 |
|
|
|
|
November 7th, 2011
06:14 PM ET
Medical views: When does human life begin?Mississippi residents vote Tuesday on a controversial ballot initiative that seeks to define a fertilized human egg as a person with full legal rights. Anti-abortion advocates crafted Initiative 26, which defines personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." Amendment would declare fertilized egg a person If passed, the law could affect a woman's ability to get the morning-after pill or birth control pills that destroy fertilized eggs, and it could make in vitro fertilization treatments more difficult because it could become illegal to dispose of unused fertilized eggs. Opponents of the measure have said they are concerned that people may not be able to understand the complexity and the consequences of the amendment. The central question in this Mississippi controversy is when does human life begin? The American Society for Reproductive Medicine represents fertility specialists in the United States and more than 100 other countries. The group's spokesman, Sean Tipton, tells CNN that his organization opposes the Mississippi initiative "because it interferes with the physicians' ability to provide needed care for their patients, whether that's helping someone have a child or keeping them from having children." Tipton says while a fertilized egg is necessary to make a person, fertilization alone is not enough to create a new human being. "A fertilized egg has to continue to grow, attach itself to a woman's uterine wall and gestate for nine months before it is born, and there are many potential missteps (that can happen) along the way." Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization. “There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.” Pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, he said. “But we’re not talking about pregnancy,” he said. “The question you have to focus on, is when does meaningful, valuable human life begin? That’s with the union of the two sets of chromosome. You have a complete human being that begins developing.” The American Society for Reproductive Medicine's Tipton points out that sometimes fertilized eggs split and create two babies. "Unfortunately nature and science are messy and defy attempts to create human categories." He adds that while saying personhood begins at conception is a nice ideological statement, it can create some real life problems. For example, unless an egg is fertilized in an IVF petri dish, it can be difficult to determine when exactly a baby was conceived because sperm can survive inside a woman's body for days and it can take several more days for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus, thus leading to a pregnancy and the potential birth of a baby. "There are lots of fertilized eggs that never become human beings," Tipton says. "Humans are notoriously inefficient producers, and we believe most (fertilized eggs) actually go out with a woman's menstrual flow." Mississippi is the only state voting on a "personhood" initiative this year, but the issue could reach far beyond that state’s borders. Efforts to bring the personhood issue to a vote are in the works in at least five other states including Florida, Montana, and Ohio, according to supporters. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 55,000 doctors providing health care for women, says Initiative 26 must be defeated in the best interest of women's health. In a statement Monday, the group said the Mississippi referendum has "wide-reaching implications that will impact access to women's health, including treatment for cancer, infertility treatment, birth control options, and pregnancy termination. This proposal unnecessarily exposes women to serious health risks and significantly undermines the relationship between physicians and our patients. The vague and overly broad terms in Proposition 26 will prevent physicians from providing the care vital to women's health." In vitro fertilization treatments could become more difficult because of the legal question of what to do with the unused eggs. An unused fertilized egg is a human life, said DeCook, because “it has the mom’s DNA and the father’s DNA,” The unused fertilized eggs should be adopted through an embryo adoption program, he suggested. “We determine a human being by chromosome, so although they (abortion rights supporters) have all sorts of word games. They’re only word games,” he said. After fertilization, “it’s a complete human being in the process of development. It deserves protection of the law.” soundoff (1,173 Responses)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next »Leave a Reply to dapoxetine
Next entry »Moms, you deserve to take care of yourselves
« Previous entryTeen drug use highest among Native Americans; Asians lowest
|
  About this blog
Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.
 |
|
|
|
Life begins when it is spoken into existence by the One who can speak it into existence.
This makes a lot of sense, because it makes a lot of sense
Who spoke the One into existence?
Really, the question should be when does this mass of cells become conscious, self-aware or able to feel? I highly doubt that is at conception, but I doubt it takes too long to get there either (possibly sometime within the first 6 weeks as the brain begins to develop).
In fact, the human brain doesn't fully develop until well past the teen years: See article “a crucial part of the brain–the frontal lobes—are not fully connected” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...
It takes a hell of a lot longer than six weeks for consciousness to develop. At that point, the part of the brain crucial for consciousness hasn't even begun to form yet.
Consciousness, sentience, something like that is needed to delineate personhood. After all, we have the cases of (1) brain dead individuals who can't even breathe on their own much less think or feel and (2) tumors, which threaten the life of their host, possess all the human chromosomes but clearly are not sentient. According to that idiot retired OB/GYN, people won't be allowed to try to kill their tumor because it has all the chromosomes and and is clearly a "person". And people in persistent vegetative states? Yeah, let's all continue to keep their bodies alive for no reason.
Tough question–it starts at about 6-8 weeks. And do we really care if development is complete? People with Down's are still people, despite the level of development. And those with dementia are still people despite not fully functioning. Both are alive as long as the brain has function, as with the rest of us. Brain function is an objective, arbitrary finding, and equal across all members of society–rich or poor, good health or poor health, regardless of race, gender, orientation...or if you are independent or relying on others to survive.
