The third season of MTV's reality show Run's House, which begins April 9, will feature a poignant episode.

Rev. Run Simmons, 42, was a founding member and lead vocalist of the '80s rap group Run-DMC and is now a preacher. He and his wife of 12 years, Justine, 43, are parents to five children, ages 10-23. The oldest three are from Run's first marriage.

The cliffhanger ending of season two was Rev. Run's announcement Justine was pregnant. What viewers will learn in season three is the baby, born September 26, 2006, and named Victoria Anne, died two hours after she was born.

They will also learn Run and Justine were told midway through her pregnancy the baby had a birth defect, omphalocele, which causes abdominal organs to grow outside the body. The Simmons opted not to abort....

Read their story in People.

Having become involved in the pro-life movement by learning the hospital where I worked as a nurse aborted handicapped babies, I am particularly touched by this sort of story.

I have spoken with mothers who aborted handicapped babies. They did it to alleviate a few months of their own suffering, so they thought, or to alleviate their own baby's suffereing, so they thought. They now are living a lifetime of hell with the knowledge they killed their own handicapped child.

On the other hand, I have never met a mother who regretted carrying her handicapped baby to term, whether that baby lived a few minutes or became a lifelong member of the family. Everybody who cares for such people are better for it.

To condone killing preborn handicapped babies is to simply condone killing imperfect people.

Between seasons two and three, Rev. Run told AOL News how he understood his show's purpose" "It's my nature to want to be a dad. It's fun to me. I don't know if it comes this easy to everybody, but it's deeply embedded into me by God. I think that my ministry as far as what I'm doing now - my television show is a family show. I think that's what I'm here for - to be an example in many ways, an instrument for God. He created me as an instrument and as long as I yield, He'll blow His breath through me and I'll be the flute."

Rev. Run and Justine have demonstrated they are the greatest of parents by loving a child many would consider unlovable, inconvenient, or too painful. What a great example to the MTV generation.

[Family photo courtesy of AOL. Hat tip: Daena]

It is so good to see a story like this in the media. I hope that what this preacher and his wife did publicly, may help inspire others to do the same.

Why should anyone bear the burden of guilt for murdering their child prematurely? Why is it so difficult to let nature happen the way it should, you can mourn your baby's passing, then heal, knowing that you did the right thing?

If they had aborted, they would always in the back of their minds, had that question, "What if?"

They don't have to worry about that now. They know that it was God's will that their baby go to Heaven, and they've accepted it, and shown the world their faith...

...and they were able to hold that precious baby in their arms and rock her before she died. That is a blessing in itself. An abortion does not allow you that opportunity.

My Johnny, he's now six, was suspected of having omphalocele when I was pregnant with him. It was pretty scary, but I knew there was nothing to be done.

I think a lot of people are going to say that they couldn't handle the pain of watching their baby die, but by aborting it you caused your baby to die.

Either way, you were going to have to go through the grieving process and let go. Wouldn't it be better to wait until God took her? Wouldn't that be less painful than throwing her away?

What people don't realize is that these babies have souls, and when we abandon them, they know.

I can't imagine doing anything worse in the entire world than telling my child that I didn't want him. The pain they feel at that realization must be a thousand times worse than the physical pain of being ripped apart by abortion. And they do know.

MK

If it's okay I'd like to continue our discussion here so it becomes easier to keep up. These will be done in small installments as I would like to respond to each thesis while getting my stressful schoolwork done. My Orgo test will be in a couple of hours so I'll do the first one now before I start studying some more.

Firstly, I am not an expert on the history of legal abortion, although I possess a basic knowledge. However even if it began on false pretenses, legal abortion has a different stance in society today and I feel that the issues at hand must be addressed in a way that takes history into account but focuses on the problems and benefits in the present day.

Partial birh abortion is quite a hot topic. The admission on Dateline is embarrassing to be sure, but it doesn't change the fact that partial birth abortion is still quite rare. Over 90% of abortions take place during the first trimester alone, and the majority of those that don't take place in the first trimester have them in the second trimester (many factors such as disability and life-threatening situations are detected in the second trimester).
Most of the startling statistics concerning D&X are because of exceptions; the New Jersey figure often touted by the pro-life agenda doesn't take into account that a doctor ignored the state regulations and is responsible for a large number of these abortions. Blaming doctors like this, and not the pro-choice movement (in which the majority would disagree with the doctor's actions), is the most responsible thing to do in these situations.

Furthermore, while we are discussing partial birth abortion:

"I counsel outside of an abortion clinic where they perform abortions up to 24 weeks"
As far as I know, viability is considered to be the time after 24 weeks.

Most people, including most pro-choicers and myself, are against D & X procedures unless birth is extremely hard on and threatens the safety of the mother. Usually there lies an option between C-sections and D&X, and sometimes D&X procedures are chosen because there is a lower risk of infection.

Regardless of what many prolife movements have said, there ARE reasons that D&X procedure may have to be used. This quote is often used: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." But they forget the second half of this quote: "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."

hydrocephalus is one of these problems. In severe cases the baby cannot survive outside of the womb, but a natural birth will kill the woman involved. So the two procedures listed above will apply to this situation.

Other factors include the complications of a delivery in a very young patient. Also, for economic reasons, there are people who have not seeked medical attention until they are about to deliver. The complications of this sometimes cannot be addressed until delivery time.

Many states, including Oklahoma, have restrictions on these procedures (that they should not be performed unless necessary.) This is the stance that most Americans take. Most ethical doctors will adhere to these standards. Medical ethics is a different topic I won't cover today.

It is interesting that you talked about the travel of women to other states when their own state doesn't allow certain abortion standards. This is observed not only in the US but in countries abroad. It seems to show that when there is a will for these people, they will find a way to do that. Later today I will address birth control (this includes MK's concerns about STD and pregnancy prevention), Valerie's post about education and abortion, and different ideas about personhood during pregnancy. Let me know if there is another topic you want me to cover.

His Man,

I feel that extremism gets nothing done. Though many of my own ideas seem far left or far right I believe that compromise is the only way to be progressive. If you feel that is moral relativism and a terrible thing, that is your opinion. But in my opinion being so partial is what is tearing this country apart. It only weakens the democracy that we pride ourselves so much in. Partisan politics seems very childish to me and I will most definately vote for a candidate that feels the same way.

-Kate

The book I am reading right now is called "Eclipse of the Sun" by Michael O'brien. I recommended it to John McD. It is so amazing.

I'm near the end right now and priests all over the country (Canada) are having dreams about bringing people to a "refuge". One priest in particular, Father Ron, is discussing this with his Bishop. The bishop has just had a vision himself and now knows that all of this mystical stuff is real.

The Bishop is telling Father Ron that he will have to do whatever the Lord tells him to do and Father Ron is asking what that means. How will he know what he's supposed to do to save these people? How will he know who these people are? Where the heck is this refuge?

The Bishops response: "My son this is where we often get bogged down. We trip over a misconception and never recover."

"What misconception is that, Your Grace?"

"The error of thinking we have to make a success of it by ourselves. Thinking we have to make it work."

"Don't we?"

"No. The initial impulse comes from God. We are called by Love himself. Our task is to come to him. He will lead us to the tabernacle of the heart. We need only ask. Trust him Father. Go to him. He will do the rest."

Isn't that beautiful. Isn't is soooo true. Don't we always want to "be in control". Even when we think we're doing it "for Him", we forget that He is doing it for us. We're just the ships. He's the captain. We need to let Him steer.

I figured that since everyone is taking tests and studying, it might be "just us" for awhile. Which is fine. But I thought I'd take advantage and throw out some Holy Week thoughts...

