Abortionist LeRoy Carhart’s shady slush fund
Pro-choice ideologues are a gullible bunch. They want so much to believe abortionists are good people that they allow themselves to be victimized by these obvious predators.
Case in point: late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart.
Last week in opposition to Operation Rescue’s Summer of Mercy 2.0, held at Carhart’s Germantown, Maryland, abortion mill, pro-aborts staged a Summer Celebration of Choice.
Interestingly, for all the “This Clinic Stays Open” signs, Carhart closed his mill for the week. But I digress.
The Summer Celebration of Choice logo states it is “a project of abortionclinics.org , with locations in Bellevue, NE and Germantown, MD, and the Abortion Access Fund, Inc. ”
abortionclinics.org is an ad for Carhart’s mills.
Abortion Access Fund, Inc. links back to either Summer Celebration of Choice or trust-women.org, AAF’s info and donation page. AAF lists its incorporators (which I can only read on my computer by highlighting the blank beige page at “Articles of Incorporation”) as (click to enlarge)…
Mary Lou Carhart is LeRoy’s wife, and Janine Carhart is his daughter. Thus, Mary Lou, LeRoy, and Janine are AAF’s officers.
So Carhart himself organized the Summer Celebration of Choice and is asking for donations to be given to his own fund.
The SCoC kick-off walk page states AAF is a “501(c)(3) charitable organization whose primary mission is to help ensure that no woman is refused the health care she needs due to lack of money.”
In other words, Carhart is using AAF to raise money to finance abortions he commits.
As for the 501(c)(3) part, although AAF was established in 2000, the IRS has no record of the 501(c)(3) charity Abortion Access Fund located in Bellevue, NE, nor does Guidestar. According to this 2000 fundraising letter (click to enlarge)…
Eleven years later, we’re still waiting. According to Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, AAF has never filed an IRS Form 990. According to that original fundraising letter, AAF was organized to secure a $350,000 mortgage for Carhart’s Nebraska abortion mill.
The IRS does list National Network of Abortion Funds as a charity, as does Guidestar. But neither “Carhart” nor “Abortion Access Fund” are included in any of its Form 990s 2007-09.
NNAF lists AAF as one of its 95 local members, but how AAF reports its funds to the IRS is unknown.
NNAF states about AAF, “If… you need help paying for your abortion, ask at the clinic about the Abortion Access Fund.” Again, and in other words, all proceeds from AAF go to reimburse Carhart for abortions.
In a video Carhart made for the Summer Celebration of Choice, he encouraged supporters to donate to AAF, stating (beginning at 1:47):
This first annual Summer Celebration of Choice will be sponsored by and any proceeds and funds raised will go to the Abortion Access Fund, Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to furthering the availability of reproductive choice for women.
Carhart never stated AAF was his own slush slash fund used to underwrite abortions he commits, disingenuous, to say the least…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eP5EHjN2Js&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
But hey, there is good news, after all. The sucker raising the most money to pad Carhart’s pockets won a dinner with Carhart.
[Top photo via summeroftrust.com – apparently another website operated by Carhart]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“Gullible bunch” is putting it very nicely. People who support late-term abortions are sick, pathetic, twisted psychopaths. I don’t care who thinks I’m judgmental for saying this because it is the absolute truth. I can give most pro-choicers the proverbial “benefit of the doubt” because most have a problem with abortion after 20 weeks (hey, it’s a start). But the people who will justify, let alone go out an picket in support of, late-term abortions have severe psychological problems. They are, at best, criminally stupid and, at worst, criminally dangerous.
Great post. I want to have dinner with Carhart!
I have been witness firsthand to abortions being paid in part or in whole by the Abortion Access Fund. This is a wonderful organization that helps women who are too poor to afford their needed procedure. You are mistaken in your post. But at least you are thinking.
Gullible? Hardly. People traveled from all over the country to counter the siege that Operation Rescue and their Summer of Mercy had planned for the clinic.
Abortion is not anyone’s business but a woman and her doctor, and these late term ones are the result of an anomaly.
