin?

Although widespread, definitions that seek to establish fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy go against the long-standing view of the medical profession and decades of federal policy, articulated as recently as during the Bush administration. In fact, medical experts—notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman's uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term "conception" properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete (see box, page 8).
When Is a Woman Pregnant?

To be sure, not every act of intercourse results in a pregnancy. First, ovulation (i.e., the monthly release of a woman's egg) must occur. Then, the egg must be fertilized. Fertilization describes the process by which a single sperm gradually penetrates the layers of an egg to form a new cell ("zygote"). This usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and can take up to 24 hours. There is only a short window during which an egg can be fertilized. If fertilization does not occur during that time, the egg dissolves and then hormonal changes trigger menstruation; however, if fertilization does occur, the zygote divides and differentiates into a "preembryo" while being carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Implantation of the preembryo in the uterine lining begins about five days after fertilization. Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14 days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.

Source: American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists.

back to main text

The federal government has long accepted this definition of pregnancy and, by extension, what constitutes its prevention. For example, the federal regulations designed to implement the Hyde Amendment—the provision that blocks the use of public funds to pay for abortion services for low-income women—say that although funding is not available for abortions, it is available for "drugs or devices to prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum."

Since the 1970s, the Department of Health and Human Services has had an official definition of pregnancy for purposes of establishing certain safeguards when federally funded research involves pregnant women. During President Clinton's last week in office, his administration published an overhaul of the long-standing rules governing research involving human subjects. Shortly after President Bush came into office, his administration suspended those rules and reissued a regulation of its own at the end of 2001. Like the proposed Clinton regulation, however, the rules promulgated by the Bush administration, which remain in effect today, say that pregnancy "encompasses the period of time from implantation until delivery."
Evolving State Policy

A review of state laws conduced in April 2005 by The Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 22 states have enacted one or more laws defining "pregnancy." (Some of these states have adopted an explicit definition of pregnancy, whereas others have done so implicitly, by defining either "fetus" or "unborn child.") Despite the clear and long-standing medical consensus that pregnancy is not established until implantation, 18 states have enacted provisions premised on the notion that pregnancy begins at fertilization or conception (see table). (Although many of these laws use the imprecise term "conception," all but five leave it undefined. Significantly, however, all of the five states that do define the term equate it with fertilization.) Six states have provisions defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation, although two of these states include other definitions as well.
State definitions of pregnancy
Definitions of Pregnancy Found in Statutes on...
Fetal Research Fetal Assault Abortion
Alabama F, C
Arizona F
California I
Colorado I
Illinois F F
Kentucky C F
Louisiana F, C, I F, C, I
Massachusetts F
Minnesota C F
Missouri C
Montana C
Nebraska C
Nevada C
New Mexico C I
Ohio F F
Oklahoma C
South Carolina C
South Dakota I
Texas F
Washington I
Wisconsin F C
Wyoming C
Note: F = pregnancy begins with fertilization, C = conception, and I = implantation.

These provisions are found in different areas of the state legal codes, including those that establish the legal requirements for abortion services (17 states), prescribe penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman (seven states) and restrict fetal research (one state). Most of the 18 states have several different provisions, sometimes across different types of statutes, and sometimes even within the same section of law. Alabama, for example, has seven definitions in its abortion code—three refer to conception and four to fertilization. And some states seem to use the terms conception, fertilization and implantation interchangeably, even though they have different medical meanings and significance. For example, Louisiana's abortion code and its statutes concerning assault on pregnant women use all three terms, at times within a single definition.
Implicating Contraception

What is motivating this interest and activity is not entirely clear. Certainly, it would appear to stem from the complex politics of the abortion issue and from the long-standing campaign of some antiabortion activists to personify the fetus and portray it, often using language as a powerful tool, as a baby from the moment of fertilization (see box, page 9). In this regard, it is likely that the proponents of the state laws may have been unaware of how the various contraceptive methods actually work, and were probably not taking aim at them directly. In fact, of the 18 states that have some definition of pregnancy as beginning at fertilization or conception, 12 define abortion as the termination of a "known" pregnancy. Furthermore, two of these states (Arizona and Texas) specifically exclude contraceptives from their definitions of abortion, even though they use fertilization as the starting point for pregnancy elsewhere in their statutes.
Language Matters

Legislative activity at both the federal and state levels around the issue of fetal pain highlight how the inconsistency with which terminology is being used in ongoing policy debates could have real-world implications.

Legislation pending in Congress would require that women obtaining abortions after a certain point in pregnancy be told of the capacity of a fetus to feel pain and be offered anesthesia that could be administered directly to the fetus. The legislation repeatedly refers to that point as "20 weeks after fertilization." Medically, however, a pregnancy is generally "dated" from "gestation," defined as the time of the woman's last menstrual period, because that is a date most women can pinpoint. As a result, the federal mandate, should it be enacted, in fact would be effective for what doctors would consider to be a fetus at 22 weeks, rather than at 20 weeks.