More to come...
MK

Kate,

The people at the clinic where I counsel are not there because their lives are in danger. Believe me, I have spoken with MANY of them. They will stand there and talk to me while rubbing their obviously pregnant belly, and tell me they can feel the baby moving. Their reasons for aborting? They are too young (these woman were in their 20's), they are not ready. Their boyfriend left them. It's not a real baby...

You may feel that the pro-choice movement doesn't believe that these should happen except in rare, cases but it's simply not true. This case in going on in the Supreme Court as we speak and the Pro-choice side is fighting tooth and nail to keep partial birth legal. Their reasons?

It's not always easy to control the amount of dilation that takes place in an abortion and if the baby should come "out" faster then anticipated, rendering them unable to dismember the child before it makes it's appearance, then they would have a live birth and be unable to kill the child. Therefore, they need the ability to stab in it's neck and suck it's brains out so that it will be dead when it is born.

Dead when it is born. Spooky thought.

As to the rare, rare, rare instances that you mentioned where a woman's life might be in danger, even the Catholic church says that all measures may be taken to save the woman's life.

If the child should die in the process that is an unfortunate consequence. Every effort should be made to save both lives but sometimes this is not possible.

The distinction that makes this different from and abortion is that the intent is not to kill the child. The intent is to save the mother.

You may argue that this is semantics, but it absolutely is not. And if you want me to respect your desire to be called pro-choice, when I believe that you are pro-abortion,(which I call semantics) then you will have to respect the churches distinction between the intent to save a person's life and the consequential death of the infant compared to the intentional killing of the infant.

mk

Kate,

Though many of my own ideas seem far left or far right I believe that compromise is the only way to be progressive.

You are assuming that we want the same thing. To become more progressive. At least in my case nothing could be further from the truth if by progressive you mean coming to a compromise on the abortion issue. Or the fetal stem cell issue. Or the homosexual marriage issue. Or the cloning issue. Or the premarital sex issue. Or the contraception issue...you get the picture.

While you call this progression, I call it reverting to animal behavior. Acting less and less like humans and more and more like beasts.

Beasts rut. Humans form permanent bonds, make love and produce offspring.

Animals kill and eat their own children.

Dogs and wolves ignore their less than perfect pack members until they are forced to go off by themselves and starve.

I am a human being, and as such, I have a responsibility to use this gift wisely. Otherwise I should crawl on my belly and forage for food from a trough.

I was created in God's image. I intend to live up to this challenge. When I face myself in the mirror I want to see Him reflected back. And when I face Him, I want to be able to look Him in the eye. I want Him to know that I took His precious gift of co-creating with all the awe and wonder that it was given.

I do not want to hide myself, as Adam and Eve did in the garden after the fall, ashamed and afraid of the Person who loves me most in the whole world.

My father.

And I do not want this so called "progession" of which you speak. This type of progression is poison and it is killing the souls of our children. While mothers and doctors are killing the bodies.

Mk

I was not able to participate this weekend due to work obligations as well as computer problems.MK,I'm glad you're not going anywhere!

I couldn't have said it any better than that, MK. I completely agree.

MK and Bethany,Glad you're here.PP-BUSTED! No available counseling available through them after abortion.Just called!

I was pretty sure that would be the result. Thanks for checking it out, momof3. If we had a Planned Parenthood in our area I'd call them too.

Kate, welcome. I'm glad the pro-life/pro-abortion topic interests you. On that vein, I see you're juggling a lot of debates in the air. But the starting point is this: When does human life begin? You're a biology major. This isn't a religious question.

Very quickly, MK:

As I said before, the majority of Americans believe that partial birth abortion exists only to be a measure to be taken when the mother is in danger.

The people fighting for its use in any circumstances do not represent the people of our country but their own agenda. The anti-D&X legislation in the previous years refused to include a clause allowing it in special circumstances. Therefore both sides tend to promote their own agenda regardless of what is best for the American people. I don't think that's right, and I don't think the majority of Americans think that is right, either.

MK, society tends to progress in different directions regardless. I will elaborate when I cover birth control and education. This is why abstinence-only education isn't going to work anymore. If being stubborn over issues that are drastically needed in this country is worth it for you guys, that's okay. I think the government's role is to be progressive, to keep up with the times and do what is in the best interest of the people. This is what I mean by progression.
Progression is a sign of humanity rather than a sign of beasts; you all should at least recognize this. Since our beginning technology, medicine, science, philosophy, ethics, and even religion has progressed. I think that even all of you want progression, you just want to progress in your direction. Advocating laws repealing Roe vs. Wade would be what I call advocating a progression.

Oh Jill,

If she answers that the debate is over. Everyone knows life begins at conception.

Spoil sport...

MK

Jill,I was reading a little more about you this weekend.Oh,that bit about those little ones that lived a few hours after being aborted made me cry.Left in a utility room to die.At least they have the comfort room to use now.Jill,you are a special and beautiful person to hold that baby until he passed away! I would have cried my eyes out.I feel that nobody should ever die alone.I've sat at the bedside of many AIDS,CA and other end stage disease patients.I was there when they drew their last breath.I held their hands and told them that it would be okay.I would never dream of closing a dying patient's door and leaving them alone.

Jill,

Thanks for the welcome. Biologically, I think that a fertilized egg fufills all the requirements of "life." There was no non-life in between this moment, as both the egg and the sperm are "alive." As I think I have stated, the issue at hand is the abstract idea of "life," or "personhood," which I will address later today. Nobody denies that a zygote is alive, or that it isn't human, but many people disagree on whether it is a person, since its very dependence is that on its mother. It cannot survive without being implanted and receiving nutrients from inside the mother. I will elaborate later. Now I must go. Wish me luck guys...I'll most definately need it.

Mom, on one hand, if every pro-abort had to hold a live aborted baby, abortion would stop. On the other hand, it shouldn't take that. I'm sorry that's what it took to activate me. But holding that little guy changed my life, that's for sure. Thanks.

Right Jill. I believe that everyone that is pro-life receives a "calling" As I mentioned in another post,I didn't always consider myself pro-life.Taking a stand on the issue was just too difficult.I didn't want to make post-abortive women feel like I was judging them.I got myself a computer[somethig I never really wanted,believe it or not]and I began to visit abortion web sites.Although I always knew in my heart that abortion was wrong,I never really knew just HOW wrong!Now it all just seems to fit and jive.I will never ever tell another woman that it might be "The right thing to do."

Again Kate,

You call it progression and I call it regression.
You say it's modern and I say it's rotten.
Progression, regression..modern or rotten.
Let's call the whole thing off...sorry, I got carried away...

In the beginning there was nothing except God. Then he created the world and all the beings in it. He made the sky blue and rain wet and man and woman. Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Adam. Not Adam and Eve and Karen. Not Eve and the goat. But man and woman. This was the first couple. A monogamous couple. A "married" couple. And they coupled and produced children.

He gave us a set of laws to live by. In all the years that have passed since the beginning of time, the rules have not changed. Since they were perfect from day one, there is nothing to progress to. It wasn't until "sin" entered the picture that the "people" started clamoring for rule changes. And it has been down hill since.

The "sin" they committed was being duped by satan, in much the same way society has been duped by the pro-choice agenda, into believing that they could become equal to God.

With every rule that has been broken since, in the name of progression, getting with the times and changing to please the "people", we have wrought more war, more shame, more pain, more hatred and more devastation to mankind than can be imagined.

We are advocating going back to the beginning and following the rules as they were meant to be followed.

You are advocating promoting the "sin" by taking matters into our own hands.

The bottom line is that if people married, were faithful to one another, waited until then to sleep with each other, accepted the gift of life, and stayed married and faithful until death due them part...there would be a dramatic fall in child abuse, a STD's would go the way of small pox, children would grow up with two parents and most important of all to this discussion, there would never be a need for another abortion til the end of time.