Until a fetus can exist outside the womb it's a parasite, dependent upon its mother for everything. This is wrong. If a woman can't be trusted with a choice how can she be trusted with a child?
Appalling.
Nicely put. It's not fair to have a child that was unwanted to begin with.
I completely agree!!!!!! If I can't be trusted to do the right thing for a potential child, how in the hell can anyone–especially myself–trust me to actually raise a child????? The decision whether to have an abortion or not should be the woman's in question. If a womans body becomes the property of the public or the government, what other horrors await us???
For those who say that someone who doesn't want to have the child would be a bad parent so it is best to kill it before it is born, do those same arguments not hold after the child is born? Does the person who initiated this life and no longer wants responsibility for it have the right to kill, say, their 3 or 4 year old? their teenager? No one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore; it's blame someone else or expect a handout. Fact is, if you create a child you ARE responsible for it. The very least that someone should do is allow someone else who truly wants a child to adopt it. Of course, that could cause terrible repercussions: stretch marks, weight gain, you know: important stuff. Compared to the life of a child?
What is appalling is that you seem to think the only option for the mother is to kill her baby. If the mother doesn't feel that she can raise the child, either because she isn't responsible enough or she isn't financially able, then she can give the baby up for adoption. There are plenty of couples that are willing and sometimes even desperate, because that can't have their own children naturally, that want to adopt the baby!
That child is not a parasite. That child didn't ask, nor force, the mother to get pregnant, so why punish the child because of the mother's poor decision. That child has a right to life, just as much as you do. Funny, that the ones arguing that abortion should be legal have already been born. What if your mother had decided to have an abortion? Then you wouldn't be here today to be able to type your opinion on CNN. The FACT is abortion ends a life, period. Because, if you had been aborted you would not be here. Honestly, if you think about it, it's only logical.
Michael, ten years before I was born my mother aborted a child that would have been severely disabled and left an abusive marriage. A few years later, she met my father, then came my brother, and then came me. We went through times where my dad was a you-know-what and my mom wanted to leave, but didn't, because she had children. Had she a severely disabled child with her former husband, do you think I would have been born?
The law is quite clear on this. If they are unwanted children, then they are not human lives until birth (Roe v.. Wade). However, if they are WANTED children, they are human lives from the point of conception. (Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 – public law 108-212, also known as Laci and Conner's law).
This of course is hogwash. Either a fetus is a person, and abortion is murder, or a fetus is tissue and a criminal causing the loss of that fetal tissue has done nothing worse than if they had cut a mole off someone's arm.
By the way 36 states have laws that make it a crime to "kill" a fetus during the commission of a crime. How is that possible? it isn't a person, right? It's just fetal tissue that can be removed at a whim.
Finally, someone else gets the hypocrisy of the pro-choice movement.
The answer is that those laws don't really have anything to do with protecting potential life. They were enacted to punish the harm done to the PARENTS by someone who injures or kills a pregnant woman in the commission of a crime and thereby deprives them, against their will, of the child they wanted and/or expected.
The bible says they are not person for 90 days after birth. All you religious nuts need to read the the rule book.
Maya,
Sorry, but you're wrong. They are actually charged with murder of the child, not simply with harming the mother.
Scott,
Would you are to cite the source for your claim? (Hint: You can't because it's not in there.) Please stop perpetuating myths created by the pro-abortion crowd. When you hear a claim by either side of some charged issue, look it up before repeating it. Where there are politics, there are lies.
This has nothing to do with the so-called ‘hypocrisy’ of the pro-choice movement. It has everything to do with delusions from the anti-choice movement that have yet to be taken down. I don’t believe that the death of a fetus should be considered murder…invent another crime for it, it simply isn’t homicide, no matter who terminated it. Whether it’s wanted or unwanted, it’s still just a parasitic clump of cells that has no self-awareness, cognitive reasoning, or ability to feel pain or even survive without the direct leeching of nutrients off of another organism. These debates about the life of the fetus are useless…it is a woman’s right to control her own body. Period. THAT is the voice of the pro-choice movement. Sorry we haven’t been loud enough for you to hear.
It's the same with non-human animals. If you love your animal, you take very good care of it. If do don't, you may euthanize it at any time. Why is it ok to kill your pet when you feel like it but not a clump a cells that feels nothing and has no awareness? People think nothing of cracking fertilized chicken eggs and eating them up but emergency contraception is a no-no?
There is no hypocrisy. Killing an autonomous person is not the same as terminating a pregnancy. Terminating a pregnancy is legal. What happened to Caylee anythony, and I'm assuming she was murdered by someone who should not have been raising a child-was a tragedy. No one is unclear of the living status of a child. Everyone is unclear on the status of personhood and everyone values only there own opinion (which they think God gave them). And in America, government restrictions should not be based on religious beliefs.