Whether that is the case with various state bills is another question. Fetal pain legislation has been introduced in nearly half the states this year, and enacted in Arkansas. Although almost all of these measures, like the federal bill, refer to "20 weeks," most of them also use the term "gestation" rather than "fertilization." Whether that means they are aimed at abortions performed at 22 weeks from a woman's last menstrual period or at 20 weeks from that point is unclear. And in the real world, that two-week difference matters.

back to main text

On the other hand, many in the antiabortion movement clearly understand the modes of action for contraceptive methods, especially the hormonal methods (see box, page 10). Understanding that, they have to know that the end result of enforcing a definition that pregnancy begins at fertilization would implicate not just some hormonal methods, but all of them.

This is clearly a cause for discomfort within the ranks of the abortion opponents. Some groups, notably including the National Right to Life Committee, try to avoid the issue entirely, saying they have no position on contraception. But many, including Concerned Women for America and the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are clear and consistent: For them, pregnancy begins at fertilization, and if that "fact" implicates contraception, so be it. As far back as 1981, Judie Brown, long-time president of the American Life League, made the point quite clear in testimony before a congressional committee: "However, once a chemical or device acts to destroy the newly fertilized egg, which is a brand new life, then we are not any longer dealing with a contraceptive. We're dealing with an abortion."

Abortion opponents who have sought to promote this view to ensnare contraceptives have often been publicly rebuffed in Congress. In the most high profile instance, the Senate rejected legislation introduced in the early days of the Reagan administration that tried to use a congressional "finding" that life begins at conception as a way to circumvent the need for a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade and to ban abortion nationwide. One of the most contentious issues in that debate, aside from the obvious question of the propriety of a legislative body making such moral and ethical determinations, was the potential impact of that finding on many commonly used forms of contraception. Testifying about the potential impact of the legislation, George Ryan, then president of ACOG, said, "I believe that it is realistic to assume that the IUD and the low-dose oral contraceptive pills could be considered as abortifacients and therefore declared illegal." After months of controversy, the measure was defeated by the full Senate in 1982.

In 1998, during consideration of a measure to include coverage of contraceptive services and supplies in the insurance coverage purchased for federal employees and their dependents, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) offered an amendment to exclude coverage of "abortifacients." During the heated debate, then-Representative (and now Senator) Tom Coburn (R-OK) sought to "clarify" the discussion, by insisting that the measure would only affect IUDs and emergency contraception, but not any type of oral contraceptives, despite the clear statements by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that they also can act after fertilization to prevent implantation.

Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT) took the measure on directly, making the science behind the provision, and the motivation for it, quite clear: "Is there no limit to my colleague's willingness to impose his concept of when life begins on others? Conception is a process. Fertilization of the egg is part of that process. But if that fertilized egg does not get implanted, it does not grow.…For those who do not believe that life begins upon fertilization, but believe, in fact, that that fertilized egg has to be implanted, the gentleman is imposing his judgment as to when life begins on that person and, in so doing, denying them what might be the safest means of contraception available to them." The amendment was defeated, 198 to 222.
Implications for Emergency Contraception

The ongoing debate over emergency contraception has put the question of the dividing line between preventing and disrupting pregnancy back in the public eye. A product packaged specifically to be used as emergency contraception was first approved by the FDA in 1998 as a method of pregnancy prevention; the agency approved a second such product, Plan B, a year later. In a question-and-answer document developed in 2004, the FDA was explicit in describing the drug's method of action: "Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)." In short, despite the confusion that opponents have fostered surrounding emergency contraception's mode of action, how the method works depends more on when during a woman's monthly menstrual cycle it is taken (and, specifically, whether she has ovulated) than on when she had sexual intercourse.

Yet, attempting to capitalize on this confusion, some antiabortion advocates took the FDA's statement as an admission validating their view that because emergency contraception can act after fertilization to prevent implantation, it must clearly be an abortifacient. For example, the bishops asked, "'How is this contraception?' Women are being falsely led to believe that these pills are contraceptive in nature. But one of their common and intended modes of action is to prevent the development of the embryo, resulting in his or her death."

Whether abortion opponents will seek to "activate" existing state laws defining pregnancy for the purpose of restricting access to contraction—or seek to add new definitions for that specific purpose—remains to be seen. It is clear, however, that they have taken direct aim at emergency contraception, and are seeking to separate it from other contraceptive methods, no matter that the science says otherwise.