I am not a stupid woman. I understand that this will never happen. But please don't ask me to capitulate my beliefs by compromising my morals and saying "well, it's going to happen anyway, so what the heck, count me in." I can't stop people from sinning, but I can sure as heck point it out when I see it. And right now it's staring me in the face.

So let the world destroy itself. Let the people annihilate themselves. But don't ask me to be a part of it or condone it or turn a blind eye to it. If I have to stand alone (and thank God, Jill, Bethany, mom, HisMan, John, the Church, and a holy host of others that I don't) I will stand alone, screaming from the mountaintops that this is wrong.

I don't call that being stubborn. I call that being right.

MK

Kate (PiP), good luck on your test.

We can go no further in this discussion until this issue of when human life begins is resolved. It is not an abstract idea. Do you believe, based on biology, that human life begins at conception?

I'm baaaaaaaackkkkkk....

mk

Correct MK.Remember,many are called but few are chosen.You can always chose be part of the problem or part of the solution.

PIP,With all due respect,Please don't do that entire embryo,zygote,feti thingy spiel again.We all know that a baby,no matter what the month of pregnancy,is a human.It's like trying to convince me that a blue car is really red.It's a silly waste of time.

Prettyinpink, you're an intelligent woman. You know the difference between your life and the life of sperm...and you know the difference between the life of a zygote and the life of sperm. You know very well that the sperm, if left alone, does not possess the capability of developing first into an embryo, fetus, then baby, toddler, then adolescent, then adult human being. Yet, you know that from the moment of conception, the zygote, blastocyst, whatever you want to call them at that point, does have that capability.

And you know that from that point of conception, everything is present to make them a complete human being, needing nothing but oxygen and nutrition to survive.

You seem reluctant to admit this, but then at the same time imply that if it is a human being it doesn't matter anyway, because it is dependant on it's mother for a short time. (Even though the baby never chose to be there, and doesn't have the ability to choose another (loving and caring) woman's womb to live in0. The solution in your eyes, and the eyes of others who don't respect life in the womb, is to kill that person that invonveniences a woman for a short period of time.

I'm sure the unborn babies all understand...I'm sure they're all ok with being ripped to pieces and pulled out of the womb to die.

And you know that from that point of conception, everything is present to make them a complete human being, needing nothing but oxygen and nutrition to survive.

Just to make sure this isn't interpreted wrong, a better way to phrase this may have been,

"And you know that from the point of conception, everything is present that makes them a complete human being"

I don't want anyone looking at that and putting the word "become" in there. They already are complete from conception. Nothing needs to be added. They are a human being, a person.

(and thank God, Jill, Bethany, mom, HisMan, John, the Church, and a holy host of others that I don't)

Valerie and Mary...I didn't mean to forget you...I was just on a roll and well, sorry.

MK

RUN,You are a very wise man. Let God take care of it! I'm pregnant,and my doctor gave me the option of aborting[should the child be born handicapped] "No thanks",I told her.If she's born sick,I'll take care of her! That's the way the good Lord wanted me to have her.Remember the TV show Life Goes On? The character Corkey had Downs syndrome.What a great actor he was!

"You call it progression and I call it regression.
You say it's modern and I say it's rotten.
Progression, regression..modern or rotten."
MK, I"m talking about progression in its most general sense. In your previous post you gave off the idea that you are against progression regardless. I"m saying that taking a stance on anything and demanding action on anything is taking a stance of progression, because it's moving our thinking and actions to a more forward level. Therefore you seem to want progression, you just want progression to go your way. You want medicine to progress, but without cloning. You want disease research to progress, without stem cells. You, MK, are not against progression. If progress stopped the US would be nowhere. The US is constantly progressing.

I know and respect your beliefs, MK. I am just telling you mine. I must tell you all that although I feel personal beliefs can (and probably should) have root in a deeper, spiritual and religious feeling, an application to secular government may be different. As you probably have heard already, the law set in the OT was the law of the Isrealites, of God's people. The laws set in place for them was only for them. I have heard this from almost every evangelist and apologist out there. But we live in a society with people of all religions so we must make laws that will benefit the common good as a whole. This may or may not include the values present in God's law.

MK, it is yoru right to call people out. It is your right to protest abortion clinics, to convince people to not have abortions, and all of that. The debate concerning abortion is really centered around rights. It's about whether a mother has more rights than a fetus, whether the fetus has more rights than the mother, whether they are equal, and why this is true and how it should be legislated.

"I don't call that being stubborn. I call that being right."
What about everyone else that thinks they are right? If everyone thinks they are always in the right and no one budges then how do we decide as a whole what to do?

"Kate (PiP), good luck on your test."
Thank you. I don't think I did nearly as well on this one. The last one I got an A on, but I tend to go through cycles. I hope to eventually garner a B+ or A- in the class.

"It is not an abstract idea. Do you believe, based on biology, that human life begins at conception?"
Actually it sort of is an abstract idea, or there wouldn't be such a debate about it. Biologically it can be said that a "human life" can begin when the egg is fertilized and implants in the uterus (if it doesn't implant, it flushes out with the next menstrual cycle). As I said before, there are a wide array of views about whether this mass of cells is a person. I will elaborate in a moment.

"PIP,With all due respect,Please don't do that entire embryo,zygote,feti thingy spiel again.We all know that a baby,no matter what the month of pregnancy,is a human.It's like trying to convince me that a blue car is really red.It's a silly waste of time."
If something can't survive outside the womb can it be considered a person? That is the main question here. Again I'll elaborate in a moment.

" Yet, you know that from the moment of conception, the zygote, blastocyst, whatever you want to call them at that point, does have that capability."
At the same time, and with the right technology, any of my cells can be turned into a human. All of my cells have DNA that can be exploited.

"is to kill that person that invonveniences a woman for a short period of time."
Um...short?

At the same time, and with the right technology, any of my cells can be turned into a human. All of my cells have DNA that can be exploited

What did I say about that word "become"?

You know very well that the organism that is present at conception already IS a human being.

Okay all, here it is.

Science can tell us how an embryo develops, but the real issue is really a philosophical, religious, and political problem. Science can't tell us whether the fetus has a soul, when the products of conception becomes a peson, when rights should be given, and whether abortion can be considered murder. These are obviously not scientific questions but philosophical ones. Unfortunately there is no consensus about whether personhood starts.
Here's a list of some beliefs about personhood:

-the most common pro-life belief: that it begins at conceptions.
-Others believe it begins a few hours after conception, when the cell begins dividing.
-Some believe through a Biblical interpretation that personhood begins in conjunction with the presence of human blood (~18 days after conception)
-Some believe it is sometime during pregnancy (elaborated below)
-Some believe that it becomes a person only after it has been born and breathed on its own. Some Biblical justification for this is the fact that God "breathed into it the breath of life" and THEN "man became a living person." The Jewish belief coincides with this interpretation. (interestingly although the Jewish have firm beliefs about the use of abortion-in which it is restricted- Conservative, Recontructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed of the government regulation of abortion--which goes back to my statement about different religious v. governmental laws.)

About personhood during pregancy:
-The Greek Stoics believed that personhood began at live birth
-Aristotle's ideas were applied by Christians in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and they basically said that the male acquired a sould 40 days after conception, and females after 90 days. Abortions where allowed up to this time.
-Humanists, and Athiests, and some liberals that deny the existance of a 'soul" have a variety of ideas, ranging from the splitting of two cells, to 4 weeks when heartbeats begin, 16 weeks with quickening, and 24 weeks with viability. Still some say that our ability to think separates ourselves as people, so when our cerebral cortex is in place, about 26 weeks, we become a person.