So, is the state of Mississippi going to start an investigation every time a woman miscarries? For that matter, are they going to investigate every time a woman menstruates? After all, there might have been a fertilized egg in that flow. Many fertilized eggs don't implant thru no fault of the mother or any other outside influences.
This law will make every woman of childbearing age subject to continual scrutiny by authorities. Oh, you need emergency surgery? Sorry, ma'am we can't do that just yet. The anesthetic might harm a fertilized egg, so we have to test to see if you have one inside you first. Please try not to expire until we get the test results back.
Sounds far fetched? Well, if a fertilized egg is a person with all the rights and privileges of every other human being. Who is most important... the egg or the woman harboring it? The way things are going, I am so glad that I'll be out of my childbearing years soon. Then nobody can tell me what I can or can't do with my body.
They already are investigating miscarriages. Hate to burst your bubble. The assault on women's rights has a long history in Mississippi – this is just the only assault to have gone so public.
I'm totally agree with you.
Just like the law treats minors differently than adults, I think our society would need to develop laws around the treatment of pre-birth people. Laws that recognize that miscarriage is not murder, etc. Mississippi's initiative 26 is too broad and not well enough thought out. Its similar to the Equal Rights Amendment that they tried to pass back in the 60's; it was too board and would have created more problems than it would have solved.
Well maybe they will take the next step and say an egg and sperm have the potential to be people and must be saved thus making birth control illegal.
To say nothing of the crime of mastur bation
Master, if you let someone else and she swallows, there will be no evidence.
AIN’T I A WOMAN? This is what Sojourner Truth asked when she gave her famous speech about the rights of black women.
WELL, AIN’T I A PERSON?
Ryan Bomberger answers this question in this beautiful music video written by a man who was conceived by an act of rape:
http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/portfolio-item/unwanted-a-story-about-choice/
How fortunate his mother recognized his “personhood”!
excuse me? that mother CHOSE to keep her pregnancy caused my rape, it has nothing to do with personhood.
you and this law wants to forced women to keep their unwanted pregnancies against their will and legal rights, which is reproductive slavery.
How fortunate she had the choice.
While i would not make the choice to terminate a fetus for myself, I do not believe that either the law or myself have the right to prevent others from making that choice for themselves. It is an awful practice that has been around hundreds of year; I would much rather that it be available for someone to choose to undergo in an antiseptic environment than in a basement with a coat hanger.
Do you feel the same about infanticide? What is so magic about the passage through the birth canal. Viable babies, fully capable of independent life, are killed in partial birth abortions every day.
That's a load of crap. Most states have laws that ban abortions past the point of viability.
Here's my solution for those who oppose abortion past the point of viability: don't allow the fetus to be killed, but allow the woman to have labor induced and gives up the baby. That way, she doesn't have to carry to term against her will. Let's see if these pro-lifers will be willing then to shell out for the medical expenses of the baby.
"What is so magic about the passage through the birth canal" This shows utter contempt for the women involved. That is indeed the magic. Women suffer incredible pain and sometimes die passing a child through the canal. Through that canal, a life is brought forth. That is what this movement and most of these comments are about, utter contempt for women.
Southerner, partial birth abortions are very rarely done and the ONLY reason they are done is when the fetus inside is determined through testing to be non-viable after birth. These are fetuses that have anencephaly (literally no head, a severe birth defect), severe spina bifida in which the entire spine and brain stem are exposed and a few other lethal conditions. It is euthanasia to insue two important goals: (1) to prevent the baby from suffering in the hours to a few days it will take to die naturally and (2) to spare the mother and father the devastating multi-million dollar "advanced life support" costs hospitals are required to provide despite a terminal illness. A mother carrying such a fetus can CHOOSE to deliver the baby and allow it to die naturally. There's nothing wrong with that. However, for some, they would rather terminate a life that has no chance. I respect individual peoples' rights to choose what's best for them. Their fetus' fate is already determined by nature.
I agree that life is sacred. However, not many of us have learned how to control the conception of life. Until both male and female have equal control over conception and termination of life, we should not be banning either pro-life or pro-choice.
That makes no sense at all.
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. But keep your laws off my body. Period.
Why stop at conception then. A baby isn't even able to walk ofr feed itself for a couple years. Heck lets say life begins when someone can support themselves independently. Nothing wrong with a 40th trimester abortion, right?
Southerner01, you are a fool. Keep your religion out of our lives. You have the most ridiculous arguments I've ever had the displeasure of reading. If you think a fertilized egg is a person, then prove you can raise it yourself. You hypocrites care all about a few cells, but couldn't care less about a chiled after birth. In your own way, but cutting aid to parents who can't afford to have a child you are condemning that child to a potentially miserable existence just to prove a point so you can feel morally superior. Wasn't Lucifer condemned for pride – for thinking he was as good as God or could speak for him? Like you?
BTW BioArtChick – right on! I bet if men got pregnant, this would never be an issue. I'd like to hear Southerner01's comments if he were pregnant after a rape......bet there'd be no arguments like this!