You are not doing anyone a service by declaring the things you have assumed here.
“Abortion is not anyone’s business but a woman and her doctor, and these late term ones are the result of an anomaly.”
Ha, do you have a single study to back this claim up? The only study I have seen on reasons for late-term abortions was the one done in 1987 by the Guttmacher Institute, which said that only 2% of all abortions after 16 weeks were for fetal health reasons.
The SCoC kick-off walk page states AAF is a “501(c)(3) charitable organization whose primary mission is to help ensure that no woman is refused the health care she needs due to lack of money.”
Oh really? I wasn’t aware of Carhart providing pre-natal care for pregnant women, post-natal care to new mothers, or well women exams.
I have been witness firsthand to abortions being paid in part or in whole by the Abortion Access Fund. This is a wonderful organization that helps women who are too poor to afford their needed procedure.
Let me start with a couple of quotes:
“When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society – so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.” Mattie Brinkerhoffn, The Revolution, September 2, 1869, pages 138 and 139.
“For the question remains, do women want abortion? Not like she wants a Porsche or an ice cream cone. Like an animal caught in a trap, trying to gnaw off its own leg, a woman who seeks abortion is trying to escape a desperate situation by an act of violence and self?loss. Abortion is not a sign that women are free, but a sign that they are desperate.”
Federica Mathewes Green, in her essay, Abortion: Women’s Rights and Wrongs, The Remnant, January 20, 1992
Let’s look beyond rhetoric to the issues underlying the pregnancy and the woman’s unmet needs, which contribute to situations in which pro-choicers feel a woman “needs” an abortion. What about such issues as lack of access to food/adequite housing, ineadequite pay, lack of access to afforadable education, unhealthy relationships, drug/alcohol abuse, etc. How does giving her an abortion, throwing a pack of birth control pills at her, and sending her back to the same miserable conditions and situation, without adequit counseling or referrals, really help or empower women in these situations? This is where I feel feminists advocating for abortion rights, have failed women.
dinner. with car heartless? wow just. what I’d. always dreamed. of!
Id like. to have dinner. with Wayne Williams after that!@
“Carhart is a hero” (The banner they’re holding)
A hero? REALLY?
Definition of HERO (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
1
a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one who shows great courage.
Not ONE of these describes a GREEDY, BLOOD-THIRSTY, MONEY-HUNGRY Baby killer like Carhart.
Nancy Drew,
Your nasty comments about Jill have been taken down intentionally, the last one by me. Please wipe the foam off your mouth and keyboard and try again.
You seemed to have some interesting rejoinders regarding the IRS code that are actually fair game for discussion. Keep it factual and somewhat civil.
Oh and let’s not forget there’s at least one of Carthart’s former patients who won’t be speaking on his behalf, because they are dead, due to negligence on the part of Carthart and his staffers:
Cristin Gilbert
Also, former employees made complaints to the state board of health over concerns of conditions at his clinic, see what they had to say:
“Two of the women said they routinely started IVs at Carhart’s clinic though they weren’t registered nurses or certified licensed practical nurses, as required in Nebraska. One was fired from the clinic in June, while the other was laid off this month. There is no indication the women lost their jobs because of their alleged involvement in starting the IVs.
A third former employee, who was fired about six years ago, said she frequently administered medication intravenously although she wasn’t a certified LPN. That’s the minimum requirement for the procedure, according to Marla Augustine, a spokeswoman for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, the regulatory agency for medical services.”
http://www.omaha.com/article/20090828/NEWS01/708289932
And let’s not forget that Carhart was operating his Nebraska clinic (an ambulatory surgerical clinic) almost immediately after a fire, with an extention cord running to an outdoor generator and without an occupancy permit. Not only was his clinic not checked to ensure it was in operable condition, if there would of been a power falure during a procedure, there would of been a serious risk to the patient. When, if ever would that have been acceptable for any other ambulatory surgical center?
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/03/leroy_carhart_p.html
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/06/partial_birth_a_2.html
That video of him has to be the worst advertising ever. He sounds and looks like he’s drunk or on morphine…or both.