So you see, many people believe that although it is a potential person, and so the decision to abort must not be considered lightly, a zygote is not a human person until some other time during the pregnancy.

this division of thought is the division that is the heart of the issue.

A few things to add:

-One of the judges in the Roe v. Wade case cited several references to "person" in the Constitution and all of them had applications only to postnatal application. There is no assurance of any prenatal implications present in our Constitution (the basis of our laws).

-Generally, many medical societies forbid abortions after typically 20-21 weeks of pregnancy, a couple of weeks before viability. Viability is generally seen by the majority of citizens, as well as the courts, to be a significant event, so the states have relative freedom to regulate abortion services around this time.

This is why the issue is not black and white, this is the why its hard to legislate, and this is the reason for conflict. The biological "aliveness" is not the issue, it is whether we consider them a person. Our laws cover the rights of persons.

"You know very well that the organism that is present at conception already IS a human being. "
I said before it is debatable whether it is a person or not.

My sources for information here are from www.religioustolerance.org, an interfaith group doing its best to maintain an unbiased interpretation surrounding all views of particular issues as well as an unbiased look at the religions in our world. Sadly enough both sides of the debate tend to have their own propaganda and ignore criticisms from the other side of the debate. I generally trust this website to be unbiased. Feel free to visit, it's pretty grand.

Over time I plan on revisiting the issues I have planned on discussing, listed above.

Kate, I hope you will continue to form your opinions based on what you have learned and observed and know to be true scientifically as well as spiritually and not be dissuaded by people who place ridiculous labels on you for your beliefs. I am a science major as well and am glad for the familiar reasoning I see in your posts. I hope your organic test went well; that class KILLED me. Biochem is much easier.
Sam

PS MK is very open to listening to your opinions as well as providing her reasoning behind her own, but a few -others- will refute anything you say simply because you are pro-choice. Disregard the common assertion that you are the spawn of Satan or that you are going to Hell, etc.

"You know very well that the organism that is present at conception already IS a human being. "
I said before it is debatable whether it is a person or not.

But you haven't answered...is it a human being or not?

You implied it was the same as any of your DNA cells, but it's not, is it?

Bethany, read my post above. Debate continues.

My personal opinion is irrelevant in the discussion on the legality of abortion. Everyone's opinions are different.

Thanks Sam. When I first showed up I had to face some animosity, even after I introduced myself respectfully. However a lot of you here are upholding a rational debate and I thank you all for that.

P.S. I hate cell biology, as well as organic chemistry. I am more of an evolutionary biology/behavioral biology person myself. I.E. These past couple semesters have been hell. I think biochem would have been easier had I had a different teacher. I am disappointed with my cell bio grade right now because I don't seem to have enough time! It's just memorizing something I really don't care much about. Looking forward to better classes. We should discuss biology sometime--let the nerd shine through :)

Hi Prettyinpink,

your reliance on 'personhood' is fraught with problems .... this is a legalise term that has been used a number of times in the last few hundred years ... in the Dred Scot decision blacks were human beings but not legal persons. The same definition (being non-persons) applied to all women in Canada before the 1920's.

The word itself is loaded to favour a specific point-of-view. The word 'citizen' can be manipulated to bring about the death of (human) 'aliens' ... with little emotional consequence.

In should be of note that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers .... was He human? Did he have rights even before the notion of rights (or of the USA) even existed?

You study biology-type science ... but even though humans preexisted the American constitution, were these folks not afforded any value?

The question is: are humans of value ... beyond the 8 cents they are worth if their physical structures were broken into diverse elemental chemicals? So, its is not a matter of word definition but of significance.

Each pro-lifer believes in the human as significant ... slating words like 'alive' and 'human' to biology and 'person' to philosophy is a futile exercise. Because the concept of 'significance' rests solely with God.

John, it's good to see you again! :) Where have you been the last few days? Or have I just missed your posts?

John the problem with "the concept of 'significance' rests solely with God" is that the US (and arent you Canadian? I believe this applies to Canada, as well) is secular. So if you are going to legislate, it cannot be on the basis of God's opinion because that is showing favoritism to one religion over another; it will have to be on the basis of the terms such as "alive" and "human" and "person."

McDonell, the point stands that a fetus cannot live outside of the womb (until viability). It's existance is practically synonymous with that of the mother. Different races and sexes are still human and still PEOPLE because they think, feel, eat, drink, etc. like you and I. A baby can be fed by anybody with a bottle in their hand, but a fetus cannot survive without the nutrients of its mother in her particular amniotic sac and amniotic fluid.

"your reliance on 'personhood' is fraught with problems"
Yes, quite. That's how abortion arguments get so complicated.

"The word 'citizen' can be manipulated to bring about the death of (human) 'aliens' ... with little emotional consequence."
Most laws of specific countries are put in place to protect their citizens. However most ethical countries extend these rights temporarily to visitors--which is why people can smoke weed in Amsterdam and 18 year olds can drink in Spain. When a government takes lives with little emotional consequence, I hope their rationality is a little better than 'he is not a native citizen."

"In should be of note that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers .... was He human? Did he have rights even before the notion of rights (or of the USA) even existed?"
He was really crucified at the hands of his own people, the Jewish leaders, who were under Roman rule. The only reason that Pilate even considered hurting or killing him was to stop a riot. The comparison isn't valid.

I think everyone here can agree that a person deserves the basic right to life. I'm saying that the problem lies in the idea of "personhood" and where it begins. It doesn't matter what I think about personhood, the point is that there are so many views, there isn't a clear-cut "right" and "wrong" way to look at it.

"You study biology-type science ... but even though humans preexisted the American constitution, were these folks not afforded any value?"
What does this have to do with biology? Biology studies the complexities of life itself, biology does not assign its value. (The job of religion, philosophy and politics).

"The question is: are humans of value ... beyond the 8 cents they are worth if their physical structures were broken into diverse elemental chemicals? So, its is not a matter of word definition but of significance."
the question is about unborn humans. I agree, it is about significance, and it's somethign that biological science can't answer for you.

"Each pro-lifer believes in the human as significant"
I can assure you practically everybody views every person as significant. That's why our rights need protecting, thats why we need relationships. It may not have been intentional, but that statement implies that only pro-lifers think that people are special. That assumption would not be valid.

"slating words like 'alive' and 'human' to biology and 'person' to philosophy is a futile exercise. "
Biology can tell if something is alive, how it works, what this enzyme does, how this evolved, etc. Biology cannot assign value to life. (biologists, as people, can, but this is separate from biological study).

"Because the concept of 'significance' rests solely with God."
I agree.

Glad you're back John.Hope you had a great weekend!

Excellent Kate,

Sam the notion of God in the American political life is one derived from philosophy, not religion. So human significance is one corollary to the existence of God. We propose that this special-value of humans is delineated in the term 'rights'. [It assumes both powers and responsibilities for exercising powers.] If you eliminate a philosophically-derived notion of God's existence, you also eliminate human significance ... and the modern version of that called 'rights'.

The notion of a soul-body split is itself a tortuous minefield for several hundred years and has been the core of some elemental philosophy. The split may be real or may be a sophists' illusion. But I tend to gravitate toward it being an illusion.

For religious reasons - I believe that 'I' will be judged and not 'my soul'. For philosophical reasons - the present is all that exists. Both the past (all language) and the future (imagination) are powers of the mind. This is where such a split exists.

Since a neonate etc... are present this soul-body split does not apply.

Gosh, I sure hope this reasoning can be followed.

John, out of curiosity alone, what are your religious beliefs and how do they apply (or not apply) to the existance/coexistance of a soul?

PiP, 3:30p, said, in response to my question when human life begins, said: "Actually it sort of is an abstract idea, or there wouldn't be such a debate about it."

PiP, what in the world are you doing defending abortion when you're not even clear whether that which is being aborted is human or not?