Uhhh, 40th trimester? I don't think even elephants gestate that long. Try to get at least a basic understanding of the subject you're arguing about, Southerner.
I'm sure others will point this out, but a legal definition of personhood at conception would also require monitoring of miscarriages and a determination of whether that miscarriage was spontaneous or resulted from outside forces causing the miscarriage and the necessary legal findings then if these acts were criminal or not.
If law becomes fact then this process becomes necessary. I await the weak and illogical vacuous denials that these two facts follow each other.
So we should repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence act, because causing a miscarriage in the commission of a crime is not killing someone, it's more like accidentally popping a pimple during a fight?
Actually, reading one of the existing posts, if life begins at personhood, then women's, wait, ALL FEMALE menstruation needs to be monitored and each egg expelled examined for fertility and then whether the expulsion was 'natural' or due to the mother's environmental actions for a legal finding.
I'm not even a big fan of legal shows and I can figure out this is an unnecessary legal stew that this law creates.
"if life begins at personhood"
So they are people, but not alive?
LOL carefull with that one there may be a republican reading this and they might try it
I always felt that until my cord was cut separating me from my mother that I was not yet a individual human being.
Well, technically, you weren't an individual human being until you reached 18 years old and were independent. Maybe that should be the standard.
Does this mean they are also going to ban the death penalty in Mississippi?
Or do we just care about lives until they are born... then they are all socialists who leach off the system... and on their own.
What bugs me is that there's so much fierce protection being offered for yet-unborn fetuses, but then many of these same ardent people seem to think that once it's out of the womb, it's fair game - it's okay to kill anyone in the name of war. If we really value life so much, why do we have war? Let's just stop killing. Period.
Im an inbred moron who thinks life begins at conception because thats what my brother/father told me the bible said
So you admit you haven't read the bible for yourself? What if your father/brother might be wrong? Or is it that you simply don't care that they may be wrong?
Geesh! Think for yourself, instead of being someone's puppet!!!
Well, by their logic, I bought a dozen chickens yesterday, and had scrambled chickens for breakfast.
To SueS: Bravo. You are right on point.
To the pro-lifers: My body is MY business and what I do with it is between me and my doctor. Unless and/or until you are willing to support and educate every single child born, then shut your self-righteous mouths and Get. Over. Yourselves.
I believe life beings once the egg has been fertilized. I had a miscarriage at three months and I was told by my doctor that I would have had a boy. I don't think you can dispute that the fetus was a living human inside the uterus inside its mother. It was a life and it had importance and I mourned the loss. What I have a problem with is women who use after morning pills and abortion as a problem solver. I have a niece who had two abortions because she didn't want connects with the fathers. To me this is just wrong. Its a human life and it needs to be treated with respect.
So, by your own thinking/opinion, you are guilty of 'Involuntary Manslaughter (Personslaugher?)'.
You didn't mean to kill your fetus, but it died while under your care. We prosecute moms/nannies/babysitters all the time when this happens. If we find the mothers actions (drinking, smoking, overeating, overexertion, over) contribute to the miscarriage, then it's murder! First degree if the mother knew (or was told) that the action *might* be harmful and they did it anyway (blatant disregard for a life).
Trial lawyers will *love* this amendment!
ClearThinking, technically you are exactly correct. Can't have it both ways.
Leah, I'm sorry for your loss, but legislation should never be founded on anyone's feelings or religious beliefs, and neither you nor the state of Mississippi has the right to make that choice for anyone.
You all have a justified point. It will be interesting to see how it comes out.
So you wouldn't take birth control pills then or use an IUD? Both prevent implantation of fertilized eggs. By your definition they are wrong. Big difference between a 8 month or even 3 month fetus and a 1 hour old fertilized egg.
pro-choice all the way.. the big problem with this debate is that this is a religous based argument. religion should NOT be allowed in anything public, not in politics, not in education and definatly NOT in law! God was a made up character so a few could control the many through ignorance and fear. I do Not believe in god so why should I have to abide by a law based on a religion that I dont believe in? women should have the choice to decide what happens with their own body end of story. the laws should be based on the intent or negligence of the crime, if you assualt a women and the fetus dies then you should be held accountable, even if she could get an abortion legaly at the same time because you took her ability to make that choice herself. If you're pro life thats fine you have the right to make that choice and then don't get an abortion.
The biggest Problem with this is religous people need to keep religion where it belongs...in your own home and life, stop trying to impose you're beliefs onto others that don't want it! people forcing their own religion onto others has been the leading cause of death in humanity since the crusades so why are we still letting these narrow minded tunnel viewers inflict there beliefs on those that don't share them.
if you want to live somewhere where religion runs the laws then move to Iran....let me know how that works out for you. there is a reason they're all trying to move to North America, most of them don't even like it
what you believe is up to you, but that doesn't mean it deserves to be law
whats scary in in that CNN poll, 44% said that life begins at fertilization, in Miss it is probably alot higher...
baby j,,,, very scary, I better stock up on birth control pills before they are outlawed everywhere
Life doesn't begin at fertilization, life began a couple billion years ago ( George Carlin....smart man, shoulda been president)
Life only begins a fertilization if you're talking about how the incessant BS spread on something political gives it life in the media and the mindless sheeple.