This effort is making its most public appearance in the controversy raging over whether and to what extent pharmacists must provide emergency contraception. But two less-noticed developments in the states this year are worth noting. First, a measure mandating contraceptive coverage in private insurance plans in Arkansas specifically excludes emergency contraception. Similarly, a measure recently enacted in Indiana that directs the state to apply to the federal government to expand eligibility for Medicaid-covered family planning services excludes "a drug or device intended to terminate a pregnancy after fertilization" from the package that would be covered. The ultimate impact of this provision may hinge on the use of the word "intend," since it is clear that emergency contraception's primary mode of action is to act prior to fertilization and its intent is not to act subsequent to that point. But nonetheless, this campaign has ominous implications for emergency contraception and, if carried to its logical conclusion, for contraception in general.
This article was supported in part by grants from the Prospect Hill Foundation and the Compton Foundation. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this article, however, are those of the author and The Alan Guttmacher Institute.
How Do Contraceptives Prevent Pregnancy?

Food and Drug Administration–approved contraceptive drugs and devices act to prevent pregnancy in one or more of three major ways: by suppressing ovulation, by preventing fertilization of an egg by a sperm or by inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining. Male and female condoms always act by preventing fertilization; however, the mode of action of any hormonal method may vary not only from woman to woman, but also for an individual woman from month to month, depending on the timing of intercourse in relation to ovulation.

•The primary mechanism of action of "combined" oral contraceptives (those containing both estrogen and a progestin) is the suppression of ovulation. In addition, these pills may interfere with sperm and egg transport, affect the fluids within a woman's reproductive tract or affect sperm maturation or the readiness of the uterine lining for implantation.

•Progesterone-only pills and injectables can suppress ovulation; however, other modes of action that inhibit fertilization and implantation are considered more important for these methods than for methods containing estrogen. For example, progestin-only methods can cause a woman's cervical mucus to thicken, reducing sperm and egg transport; interfere with sperm maturation; or decrease the readiness of the uterine lining for implantation.

•As with other hormonal contraceptives, there is no single mechanism of action for emergency contraception. The method is considered to act mainly by suppressing ovulation; it may also reduce sperm and egg transport or decrease the readiness of the uterine lining for implantation.

•The primary mode of action for IUDs is inhibition of fertilization, by causing the cervical mucus to thicken (for progesterone-releasing IUDs) or by altering the fluids in the fallopian tubes and uterus (for copper-releasing IUDs). In addition, IUDs affect the lining of the uterus in a way that may be unfavorable for implantation.

In summary, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, "the primary contraceptive effect of all the non-barrier methods, including emergency use of contraceptive pills, is to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. Additional contraceptive actions for all of these also may affect the process beyond fertilization but prior to pregnancy."

Source: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.


So if these whack-jobs somehow manage to say that fertilized eggs have the same rights as people, there goes most forms of birth control, since they keep those 'people' from implanting. OOPS! Nah, that can't be their goal....

[PostmodernProphet]

Nice attempt at a redirect.

Its not about being classified as "human", its about being classified as a "person". Not all humans are persons, but all persons are humans.

not a redirect....use "person"-ness if you prefer....I think "human"-ness is more appropriate, but it doesn't change your responsibility to show some logic behind the choice.....[hr]The fact is though, the baby can't live without nourishment from the mother in a natural setting. The mother can be replaced by a machine, but that isn't natural.

For all intents and purposes of the argument of abortion, the fetus is indeed a parasitic life-form, not independent, and is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. Under that definition, it is a parasitic life-form, meaning without the "host", it would die naturally.

unsatisfactory....there would be no reason then to distinguish between a fetus and a birthed child that requires mechanical life support....both are entirely dependant.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

prophet said:
sure, but it's a right that the court's have determined carries less weight than the right of the individual to be free from discrimination based on race, creed, etc.....

that is simply a fact of the legal system.....

Exactly, a fact that has been created by the bi-partisan appointments to all appointed seats in government for the last 100+ years, through their biased and differing "interpretations" which have guided their political appointments. Don't forget, the two parties you see now split from one party, they have worked in concert to seed all seats of government with their own parties exclusively, and have worked in concert to fully isolate the people from selecting and successfully postioning any third party in power at the upper levels of the political system.

In todays United States Government, Bi-Partisan eqals "fair", which we all know is obviously not the case.

prophet said:
that can happen.....as in the case of a failure to enforce the individual rights of the unborn......

.... in your opinion, with nothing factual to even base this nonsense on.

Show me what the forefathers thought of the issue of a fetus having rights?
Show me how a fetus can meet any of the three qualifications it takes to make a "person", or do you admit that in order for a fetus to have rights you must entirely re-write what constitutes a person in law?
Show me how a fetus, who has no rights under the definition of a person, can have more rights than not ONE adult rights holding person, but TWO adult rights holding persons, as the courts have consistently voted that a mothers rights over a fetus are moreso than that of a father of that fetus.

This whole argument is an attempt