Gee ! What a prize to win: Having dinner with a cold blooded baby killer.
This guy is a real scumbag.
Adair
You are completely correct. The statistics do not support the claim that the late term abortions on viable babies is because of gross fetal anomaly’s. I have been researching pro-choice lies for 4 1/2 years now.
Rachel C
Your analysis of truly helping women in need is very well said. Unfortunately, the pro-choicers believe that forcing women into an abortion and then patting her on the butt telling her to have a nice day while they count her money never to help her again unless she needs another abortion is the “right” thing to do. How they rationalize this is beyond my comprehension.
Kitty
“Abortion is not anyone’s business but a woman and her doctor, and these late term ones are the result of an anomaly.”
The proof of your gross error is in Kansas. You see, Kansas requires abortionists to answer if the fetus was viable (this is based on the opinion of the abortionist and not necessarily by weeks gestation) and they must answer why the abortion was done. Very rarely do they say it is because of an anomaly. They use the “health” of the mother as the reason. But think about it. A late term abortion generally takes 2-3 days. If the mothers health was in such danger, how did she survive an abortion? Oh, did I forget to mention that Kansas rarely lists C-sections as method of abortion? So, yes. The method used in Kansas takes 2-3 days. The American Medical Association has said over and over that there is no medical reason why the fetus must die after viability if the mothers health is in danger.
So, Kitty. I ask you. Why do women have late term abortions?
I’m not just making this up. Here is the link to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment report on abortion.
http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/absumm.html
all joking. aside my true emotion for carhart and his female followers is potty and true sorrow
i have a hunch that many women who uphold and support him. are stuck in post abortion syndrome and they become militant in their belief. they fear that these “rights”for other women are threatened. as far as cathartic goes he probably is drunk. i came face to face with our local abortionist and he’s not even capable of a rational conversation i can see he’s. a bitter and miserable man and he suffers from extreme paranoia
Mike – I was thinking the whole time watching that video that Carhart’s very flat affect was remarkably similar to Tiller’s. I wonder what gives there.
typo should say pity i can tell you for a fact that attorney. Gloria already claims she had an abortion after a rape so it came as no surprise that she attended George tillers funeral trumpeting what a hero for women he was
that is a cold hearted pro abort woman’s stance and unfortunately there is little to do to change it. prayer is our only weapon
and i know that after these morons
begin committing abortions they are ousted. by the medical community and probably cave into the feeling that they wouldn’t. even be able to clean toilets in a hospital
as for George tiller he had many prayers. and chances to repent. I’d like to believe. that while on his last breaths he repented but we will never know. no good Christian wants anyone to burn in hell bit we must be responsible for what we do i believe former abortionist Bernard nathanson is in the paradise of heaven George tillers hell is for eternity and there are no breaks
the lake of fire Burns constantly and those who thumb their noses at God Almighty may wish to rethink their positions. you may die today and God’s hand is out for you no matter what evil you have done
aaagh above. post is attorney. Gloria Allred
Kitty are you still stuck on that old rhetoric? abortion is between a woman and her hit man! NOT anymore! last time i checked the government was paying for abortions hand over first! my tax dollars now make it between you the doctor and the tax payers who must foot the bill for your dead baby also you didn’t mention a dad but i guess he doesn’t matter because you are selfish
Jill: Both of their flat affects are probably from some sort of mind (and heart) “numbing” substance they’re taking to enable them to live with themselves for what they do for a living. Much like the blank empty stares we see on the faces of serial killers, or mass murderers at their trials and sentencings. The eyes are the window to the soul.
also i thought abortion was about empowerment of women An abortion empowers irresponsible men to skate away from children support and the majority of abortionists are men so women. empower. male abortionists to get rich off of their wombs That’s. why abortion providers call college campuses gold mines!
heather: Remember, Tiller was quoted as saying, “Doing abortions is worth going to hell for.” HIS own words.
Enough said.