In this literal case, human life does not begin at conception. A human life develops over a 40-week span (approximate, your mileage may vary) after that.
Just because all the parts are in the garage doesn't mean one has a car.
We can take this 'slippery slope' even further by declaring any woman who gives birth to identical twins (triplets, quads...) guilty of CLONING! And we all *know* that CLONING is both illegal and immoral!
Life begins when there is a heartbeat, just as death is defined as having no heartbeat. Its as simple as that.
ya but the brain lives longer than the heart, and hair grows even after death so thats not a good arguement either
Kevin... hair does NOT grow after you are dead.
And yes, some cells (not only in the brain) will remain alive for a short while after the heart stops, but not for long and unless you use life support, they will rapidly die too.
You need to take biology classes.
A fetus is parasitical in nature, heartbeat or no. When it can survive on its own outside the womb, then it's a person.
Cellular lifeforms have no hearts to beat. Try again.
You can be declared dead with a beating heart. How do you think they get extra hearts for transplantation?
It's amazing that there are so many backwards people responding that apparently believe live begins at conception. You stupid born-again idiots should be on the front-lines in Iraq; maybe you'll do something useful there. here your opinions are so 1600's. Women should have a choice. It's none of your business. if I may quote Carlin again, people care about a fetus but once it's born, no one gives a damm. Right wingers are worthless tissue that should have been aborted.
Cloning should be legal, we should also be cloning braindead human bodies for medical testing...humanity would benefit for the greater good. Religion had its chance, time to let science rule!
Let's see if I have this correctly : (1) the instant an oak seed sprouts it is automatically high grade timber.
(2) The moment a student is accepted by a Graduate School, he or she is a Doctor (of something)
(3) The instant a child learns to ride a tricycle, he/she should be considered a Teamster.
(4) In the unhappy event that a pregnant woman loses her fetus due to an automobile accident, the individual judged to be at fault in the subject accident is guilty of manslaughter.
This is going to be just swell!
It is ridiculous, isn't it? And what happens if a woman miscarries? Do they charge her with manslaughter? Or will it be ruled an accidental death? The ramifications of this idiotic measure are endless.
In Canada, I believe the law protects a pregnant women if her and her baby are deceased its vehicular manslaughter to two persons one unborn and one the mother. Also, I believe it protects them also it they are injured the other part can be sued for both. persons. I would have to research it to know for sure. There was a case in the news a couple of years ago.
No that is NOT the important question when it comes to abortion. The question we have to focus on is how does banning abortion or legalizing it affect women and society, and whether we are ready to say that ending a fertilized egg's life is worth the risk of ruining the life of the mother. Nobody can say either way except for the mom.
exactly,,,so a fertilized egg implanted in the Fallopian tubes could not be terminated so the women would be left to die? 2% of all pregnancies are this type – Ectopic .
There is no way to save an ectopic pregnancy. It cannot turn into a normal pregnancy. If the egg keeps growing in the fallopian tube, it can damage or burst the tube and cause heavy bleeding that could be deadly. If you have an ectopic pregnancy, you will need quick treatment to end it before it causes dangerous problems. Under this law you would have to wait for it to burst and then hope the bleeding could be controlled.
I am neutral on this issue, but can someone in support of this measure please kindly explain why a law like this needs to be made from your perspective/world view? I understand the Pro-Life argument, I really do, but if someone does not choose to have your moral viewpoint, is that not that person's own decision? Thank goodness there is no law that forces people to have abortions, but on the same line of thought, why should people be forced to adopt your moral view when they simply do not agree? Can you not simply resolve to just not have an abortion or use the morning-after pill, etc. on a personal level? If your response is religiously influenced, did Jesus force the Pharisees to adopt his views? Did he force people to change their ways? Was Jesus ever involved in politics? Did Jesus help put laws into effect? Each person will reap what he/she sows and is responsible for his/her own actions, so how does forcing everyone to conform to your view against their will help anybody? I would be worried about the underground abortion market and health risks this would pose, considering that most people that have resolved to not carry the child will likely seek out other means to carry out the deed, which could end up putting even more life at risk.
Anonymous, I cannot be the responder you are requesting because I believe that the issue of abortion is a moral issue. It is different in different societies at different times – as is infanticide. But I want to applaud you for being rational and questioning. Also, you have brought up an issue that is too often not touched on by the pro-life enthusiasts which is whether women will have abortions in back alleys, illegally, or in safe, controlled conditions. No matter what the religious want to believe, changing the laws to make abortion more difficult or illegal does not stop abortion – it only increases the potential harm done to both women and potential babies.
Well said!