PIP,

the most common pro-life belief: that it begins at conceptions.
-Others believe it begins a few hours after conception, when the cell begins dividing.
-Some believe through a Biblical interpretation that personhood begins in conjunction with the presence of human blood (~18 days after conception)
-Some believe it is sometime during pregnancy (elaborated below)
-Some believe that it becomes a person only after it has been born and breathed on its own. Some Biblical justification for this is the fact that God "breathed into it the breath of life" and THEN "man became a living person." The Jewish belief coincides with this interpretation. (interestingly although the Jewish have firm beliefs about the use of abortion-in which it is restricted- Conservative, Recontructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed of the government regulation of abortion--which goes back to my statement about different religious v. governmental laws.)

About personhood during pregancy:
-The Greek Stoics believed that personhood began at live birth
-Aristotle's ideas were applied by Christians in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and they basically said that the male acquired a sould 40 days after conception, and females after 90 days. Abortions where allowed up to this time.
-Humanists, and Athiests, and some liberals that deny the existance of a 'soul" have a variety of ideas, ranging from the splitting of two cells, to 4 weeks when heartbeats begin, 16 weeks with quickening, and 24 weeks with viability. Still some say that our ability to think separates ourselves as people, so when our cerebral cortex is in place, about 26 weeks, we become a person.

Well, they can't all be right. They contradict each other. So who is going to make the decision?

mk

I'm thrilled that the Rev. Run story has been the #1 read story all day on the People website. There is a hunger for goodness.

What about everyone else that thinks they are right? If everyone thinks they are always in the right and no one budges then how do we decide as a whole what to do?

Kate,

This could apply to any moral right or wrong.
What about men who like to have sex with boys?
They think it is "right". I and I assume you, think it is wrong. Why have we made it illegal? Why can't they have sex with underage boys if the boys are willing?

MK

Hi PiP,

I am a RC ... and have studied a little about the thinking of the detached-soul in Jesus' world. Such did not exist ... the bible treats all as identifiable by name.... eg. Peter, John, Saul, David, Rachel, Mary ... no mention is made of 'soul'. I guess the nearest to such would be 'spirit', but I assume His Man has a much better grasp of this than I do.

The problem enters in the preamble to the American constitution ... 'all men are created equal ...' [- and so the concept of 'soul' fits here]. This is false because like all things in our universe ... 'all men are created uniquely'. It is not possible to be simultaneously equal (a comparison) and unique.

RUN you RULE!

"PiP, what in the world are you doing defending abortion when you're not even clear whether that which is being aborted is human or not?"
You are missing my point entirely. There is a difference between life and personhood.

"Well, they can't all be right. They contradict each other. So who is going to make the decision?"
That's it!! That's my point! If everyone sticks to their guns who is right and who is wrong? How will we progress?

"This could apply to any moral right or wrong.
What about men who like to have sex with boys?"
The men are taking advantage of boys who we all agree are people. That's why this is different! Besides, a majority of people agree that it is morally wrong; this doesn't hold true for abortion. Polls generally state that the majority of Americans believe in safe and available abortions.

"It is not possible to be simultaneously equal (a comparison) and unique."
That is interesting...I'll think about that some more.

PiP -

Where to begin?

First I will start with the most obvious. Your take on Partial Birth Abortion.

"Most people, including most pro-choicers and myself, are against D & X procedures unless birth is extremely hard on and threatens the safety of the mother. Usually there lies an option between C-sections and D&X, and sometimes D&X procedures are chosen because there is a lower risk of infection"

Please explain this to me. A D & X is a BIRTH. The baby is born with the exception of the head. If a woman can go through that (usually over a 2-3 day period I might add) then why does the baby have to die? Why can't the doctors do everything in their power to save the baby. And 'lower risk of infection'? How can it have a lower risk of infection if the birth is exactly the same!

"." But they forget the second half of this quote: "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision." "

To this date, medicine has not found any 'particular circumstance'. No one can come up with any reason why that baby has to die. Which leads me to hydrocephalus. Exactly why is the mothers life in danger if she gives birth or has a C-section? Even in severe cases why does the child not deserve a chance? My Uncle had this, he lived for 4 days. He was a blessing to my Grandmother.

"Other factors include the complications of a delivery in a very young patient. Also, for economic reasons, there are people who have not seeked medical attention until they are about to deliver. The complications of this sometimes cannot be addressed until delivery time. "

Again, the D&X is a birth. Why kill the child?

Now, something else that I don't understand. Why is nature wrong? Pregnancy is the way we have kids. This is natural. This is the natural order of life. Why do we "have" to control it? I believe that there is a reason for the natural law. It is the way life is suppose to be. For every reason women give to have an abortion there have been millions if not billions of women through time that have survived raising their "unwanted" children. Why are women telling other women that we are too weak to handle these things? Whatever happened to "I am woman hear me roar"! Now we are told that we are too weak to be pregnant and go to school. We are too weak to be pregnant and have a career. We are too weak to be pregnant and move up from poverty. I do not call this a way to progess as women.

" then why does the baby have to die? Why can't the doctors do everything in their power to save the baby. And 'lower risk of infection'? How can it have a lower risk of infection if the birth is exactly the same!"
Valerie, if the baby and woman are both going to die, but woman has a chance to live, and a woman would rather not risk C-section (less risk of infection, better chance of natural birth next time) A D&X is another option.

"Exactly why is the mothers life in danger if she gives birth or has a C-section? Even in severe cases why does the child not deserve a chance?"
In a severe cases the head of the child can be as large as 50 cm in diameter (that's 20 inches) and can contain up to 2 gallons of fluid. The child will not live, and an attempted vaginal delivery will kill her. In such a case D&X may be an option.

"How can it have a lower risk of infection if the birth is exactly the same!"
A C-section is surgery. There are greater complications at risk with a C-section than with D&X.

"Again, the D&X is a birth. Why kill the child?"
Again, these are circumstances in which the mother's life and/or safety is at risk and usually these are cases in which the child will die anyway. We are trying to save the mother, here.

"Why is nature wrong?"
Um...nobody is saying that nature is wrong here, Valerie.

"Pregnancy is the way we have kids. This is natural. This is the natural order of life."
Well, I don't know of any other way to have kids (except adoption, but those also involve pregnancy).

"Why do we "have" to control it?"
Well I'm not sure about "having" to control anything. Are you talking about birth control? Medical control? Abortion in general? Technology in general? Would you rather us stay in the woods? :)

"I believe that there is a reason for the natural law. It is the way life is suppose to be."
Which natural law? Elaborate.

" For every reason women give to have an abortion there have been millions if not billions of women through time that have survived raising their "unwanted" children. Why are women telling other women that we are too weak to handle these things? Whatever happened to "I am woman hear me roar"! Now we are told that we are too weak to be pregnant and go to school. We are too weak to be pregnant and have a career. We are too weak to be pregnant and move up from poverty. I do not call this a way to progess as women."
I think that this addresses your previous concerns about education (and your feelings that it isn't working), right now. I will put it in the most recent posting, okay? I do plan on discussing birth control tomorrow.

Kate,

Oh my child, my child, so wrapped in prose and reason run amok. Perhaps too hope will find its way and overwhelm the strong man........

Compromise. That's a very dangerous word. Should we have compromised with Hitler? Nope, can't have peace without total victory over your enemy. Satan won't end up in some wishy-washy place, no, he's going to hell as the enemy of God. I'll take a stand for God that abortion is and always will be murder and all that support, choose, and do it are murdereres and deserve ultimate defeat and that will happen.