One of Carhart’s classy supporters:
right Mike chilling indeed
here in Cleveland they are just now wrapping up the trial of serial killer Anthony Sowell he would. lure crack prostitutes back to his home and choke them to death after getting high A few women. who got away. said that Sowell would tell them “you’re just a worthless crack whore and nobody will miss you”! the women he did kill he let their bodies lay where they fell. he has the same blank stare as carhart
Mike yes i do. too late to take it back
Cranky: Real class, indeed. Notice how she hides behind her sunglasses? A real debutante.
CC. what true class. so typical of them
Cranky, wow, the reality of that outdoes even your photoshopping skills. Choice? Nope. That picture says it ALL.
Last night I attend the Gabriel ministry meeting at my church. I’m more determined than ever to keep women and children out of the hands of ghouls like that abortionist and his simpering minions.
No wait!! I just noticed the top photo again – LOOK! It says he is a herO. The O is bigger than the other letters. Viewed quickly it reads: Her Zero!!
save Roe? Roe is prolife. Pro-choicers through her under the bus,
Yes, and I highly recommend “Won by Love” by Norma McCorvey. It’s a good companion book to “The Hand of God” by Bernard Nathanson.
yes chantal maybe someone ought to clue her in that roe. has been pl for _quite a while and the old coat hanger argument. falls flat
i thought Casey Anthony had that same blank stare. but i also. think she’s a guilty sociopath!
if you can bash in the skulls of innocent babies you have a serious mental problem :
if you can wrap your hands around a woman’s neck as she begs for her life kill her and let the bodies. stack up and stink there’s something wrong with you and if you go out to boogie the same night your daughter dies there’s something wrong with you
Cranky Catholic, where and when did you see that picture? As a long-time former Gabriel Project board member, I can tell that the Gabriel sign was vandalized. That woman probably did it. It’s probably the sign outside of Mother Seton church.
As far as dinner with Carhart goes, did anyone read the entire blurb? The schlub who wins that less-than-gourmet delight has to undergo a security check, and has to give to them his/her social security number for that purpose. Oh, joy! I wonder if Peptol Bismol or Rolaids comes with the meal?
Janet,
I wondered why it appeared all slashed!!
I took off your last name. Hope that was ok.
Janet.LMAO! THAT WAS FUNNY
oh Janet just can’t stop laughing! it was your wording!
Hmm, where are all the Carhart supporters now to defend him and his lack of regard for his patients and the law…
I think its horrible the way you criminalize doctors that provide important services to women in need. I stand proudly with the many people who defended Dr.Carharts clinic from anti-choice, anti-women attacks.
No one is pro-abortion, but we must always maintain our right to CHOICE and safe access to these services for the women who need them.
Most of the people who stand up for this anti choice propaganda are the same people who stand against government involvement in healthcare. How can these two ideas walk hand in hand? Answer: They cannot. You can not base government policies on your own personal beliefs.
If you dont like abortion, dont get one.
End of story.
No one is pro-abortion
Population control advocates and rabid environmentalists, along with oppressive regimes like China are most definitely pro-abortion.
You can not base government policies on your own personal beliefs.
It is not a personal belief that human life begins at conception. It is biological fact. The government, in legalizing abortion, decided to moralize a previously considered immoral act in the name of “privacy rights.”
If you dont like abortion, dont get one.
End of story.
Oh, well, you’ve just solved all the world’s crises there. If you don’t like rape, don’t rape anyone. If you don’t like murder, don’t commit one. Brilliant.
Let me rewrite this for you to see if you can make a tad more sense out of our position:
I think its horrible the way you criminalize slaveholders who provide the means for families in need. I stand proudly with the slave traffickers and slaveowners and defend them against the attacks of those who demand equal rights for slaves.
No one is pro-slavery, but we must always maintain our right to CHOICE and access to slaves for families whose livelihoods depend on them.
You can not base government policies on your own personal beliefs.
If you dont like slavery, dont own a slave.
End of story.
P.S. – I love it when pro-choicers pretend to be three different people, posting one right after the other, to make it seem like there are more of them than there actually are. Don’t you love that, Carla? :D
I do love that, Kel!!