In simpler terms, why does any religion need the crutch of the state to enforce its brand of morality? If it is truly strong and correct in its convictions it won't need that help at all.
you womaen are selfish for wanting to end the life of a child YOU made control yourselves or have it. Life begins at conception!
selfish or not is beside the point, it's a womans right to decide for herself, not yours to decide for her, regardless of when life begins. Dont like abortion... don't get one!
Symone, that's a simpleton's response. Not all pregnancies are created via selfishness. Some pregnancies are wanted, only to find out that carrying the child full term would endanger the mother's life. What then? Do you really think that YOU have the right to choose for anyone other than yourself? Get down off that high horse before you hurt yourself.
Birth control is not infallible. I have a friend who got pregnant despite using two different forms of birth control. Should she have been condemned to have a child she neither wanted nor could support even after she took as many precautions as she could to prevent it?
As my anti abortion pro life very religious father once said, "It is between a woman and her God. Everybody else needs to stay out of it."
Reasonable people COMPLETELY disagree on this topic, which means that using legal force to suppress the other's viewpoint would be very wrong. Choice is the only option that allows both viewpoints to cooexist and follow their conscience. It also clearly adheres to the separation of church and state.
America is supposed to err on the side of freedom. Its ridiculous how conservative nuts want freedom from the government, except when it suits their religious beliefs. its like they are saying, I'm a libertarian, except when it doesn't effect me.
Fertilized eggs are not people. Many many of them don't implant, and are just flushed out of the body. Many implant and then are lost due to natural processes. these are lumps of tissue that did not become life.
Sorta good point, but wrong logic. If reasonable people can make a reasonable argument that abortion ends a human life, then even if there is doubt by others or skeptism, even if it is widespread, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and protect the human beings life that can't defend themselves.
If you believe that there is a reasonable enough argument, even if you think that there is only a .00001% chance that an embryo is a human or at least if left alone can become a human, then are you going to really make the argument that for the sake of the general public, or to be politically correct, we should allow choice and personal convinction to rule the day. Or are going to defend those who can't defend themselves.
I guess if life begins at fertalization, then people should be able to declare it a dependant on the tax return. Serogate mothers will be happy 🙂
You have a very good point. But I am sure the tax man would find a way around that. Good point!:)
I believe in the Jewish tradition, the developing embryo is not considered a complete "person" until it has graduated from medical school...
That is funny we need a little humor on such a serious topic.:)
Where will it ever end? I mean, one day they may claim that corporations are "persons" too! How silly would THAT be? O.O What? ... Say that again please ... Are you F kidding me!? Well THAT explains a lot!
*begin sarcasm*
So, putting it together, corporate life begins at conception.
Suddenly it all makes OWS sense...corporate peonhood is started at conception, grown through government via laws and public schools, saddled with enslaving debt, and the only way out is the predestined corporate peon job at low wages. Then they get laid off and protest at not having fulfilled their destinies of peon greatness.
*end sarcasm*
They already have declared that corporations are individuals... Supreme Court said so. (Really bites that corps can now literally buy our politicians because they no longer have a reasonable cap on political donations.)
Here's an easy response: No uterus, no opinion.
Don't need a uterus to have an opinion, I just don't get to choose
Here's an easier one: no brain, no opinion.
You qualify.
In my not-so-humble opinion, until the fetus has reached a stage at which it can survive outside the womb – that is, after it is cut off from the nutrients supplied by the mother’s own body – then its rights come far, FAR behind the rights of the mother. The mother is self-aware. She is thinking. She can feel pain. She can feel fear. Her life affects the lives of others. The fetus? Not even close. It’s technically a parasite and it has no viability of its own. Until it achieves that viability, it’s the woman’s choice regarding its future. Debating about the ‘life’ or ‘potential of life’ or whatever of the fetus is pointless and a little bit stupid. The life of the mother comes first. Sorry.
After the baby is born it still can't survive without the mother, so I guess it's ok to toss a newborn in the trash along with the aborted fetus?
Hey Bob, don't be a Dick
Uh, no, Bob. EVERY human being requires sustenance...you and I depend on someone else to help us live, too. The difference is that we're not putting someone's life at risk by doing it. We're not actually sucking nutrients right out of someone else's body. In the case of breastfeeding, sure, that's still happening, though the mother's body isn't suffering from nearly the same risks (which could very well lead to death, no matter what the sunshine-and-roses descriptions of pregnancy from the anti-choice side have told you). But you can also feed a newborn on formula. Many newborns are, when they're abandoned, refuse to nurse, if the mother is on medication required after a difficult pregnancy/birth, etc. Many newborns are also raised by someone OTHER than their birthmothers, whereas fetuses by definition ONLY survive by leeching off the very body that carries it. There's a critical difference there, and if you can't see it, I'm not sure I trust your ability to reason.
Masha! Stop being rational with Bob! And Kevin, stop being so accurate; nobody likes a smarty pants! ; )
I would ask DeCook: what if the fertilized egg poses a clear hazard to the mother's health? If this law passes, a woman in Mississippi could be prosecuted for murder if she aborts the fetus. Can she argue self defense?