I went to a concert last night featuring Rebecca St. James and Delirious. Rebecca spoke about how she is saving herself for marriage. I don't know why but I thought of my 28 year old virgin, GQ, Air Force pilot son who is in the Middle East, standing for his country and how he prays for a woman to marry that has saved herself for him. He says such woman, are difficult to find as I now see blogging on this site and how many of the woman are so hopelessley deceived by the depraved generation before them.

Brought me to tears.

Girls, ladies, woman, you really need to value your purity. It's a gift. And that miracle of conception inside of you......an eternal human soul......think, please think.

For some reason, even since I was a kid, the week before Easter has always been so, so special. A feeling of new life and cleanness comes over me.

I just gotta say this, "Father, I love you. You are without equal. Oh Lord, if only the world could know you more. Lord, let them find You. In You and You only is life and that more abundantly. Thank you Jesus for dying for me, when I was lost and alone, without hope, self-deceived. You have truly set me free. Lord, if a pregnant woman who is thinking about aborting her child comes to this sight and sees my post, let her know that you have it all in your hands. A snowflake does not fall to the ground without you knowing it. Thank You God. To the best of my abiity....Your Man.

No, if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. Compromise with the devil and be devoured alive. Kate, PinP, that appears to be where you have landed at this point in your life.

His Man,I always enjoy reading your posts.I always feel an inner peace and calm after reading them.

PiP, 4/2, 10:24p, said: "You are missing my point entirely. There is a difference between life and personhood."

Ok, I'll bite. You say there's a difference between human life and personhood. Let's start by understanding one another on the most basic point. Tell me when, based on your knowledge of biology, human life begins.

Then we'll move on to personhood.

PiP,

Valerie, if the baby and woman are both going to die, but woman has a chance to live, and a woman would rather not risk C-section (less risk of infection, better chance of natural birth next time) A D&X is another option.

This is very different than necessary to save the life of the mother. This is to add to the convenience of the mother.

"Well, they can't all be right. They contradict each other. So who is going to make the decision?"
That's it!! That's my point! If everyone sticks to their guns who is right and who is wrong? How will we progress?

You didn't answer my question. Who will decide?

The men are taking advantage of boys who we all agree are people.

That is just your opinion. The men and the boys who consent to the relationship would disagree. Why should you be able to force you views on them?

Besides, a majority of people agree that it is morally wrong; this doesn't hold true for abortion. Polls generally state that the majority of Americans believe in safe and available abortions.

The jury is still out on that one. And even if it turns out to be true at some point, the margin is too slim to use as a "marjority" argument.

The majority of Germans thought killing Jews was a good idea. The majority of Americans thought slavery was good idea. What happens to your theory if the majority swings the other way, and the majority, by a slim margin, decides that they don't want abortion to be safe and legal. Will you just capitulate without a fight. Will you just say, "oh well, majority rules. No more abortions for me?"

"It is not possible to be simultaneously equal (a comparison) and unique."

I believe that this means equal in dignity. Just as men and women are equal, yet different.

mk

I certainly wish the transition in thought was this simple MK,

but it isn't. The whole basis of the present concept of 'equality' was generated from the French mathematician Rene Descartes. He lived in a world that was polarized in an up-down situation where 'up' meant incredible wealth and privilege and 'down' was a bare minimum (often close-to-starvation) existence. [At the time, a book called 'The Divine Right of Kings' attempted to make this scheme a God-sanctioned one. Cardinals and bishops quite often were very much a part of this specialness. Even today, we call this 'hierarchy'.]

Descartes (and the leaders of both the French and American revolutions) attempted to level the playing-field by adopting the term 'equal'. This word also fit-right-in with the new conveyor-belt production initiated by the industrial revolution. [Within the Church the theology is bent very much to 'saving-souls'.]

So Descartes replaced the 'up-down' with the term 'equal' ... both concepts are false because they compare ... we often say: 'apples and oranges'. Our minds/intellect categorize unique things that seem similar and therefore we have language and science. But we have a very limited jurisdiction on 'creating' anything ... a sculptor fashions a piece ....does he raw-create anything?

In the universe created by God ... everything .... (and I mean everything) is unique ... every snowflake, every grain of sand, each hair ... each molecule, each electron ... each sound, each colour ... each bit of space, each bit of time. There is no comparison.

In the human world this is acknowledged by our name ... and often by celebrating our birth-date. So, how does one fashion a government without comparing? ... tall order! First off we should make it as possible as we can ... the opportunity and responsibility to live-out our uniqueness. {Sorry MK, but dignity comes as a result of living this way!)

Think about this ..... then I'll propose a very different form of democracy than is now practiced.

"Should we have compromised with Hitler?"
Well Hitler was doing something very different. You can't use that comparison. We are talking about compromise in politics. If Republicans want one thing and the Democrats another and nobody compromises, how would we get anything done? This is what I mean about "progress."

"I now see blogging on this site and how many of the woman are so hopelessley deceived by the depraved generation before them."
Actually I am a virgin. Thanks for playing!!

"Kate, PinP, that appears to be where you have landed at this point in your life."
More assumptions. You can't talk about "where I am in my life" without knowing me personally. It makes you, pardon my french, sound like an ass.

"I always feel an inner peace and calm after reading them."
Yikes, really?

"Tell me when, based on your knowledge of biology, human life begins."
I have already answered this question. Many people view a zygote as a potential person but not a person we should assign equal rights to (as compared to the mother). The reason for this probably stems from the fact that a zygote seems practically synonymous with the mother because it cannot survive outside of her womb. Because everybody has different ideas, it further complicates the issue, and just shows how this issue isn't black and white.
As I have stated several times you are asking the wrong question. It's not an issue of biology but an issue of philosophy. Biology doesn't exist to assign value or rights. You know that.

"This is very different than necessary to save the life of the mother. This is to add to the convenience of the mother."
Well if the baby will die anyway and the woman will die giving a vaginal delivery....convenience doesn't matter anyway.. It's c-section or D&X. Since C-section is surgery, D&X remains an option. It IS to save the life, because if the baby is delivered naturally it will kill her.

"You didn't answer my question. Who will decide?"
Good question. I'm not here to say who should/will decide. Generally on these type of issues it is either brought before a court or a majority decides. But I do believe in finding common ground and compromising on several levels.

"Why should you be able to force you views on them?"
If you are talking majority of moral values most americans will agree that it is wrong (because it emotionally harms the boys). You can't invite the comparison because the majority of Americans believe in safe and legal abortion.
Furthermore almost everyone will say that at birth (at least) personhood begins. This is where basic rights extend. Below 18 is considered rape because as a whole we don't consider children to be capable, and we want to protect our children from such predators. Abortion doesn't mean "all sex crimes are legal!" This is far from the truth, and you know it.

"The jury is still out on that one. And even if it turns out to be true at some point, the margin is too slim to use as a "marjority" argument."
Last time I checked it was somewhere near 70%. That's a clear majority. Thanks for correcting the typo. Typos happen sometimes, especially when pressed for time.

"The majority of Germans thought killing Jews was a good idea."
Because of propaganda. The people were practically brainwashed and those that dissented either pretended they believed it, were sent to the camps, or fled the country. I don't believe it was ever a matter of "choice" for these people.

"What happens to your theory if the majority swings the other way, and the majority, by a slim margin, decides that they don't want abortion to be safe and legal"
If a clear majority didn't want safe and legal abortion to exist I would advocate programs to help these mothers and then proceed to draft laws based on this figure. Sometimes if it is considered a constitutional issue it is left to the courts. In such a dividing issue, where nothing is clear-cut, it should probably stand to majority if both sides refuse to compromise at all.