It’s my favorite.
Hello Liz – or is it hburton?
Please choose one moniker as the rules of commenting state, otherwise your comments will be deleted regardless of content. Thank you.
I don’t understand – who is Liz or hburton? I don’t see comments from them – have they been removed?
Your argument not only isnt correct, its a false choice. Comparing slavery to a womans right to choice is completely ignorant.
A women’s right to privacy when considering her own healthcare and her own body effects only her. She is not oppressing another human being. I know you will respond with this ‘life begins at conception’ argument but frankly, it doesnt. This isnt my opinion, this is fact. I understand that your religious beliefs dictate otherwise, and I respect your view. This is why I will not lower myself to mockery in what is and should be a very serious debate.
The fact of the matter is that you have no UNBIASED, valid scientific research to back up your theory. Unfortunately, religious doctrine is not always fact. That is the very reason the government instituted the separation of church and state. Because religion has no place in an institution of learning.
Because its not fact.
The issue in place is NOT whether or not a specific person agrees with the idea of getting an abortion. As much as you want to push it, this issue is NOT anti-abortion versus pro-abortion, this is and has always been a matter of choice.
I believe that a woman’s personal medical decisions should be made by THAT woman and THAT woman’s doctor.
Religious doctrine has no place in our government.
Thank you for a civil and respectful debate.
Your argument not only isnt correct, its a false choice. Comparing slavery to a womans right to choice is completely ignorant.
A women’s right to privacy when considering her own healthcare and her own body effects only her. She is not oppressing another human being.
The fact is, no one in society truly has an absolute right to do whatever they want with their own bodies, let alone the body of another individual. Think about the laws we have in this country very carefully.
I know you will respond with this ‘life begins at conception’ argument but frankly, it doesnt. This isnt my opinion, this is fact. I understand that your religious beliefs dictate otherwise, and I respect your view. This is why I will not lower myself to mockery in what is and should be a very serious debate.
I don’t believe I stated anything about my “religious views.” I know human life begins at conception because I took high school biology.
The fact of the matter is that you have no UNBIASED, valid scientific research to back up your theory. Unfortunately, religious doctrine is not always fact. That is the very reason the government instituted the separation of church and state. Because religion has no place in an institution of learning.
Because its not fact.
Again, the only one discussing religion here is you. Please read this non-religious link. Here’s one example of what we’re talking about here:
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
The issue in place is NOT whether or not a specific person agrees with the idea of getting an abortion. As much as you want to push it, this issue is NOT anti-abortion versus pro-abortion, this is and has always been a matter of choice.
I believe that a woman’s personal medical decisions should be made by THAT woman and THAT woman’s doctor.
Religious doctrine has no place in our government.
Thank you for a civil and respectful debate.
Again, you seem to be terribly hung up on religion in your posts. Not everyone here, nor every pro-lifer, is religious. Secular ProLife is a good place to check out if you’re interested. I always find it amusing that pro-choicers naturally assume that if you’re pro-life you must have gotten that point of view because of religion. It’s really not difficult to discuss the pro-life viewpoint without bringing religion into it at all. Maybe you should step back from your assumptions and listen to what we’re saying.
If the fetus you save is gay will you fight for its rights?
hburton, please refrain from posting inflammatory religious statements. This is against commenting rules.
If you’d like to have an actual discussion here, we welcome that. But posting inflammatory comments will not be tolerated. Thanks.
If the fetus you save is gay will you fight for its rights?
All rights begin with the right to life.
And FYI, the inflammatory religious post was unpublished. I was not referring to the post that has been allowed to remain.
And I’d like to ask: if a fetus is gay, would it make any difference to you or would you afford it a special right to life over and above a heterosexual fetus? Or are you an equal opportunity killer?
Whether you accept it or not, religion has and always has been a cornerstone of this debate. Anytime I have seen a group of anti-choice protesters, there has always been the presence of religious rhetoric in their demonstration. But youre right, to assume every anti-choice protester is religious would be a generalized statement. Lets move away from that for a moment.