As long as it is in a woman's body, it's a fetus. When it can breathe on its own, it's a person.
Other than fighting this attack on women in every way–which many of us are doing and should keep on doing–we should seriously be trying to propose legislation. This legislation should be aggresive and Swiftian, and it should state that miscarriages are to be treated as first degree murder, no exceptions. If that doesn't wake people up, I don't know what will. This "life begins at conception" crap will be shown to be the joke that it is.
I think we need to spend more time and energy protecting the children who have already been born. I find it odd that conservatives want to ban abortion (and some more extreme who would ban birth control) but they continually try to hack away at the social safety net that would providefor some of these children after they are born.
A fertilized egg is not a person, it's a potential person. Alot can happen between fertilization and implantation, what about spontaneous miscarriages? While I personally find abortion after the first trimester, for other than medical reasons wrong, I think that until a fetus can survive on it's own, it is not a legal person.
you could not be more correct.
A fetus is almost safer staying put in a womb, because as soon as the poor thing is born, it loses it's appeal to conservatives
"I find it odd that conservatives want to ban abortion (and some more extreme who would ban birth control) but they continually try to hack away at the social safety net that would providefor some of these children after they are born."
It's only odd if you forget the word "government-provided" in front of "safety net", and fail to recognize that conservatievs simply want government out of teh way to let families and communities make that net.
Too many people, especially on the left, equate a lack of government involvement post-natal as not caring about children. That is a gross error. In fact, it is caring about the children that drives the motivation to get government out of the way so that caring and nuturing can be done best by parents instead of bureaucrats. Government should only step in when needed, as in cases of abuse or neglect, and not as a first moment in assuming that it's occurring without proof as it does now. A child needs its parents, not clueless strangers.
"Conservatives simply want to get government out of the way to make that net." Key - getting government out of the way, conservatives seem to want small governmentwhen it suits them. Otherwise they seem to want the government in every bedroom and doctor's office.
as a point of interest:
Most (yes a majority), of fertilized eggs do NOT see implantation and birth. For various reasons (including genetic abnormalities – such as trisomy 16 which is the most commonly aborted chromosomal abnormality) a fertilized egg is aborted. This is by design (funny enough, 'designed' by the very God religious nuts say defend 'life'). If every single Egg that was fertilized came to fruition despite genetic mistakes, our species would have failed long ago, if it thrived at all. This brings up some interesting legal points if this law is passed:
1. who do we prosecute? EVERY SINGLE WOMAN ON EARTH because the egg is SUPPOSED to abort if there is sufficient genetic damage? God, because he designed the system? Is the man accomplice to murder because he contributed half of the failed genetic material?
2. how do we accommodate the obvious MASSIVE influx of newly-crowned murderers? Jails are already overcrowded
3. how do we prosecute when we lack a 'body of evidence' (both literally and figuratively).
I'm not arguing a slippery slope... if you dub a "fertilized egg" a human being, then this all becomes real concerns. People should probably consider this in their argument.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1930439/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0046817781802596
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1468813/
ect, ect, ect...
People like to jump on a cause. I appreciate conviction, but what I can't appreciate is half-assing your own argument. The second this law were to pass, I hope those who voted for it march themselves right to nearest police station to turn themselves in.
Abortion is a procedure to terminate life just as the police have the right to terminate life under certain conditions or a soldier can terminate life in war or the state having the right to execute someone. It does not matter when life begins be it when a sperm cell unites with an egg or when the child is born. The decision to terminate a fetus is a personal one and most people support abortion. Many thousands of abortions have been performed and people go on with their lives.
Your post outlines the reasons why the so-called "pro-life" movement should change its name to the "anti-choice" movement. They are not pro-life. They are pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-arming the masses.... Death has been a part of our society and our government forever. They need to get over it and stop pretending that they don't support it 99% of the time.
Masha, you just described the typical Republican, Don't vote Republican!
You're wrong though. A vast majority of Americans are "pro-life" in the sense that they think abortion should be illegal with the exception of mother's health, rape, etc. Personally, I think it should be legal only in the case of mother's health, and even then very strictly controlled. Since it's a person, rape shouldn't make murder legal.
The actual number of people against abortion for any old reason is somewhere in 70-80 percent.
Mark, I'd love to know where you got your statistics, because they sound completely made up to me. And contradict all the statistics I've seen. And if you honestly believe that women who are raped should be required to go through with the pregnancy then I hope that you are caged and contained somewhere. Someone with that little regard for the wellbeing of others should not be allowed to run free.
Mark you are wrong. Its closer to 20% or less think women shouldnt be allowed abortion in the case of rape.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html
When did "You" become a person.............?
honestly I have always thought "when I was born"
Laura–when do you stop being a person? (hint–it has nothing to do with conception or birth)
Pro-lifers:
Get real... there is no way in which an egg and sperm are actually "alive" before attachment to the uterus. Also, a bunch of cells are not a human being. A human has a brain, a heart, etc...