"Will you just say, "oh well, majority rules. No more abortions for me?""
I don't believe I will ever have an abortion so this doesn't apply. As I'm sure you are aware of, many moral issues are decided by vote, especially when it becomes a state-by-state issue. Look at all the people who voted against gay marriage. In my state the majority of people voted for a lottery to help fund education. Although the "anti-gay marriage" camp took over the past election, and it was thoroughly disppointing, the majority voted, so majority rules. It's quite simple.

"then I'll propose a very different form of democracy than is now practiced."
Very interesting. What is this proposal?

PIP -

"D & X procedures unless birth is extremely hard on and threatens the safety of the mother. "

"Valerie, if the baby and woman are both going to die,"

-- First a D & X is used in case it threatens the woman, But when I ask why the doctors can't save the baby, now the baby is in danger too.....

" and a woman would rather not risk C-section "

-- This is my question. Why kill the child? Why not give the child a chance? Considering the topic of the particular blog, I find it a very reasonable question. If there is no reason to artifically terminate the childs life, then why do it? Because the woman doesn't want stretch marks? Every day thousands of women world wide choose C-section and NOW we are worried about infection? Give me a break.

"(Topic: hydrocephalus) The child will not live, and an attempted vaginal delivery will kill her. In such a case D&X may be an option."

--- Again - no answer to my question. "Even in severe cases why does the child not deserve a chance? My Uncle had this, he lived for 4 days. He was a blessing to my Grandmother."

From the AMA website:

H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques

1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction"(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.

2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman.

(4)... Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.

(http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM)

Even the AMA says there is no reason for a partial birth abortion. "maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus,"

So I ask again: Why kill the child? How many times do I have to ask this before I get an answer?

"Um...nobody is saying that nature is wrong here, Valerie."

--- Um...yes you are. You are saying that it is better to kill a child when it is almost fully born rather than let nature take its course.

"Well I'm not sure about "having" to control anything. Are you talking about birth control? Medical control? Abortion in general? Technology in general? Would you rather us stay in the woods? "

-- The topic of this post is abortion. So why would I be talking about birth control, which you have stated several times would be discussed later. Why would I be talking about technology, medical? I'm talking abortion, which is the topic of this discussion. So, the answer is "Abortion in general" since that is the topic!

We are 'controlling' how pregnancy ends.

"Which natural law? Elaborate."

-- Dictionaries and encyclopedia's are free over the internet. You should check them out sometime. But I will help you along here.

"natural law - theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Natural law is opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history, and subject to continuous change. "

"I think that this addresses your previous concerns about education (and your feelings that it isn't working), right now. I will put it in the most recent posting, okay? I do plan on discussing birth control tomorrow."

-- How does women telling other women that we are weak have anything to do with birth control and sex education? Once again, the topic is abortion. abortion is AFTER birth control, AFTER education. We are telling woman who are pregnant that they are too weak to continue their pregnancies and have their desired life.

"Tell me when, based on your knowledge of biology, human life begins."
I have already answered this question. Many people view a zygote as a potential person but not a person we should assign equal rights to (as compared to the mother). The reason for this probably stems from the fact that a zygote seems practically synonymous with the mother because it cannot survive outside of her womb. Because everybody has different ideas, it further complicates the issue, and just shows how this issue isn't black and white.

PIP, you are just avoiding the question. Jill did not ask you what many people think...she asked what you think...based on your knowledge of biology. Surely it shouldn't be this hard to answer such a simple question.

Jill also specifically said she is not asking you about personhood yet.. we'll start with when human life begins. I have yet to see you really answer that question, and am hoping eventually you will decide to just be honest and do so.

As I have stated several times you are asking the wrong question. It's not an issue of biology but an issue of philosophy. Biology doesn't exist to assign value or rights. You know that.

It may not be a question you want to answer but that doesn't make it the wrong question.

Evorgleb,thanks for the reading material!

"now the baby is in danger too....."
In the case of severe hydrocephalus, the baby will die regardless...

"Why not give the child a chance? "
Usually in cases such as severe hydrocephalus, the baby will die. That is my point!!! I don't think D&X would be performed if it didn't threaten the mother's life. If she wants to keep the child, which is likely, then they will do what they can to save it. But if the child is going to die, C-section and D&X are both valid procedures.

"If there is no reason to artifically terminate the childs life, then why do it?"
I agree.

"Again - no answer to my question. "Even in severe cases why does the child not deserve a chance? My Uncle had this, he lived for 4 days. He was a blessing to my Grandmother."
In severe cases the child will die!! There is NO chance. How many times do I have to say this? If the mother makes the decision it is up to her because either way her child will die. It's like the decision to donate organs or to take someone off life support. It's up to the mother.
I don't understand why none of you seems to think that I don't answer your questions after I have answered them several times.

"According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman."
That's true. In severe hydrocephalus you can also perform a C-section. But generally because it is a surgery, it poses a greater risk of infection. I'm sure there are rare cases where C-section would also be deemed inappropriate. Do I have to repeat myself again?

"Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes."
Yes, that's why D&X is rare. In my opinion it should be even more rare and we can take procedures to ensure this. But notice how they say generally. They don't say NEVER.

"Even the AMA says there is no reason for a partial birth abortion. "maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus,"
So I ask again: Why kill the child? How many times do I have to ask this before I get an answer?"
Actually you are forgetting that they are leaving it as a very general statement and they even say there may be cases where it is appropriate. So your first sentence is misleading.
How many times do I have to tell you (again)? If the situation calls for a decision b/t C-section and D&X, both ending in the death of the child, the mother should choose between the procedures. I really dont' feel like this is a hard concept.

"Um...yes you are. You are saying that it is better to kill a child when it is almost fully born rather than let nature take its course."
If nature will kill the child in the next day why does it matter? It's like saying, "why put your pet to sleep? Let it suffer, let nature just take its course." Or why do epidurals at all? They aren't natural. Nowadays not much at all is natural. So if you want to apply your statement to "naturalistic" means then forget medical procedures and technology, as well as confined animal feeding operations, meat processing, etc. Why not spend your time trying to stop suburban sprawl?

"he topic of this post is abortion. So why would I be talking about birth control, which you have stated several times would be discussed later. Why would I be talking about technology, medical? I'm talking abortion, which is the topic of this discussion. So, the answer is "Abortion in general" since that is the topic!"
So what does abortion have to do with this excessive need for control? A pro-choice stance is all about NOT controlling women's bodies.

"We are 'controlling' how pregnancy ends."
I also "control" my seizure disorder with medicine. It makes my life a whole lot easier. We take "control" of our own bodies all the time.

"Dictionaries and encyclopedia's are free over the internet. You should check them out sometime."
Thanks babe, I'll be sure to do that...

"theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Natural law is opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history, and subject to continuous change."
Again the application of natural law is blurred because we control our pregnancies, deliveries, etc. all the time. I've been in a maternity ward on several occaisons. They constantly control the delivery. If you want to invoke natural law you should be more specific.

"How does women telling other women that we are weak have anything to do with birth control and sex education? Once again, the topic is abortion. abortion is AFTER birth control, AFTER education. We are telling woman who are pregnant that they are too weak to continue their pregnancies and have their desired life."
Birth control and education is preventing unwanted pregnancies. If you lower unwanted pregnancies, abortion will decrease as well.
I dont' believe anyone is telling women they are too weak. We are just letting them decide for themselves. Nobody's urging them to have abortions. Is this waht you people don't understand? That we aren't advocating abortions, we just don't force them to do anything? We leave it up to them? It's not telling people they are weak at all. Unless giving epidurals means that women are too weak to let nature takes its course too. I also think that Midol should be banned because it means that women are too weak to withstand their period cramps.