What about my previous statement, that goes unanswered
Most of the people who stand up for this anti choice propaganda are the same people who stand against government involvement in healthcare. How can these two ideas walk hand in hand? Answer: They cannot. You can not base government policies on your own personal beliefs.
Whether you agree with it or not in this specific respect, you can not argue that most from the anti choice movement veer towards the side of the political spectrum that supports LESS government in our day to day decision making and lives. An easy way to accomplish that political goal is to stop trying to push republican legislatures into a woman’s doctors office in order to stand a chance of election.
Hi Kim.
“Most of the people who stand up for this anti choice propaganda are the same people who stand against government involvement in healthcare. How can these two ideas walk hand in hand? ”
It is fairly straightforward. The former says that you cannot kill an innocent human being while the latter wishes to take care of their own health care needs. I fail to see how not desired innocent human beings to die means that you must logically desire the government to take care of health care.
“You can not base government policies on your own personal beliefs.”
What kind of belief does this statement come from? Is it your personal belief? Or is it some objective belief that exists outside of us? If we are not basing our policies on personal beliefs, what are we basing them on? All of our beliefs are derived (or should be derived) from first principles, from metaphysical first principles, which are our “personal beliefs.” Everyone does metaphysics. It is just a matter of how deep one has to dig to find it. Here we see your own philosophical statement that “You can not base government policies on your own personal beliefs.” And further, suppose this was true. Are you trying to tell us that it is illegal to vote for a policy based on our personal beliefs? Is it immoral to vote for a policy based on our personal beliefs? Are we not guaranteed the rights to vote as we see fit? I have no idea what this “You can not base government policies on your own personal beliefs” even means. In other words, suppose I agree with your statement. How should I change my behavior?
“Whether you agree with it or not in this specific respect, you can not argue that most from the anti choice movement veer towards the side of the political spectrum that supports LESS government in our day to day decision making and lives”
Sure, probably. How does it follow that abortion is not the unjust taking of the life of an innocent human being?
I think what you’re trying to say here is that on the one hand, pro-lifers want less government but on the other hand, they want the government “interfering” with a woman’s right to decide if she wishes to obtain an abortion. If so, this argument is question begging because it assumes that abortion is a legitimate decision, on the same moral level as any health care decision. But the pro-life claim is that abortion is an evil action, one which constitutes teh taking of an innocent human life. You claim to not like this “slavery analogy” but once again, this argument in favor of abortion could be used to justify slavery. Why? Because it does not address the central claim of the pro-lifer. It simply sidesteps the claim that abortion kills an innocent human being and talks about something else. Hence, if you do not like the “slavery analogy” you need to stop making arguments that are question begging- arguments that don’t address the main claim pro-lifers make and simply assume that that claim is wrong.
Bobby,
I appreciate the fact that the central belief of the anti-choice movement is that the act of abortion is evil, on par and equal to murder.
I.E a woman getting an abortion is the ending of a ‘life’ and all life is equally sacred.
I do not agree with the idea that life begins at conception and therefore I do not believe that this argument is sufficient. I hold to my earlier statement, this decision should be the woman’s and ONLY the woman’s choice, a private decision between herself and her doctor..
I do not feel that we should be LEGISLATING based on the view of the minority, and pro-lifers are a loud but staggered minority. How you vote is between you, god and the voting booth.
Thanks for the reply, Kim.
“I do not agree with the idea that life begins at conception and therefore I do not believe that this argument is sufficient.”
Okay, great, so now we’re onto the real issue at hand. Unfortunately, science very much gives a definitive answer on this question; that is, that the human organism normally begins its existence at fertilization. Here are several quotes from scientific texts courtesy of Gerry Nadal.
“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146
“Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term ’embryo’ is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.”[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
“I would say that among most scientists, the word ‘embryo’ includes the time from after fertilization…”[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
“The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum…. But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down.”[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”[O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
“[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization….“[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo….“I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.“The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena — where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation — as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. ‘Don’t worry,’ a doctor might say, ‘it’s only pre-embryos that we’re manipulating or freezing. They won’t turn into real human embryos until after we’ve put them back into your body.’”