Also, since someone probably has brought this topic up too, One can use reasonable force for self defense.... if a fetus is going to kill the woman because any health concern, it is NOT murder to have an abortion, it is self defense.
Overall, prolifers, if you don't want an abortion then don't have one or ask a pregnant lady who wants one if you can adopt their child. Otherwise, stop trying to force your opinion on others.
if two humans concieved it, it is Human. what else would it be? do what you want with the child, but it's on your Conscience.~
Tale me how you can tale when you egg is fertilized? Since you are a woman you may have already killed a few dozen 'people' without knowing.
The fertilised ovum has all the "elements" to produce a human and no other part of our bodies can mimic this. To kill or not to kill it is a moral, societal and a religious issue whether in utero or after its is born.
"The fertilised ovum has all the "elements" to produce a human and no other part of our bodies can mimic this. To kill or not to kill it is a moral, societal and a religious issue whether in utero or after its is born."
The Ford factory has all the "elements" to produce an F-150 and no other canmaker can mimic this. To build or not to build it is a business and an economic issue whether in facorty or in the shop as spare parts later.
Just sayin'...the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
One's life begins at the moment of conception. Plain and simple. God does everything for a reason, HE makes no mistakes. Who are we to judge his workings? Let HIM round off the corners.
You believe life begins at conception and I can respect that. My question is this: do you see it as your inherent right to force that opinion onto others or are you just as willing to allow God to judge someone who acts against your beliefs?
That is the basis of my discord with the pro-lifers. Believe as you wish....it makes no difference to me, BUT do not force me to conform to your beliefs.
Brook...God does not exist! we're all a biproduct of chemical reaction in the perfect environment billions of years ago or the planet was seeded by extraterrestrial means, and to think the latter as more credible than the first two makes me think there's just something in the tapwater thats makin people or something..lol I mean Holy Jeebis you're not one of those woodborrow baptist church freaks are you? HA! whatever..think what you want but man if you read the bible and think Creationism is really how we got here...HaHa thats funny...reality is back when christianity was made up...the guys that ran the church were the sheep herders...."Religion" was the sheep dog...and you're the Sheep....Baaaaaaaaaa!...lol
A large percentage of fertilized embryos never attach inside a woman. They don't implant. they are just flushed out. Naturally. And I mean long before someone would know to call it a miscarriage, which is a matter of trauma because a woman is hoping for a baby. IS that God also "not making mistakes"? what about all of those people whose lives were never celebrated and were never born or known about?
Clearly, they were not alive. They were pieces of tissue.
Religious people can argue all they want, but their only argument is about THEIR beliefs, and why everyone else should be controlled by them. And I'm agnostic. There may be a God, but its not up to me to tell the government to chose women's rights based on beliefs.
"A fertilized egg has to continue to grow, attach itself to a woman's uterine wall and gestate for nine months before it is born, and there are many potential missteps (that can happen) along the way."
this argument eventually turns into "A baby under the age of 15 has to continue to grow, live off it's parents for the next 15 years, and there are many potential missteps that can happen along the way (the child can get hit by a car, fall off a bridge, get eaten by a lion."
Yes, it's called "life" and government, either from the left or the right, has no role in regulating or making illegal our missteps in it.
The indisputable fact is that life *does not* begin at conception, or even anywhere in the reproductive process. There is no evidence that life has begun anywhere in millions of years. Life only continues with conception, otherwise the egg (alive) and sperm (alive) both *die*.
Should all females tie up their tubs to prevent future liabilities? Do fertilized eggs have more rights than woman? Who are we? Birth machines?
Unfortnately to some (not me), yes.
Would a woman be in trouble with the law if she were to have a miscarriage? I mean, the medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous ABORTION. But there are so many reasons as to why a women could have a miscarriage. It isn't the woman's fault. Many, many women have miscarriages and don't even know it because they end up getting their period around the usual time and had no idea they were pregnant to begin with. Is the woman's body a vicious weapon who "kills" developing fetuses? Of course not. As for abortion, I don't think a woman should be demonized for having ONE in her life. But more? Then that's just irresponsible. Also, I do consider abortion as taking responsibility. It's not cheap people and it's a stressful time for women (for the most part). If she knows shes in incapable of being a parent and does not want the child what so ever, why should she have to live through 40 weeks of carrying something she does not want? Who knows what she could be doing during her pregnancy, specially if she doesn't CARE about it. Honestly, if a woman was a crack addict and she HAD to keep her baby even though she didn't want it, would you approve of her carrying a child if you knew she would still keep using? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Sure abortion is a sad thing, but who knows how many children would be out there living in complete crap in the hands of unfit parents. Yeah, there would be more babies up for adoption perhaps, but there are tons of older children and teens that are still in foster care because everyone else wants a baby. Either way life is sooooo unfair. Let's all cry together.