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
Perhaps you mean something different by “life” or have a personhood theory in mind.
“I do not feel that we should be LEGISLATING based on the view of the minority, and pro-lifers are a loud but staggered minority.”
Suppose it is only a minority that wishes slavery to be outlawed. Should we not legislate based on those few?
Abortion is not murder, since fetuses are not persons, and only persons can be murdered, and then only when their deaths are unjustifiably caused.
Even if the fetus were a person, neither the woman carrying the fetus nor the abortion provider making the death of the fetus possible would be guilty of murder because it is justifiable homicide, as the woman is exercising her right to personal sovereignty, the root of all human rights.
It is interesting, that those who do not know the women having abortions feel the need to harass them, firebomb clinics, and assassinate doctors, all to preserve fetuses they will care nothing for after they are born. The real motivation, I think, consciously recognized or not, of those who want to criminalize abortion, is not the well being of the fetus. It is the control of women, particularly women who refuse to be burdened by the consequence of sexual activity. This is why the anti-choice fanatics always go back to the argument that women shouldn’t have had sex in the first place if they didn’t want to get pregnant. This is why they defame her character by saying that “she is having abortions on a whim .” It’s hatred of women. It’s gynophobia. It’s authoritarianism. Deep down they hate it that women can be so free as to control what happens to their bodies.
The only reason abortion is not currently murder is because it is legal. Otherwise, it certainly fits the definition. Children (gestating humans are living human beings who are the children of their biological parents, in this case obviously the pregnant woman) have a right to be provided for with their parents’ resources, in this case nutrition and shelter from their pregnant mothers. In any other circumstance besides abortion, if a woman who was the biological mother of a child of whom she had default custody decided to no longer provide nourishment and shelter to that child causing the child’s demise, she would at the very least be held accountable for such child abuse/neglect.
None of us here have harassed women, firebombed clinics, or assassinated doctors, so I’m afraid you have our group (we are “Pro-lifers”, in case you’re unaware) confused with something entirely different. I am Pro-Life because my first born child was carried in a “crisis pregnancy”, during which time I lost my job, place to live, and was pressured by her father to abort her. I still care to this day for that “fetus”, who is now 9 years old. So, you’re quite wrong on this point.
And also, are you saying that my “real motivation” for holding the position I do is not because I wanted my daughter’s life protected from the moment she came into being, but instead because I want to….control….myself? How does that figure? I think you need to think again, friend. You’re not done thinking about this matter, apparently. “refuse to be burdened by the consequence of sexual activity” is a new euphemism for paying a doctor to have one’s child killed, so you at least get points for originality. I’m not afraid of women. I am one. And I’m not pretending to be some chaste churchgoer. I’m not. Women should be allowed to contracept all they please, but once conception has taken place, that woman is not talking about “freedom to control what happens to their body”, we are talking about a new and entirely different little body that no one should have a right to harm.
No one likes abortion esp. the women that have them. Abortion is a personal private CHOICE best decided by a woman and her doctor.
Hi Vicki,
How come no one likes abortion?
How come women who have them don’t like them?
If it is a personal, private choice why am I forced to pay for it?
I guess you haven’t talked to some of the women who comment here who have had them and proclaim, “I AM SO GLAD I HAD MY ABORTION! IT IS THE BEST THING I’VE EVER DONE!!” :)
Stick around.
Abortion is a personal private CHOICE best decided by a woman and her doctor.
And child abuse is a private matter that most often happens in the sacred confines of one’s own home. If a parent wants to abuse their child, that should be kept between the parent and the child. No one has a right to take that choice about what a parent can or cannot do to their own child away from them.
Oh and Vicki/hburton,
I do believe you have been warned already about picking a moniker and sticking with it. You will just be deleted after this.
I know that you would like to make it SEEM as though you are so many in number by swarming in with different monikers. It just makes you look a little silly.