"you are just avoiding the question. Jill did not ask you what many people think...she asked what you think...based on your knowledge of biology. Surely it shouldn't be this hard to answer such a simple question."
Nope, because I answered it (twice?) already. Let me go up and repost it.
'Biologically it can be said that a "human life" can begin when the egg is fertilized and implants in the uterus (if it doesn't implant, it flushes out with the next menstrual cycle).'
But (as I went on to explain) the problem is there never was nonlife. Everything was always "alive." And nobody argues that it isn't "human" either.
What I've been saying, several times, is that this is where biology ends. It really can't tell us much more than that, unless you want to go more indepth. The rest is philosophy. Biology tells us facts. A zygote is alive. Biology doesn't assign rights or value at all. Philosophy, religion, and politics do.
Based on my personal philosophy, personhood begins at viability. I think that most people would agree with me. So for me, abortions after 24 weeks, unless the baby poses danger to the mother, are morally wrong. This is my personal opinion, but I also realize that many people have several other opinions on the subject. It's hard to tell who is right and who is wrong in the matter. Therefore abortion exists in a "gray area."
This is quite a thorough answer in my opinion. I am not sure what else I can say about it...

"Jill also specifically said she is not asking you about personhood yet.. we'll start with when human life begins. I have yet to see you really answer that question, and am hoping eventually you will decide to just be honest and do so."
I have answered this 2 or 3 times. Although I noted that biology does little in this debate. I dont' feel this is hard to grasp.

"It may not be a question you want to answer but that doesn't make it the wrong question."
It's true. It's just that, after I answered, all of you said that I didn't answer.

No offense, but ladies, I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over. Where am I not being clear?

No offense, but ladies, I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over. Where am I not being clear?

PIP, I understand that you feel you have answered the question. But what you are really doing is still avoiding it, pretending you don't understand the question.
You wrote:

'Biologically it can be said that a "human life" can begin when the egg is fertilized and implants in the uterus (if it doesn't implant, it flushes out with the next menstrual cycle).'

"Can be said" is just another way to say, "some people think", or "others say"...it's not telling us what YOU believe based on your own observations.

You wrote:
But (as I went on to explain) the problem is there never was nonlife. Everything was always "alive." And nobody argues that it isn't "human" either.

This is where you have pretended you don't know what we mean, when we say, "When does human life begin?" You know we differenciate between a human BEING and a sperm, or a cell of some kind. You know that one type of life is different than another type of life. For instance, the type of life I have is different than the life of my trees outside.
What we want to know is, based on what you have learned, when does do the cells come together to form a distinct and unique human being...when do they form a human being's life? Not life as in skin cells which are "human" and are "living", but the same kind of "human life" as what you have. When is it a complete human organism? Does that clear up the question for you?
This is something biology can answer, without being religious or philosophical. It's just observation of what actually is.

My prayers are with Run and his family.God bless you and thank you for showing us that abortion isn't the answer.

Mom -

thank you for reminding us what this is post is about.

When Danny was born he spent 35 days in the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) and we got to know alot of the families that were there. All the babies were pretty much in the same room (this way the nurses can keep 100% attention on the babies) but the one's that weren't going to make it were in individual rooms. It was intended so the family could have privacy, but most parents would keep their door open and let other families come in. Those parents were very special to all of other parents. They had our utmost respect, love and prayers. These were special families. Just like Run's family is. I'm glad that he was able to share his story.

Bethany & Valerie,

I tend to agree very much with PinP here. It would be fantastic to actually see the process yourself, but unless you've got one very expensive electron microscope + years and years of time + lotsa $$$$, we're kinda in a state where biology just can't answer. You might as well ask 'give me the exact time a cloud starts forming'. Her understanding of the limits of the science of biology is very good.

We in the pro-life camp should not assume a direct easy relationship here. Why are not human- zygotes affixed with worth ... called rights? Is there a time element involved?

To a person trained to work with ideas ... the answer is don't-really-know and yes. To someone who lives the present ... the answers are yes and no. It's very difficult to engage the presence of another - and simple (by comparison) to educate. [Notice how many pro-choicers say that education is key. Key to what ... knowing what to do, and very rarely ... how to be.]

While studying to be a priest, we had this program to visit parishioners. One of the program-directors figured we should be given $5 and told to 'survive for a weekend' as many of the people-we-will-meet are this way. He wanted to challenge us to learn empathy.... he was right ... we were scared and still he was right! [We never did it his way.]
.......................

Now for the political proposal:

I call it a 'floating constitution'. Every 50 years the people of a country choose the laws of the land that they will abide by for the next 5o years (this itself may take 2-3 years.) In the middle of this time the people decide what economic policy will dominate for 50 years.

The schema has many benefits ... because
(1) elected officials are always the servants of the people ... the media will be ????????????
(2) one generation must speak with the one to follow ..........
(3)money/wealth will no longer be fixed to political power
(4) we choose not only the people to do the policy (as we presently do), but we select the policy itself
..... + MORE BENEFITS

I tend to agree very much with PinP here. It would be fantastic to actually see the process yourself, but unless you've got one very expensive electron microscope + years and years of time + lotsa $$$$, we're kinda in a state where biology just can't answer. You might as well ask 'give me the exact time a cloud starts forming'. Her understanding of the limits of the science of biology is very good.

But John, I'm not even asking her to do that. I'm only asking her opinion, based on what she has learned over the years, based on her knowledge of biology. I really don't think it's that tough of a question... dozens and dozens of biologists have no problem answering this question. The only reason Valerie doesn't want to is because she knows she has something to lose in this debate if she answers.

" "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris"

"

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic "

""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]"

If all of these people can answer it, why can't PIP?

Hi Bethany,

I'm going strictly by her introduction post:

her biology taught her when a living human starts; but it cannot say when this living human is a person = has any value .... this is not the scope of biology but of philosophy, religion and law ... and experience ((why you people are SO important ))

Her notion of value has to do with the presence of 'a soul'. It is (I strongly suspect) the way you too place value. But for you a living human is a being with a soul. She rightly says that for millenia Jewish faith has assumed that in drawing first-breath [the 'ruha'(sp?)] - life-of-God begins .... in legal terms the newborn becomes a person. These and other technical concepts means that the timing of personhood is debatable.

I attempted to show that such was a false dichotomy made by our rational processing ... all things/events in our universe can be split three ways: past, present and future. All words and all science is from the past/memory .... the future is in imagination. Both memory and imagination are human mental constructs ... so all past and all future are our-forte. God's-forte is the present. It is not inconsequential when Moses asked God's name ... He said:I am .... [His Man would say:::
He says:"I am" ]. The concept of soul is a human construct; the presence of God makes the person actual to Him .... that's all that counts (bears significance). There is no timing in the all-present One. [We as Christians living in-God are people of the present.]

Abortion is (by the one having an abortion) ... mine/my life. They have very little idea (nor do any of us really) what human life is - when "Jesus last words were ... 'Abba forgive them, they know not what they do!' ... He talks to me ...

her biology taught her when a living human starts; but it cannot say when this living human is a person = has any value .... this is not the scope of biology but of philosophy, religion and law ... and experience ((why you people are SO important ))

Her notion of value has to do with the presence of 'a soul'. It is (I strongly suspect) the way you too place value. But for you a living human is a being with a soul. She rightly says that for millenia Jewish faith has assumed that in drawing first-breath [the 'ruha'(sp?)] - life-of-God begins .... in legal terms the newborn becomes a person. These and other technical concepts means that the timing of personhood is debatable.

I know, John, believe me, I understand that. All I ask of Kate is that she is honest about what she has been taught and what she knows to be true about the beginning of human life. All she has to do is just state when human life begins. Which is not a philosophical question...just a question based on observation and fact. That's it. Valerie, Jill, and I are not asking her when the baby gets a soul..we're asking her when the human life originates (and not the continuation of 'life', but when the human becomes a complete and distinct organism).

Kate knows the answer to this question but refuses to answer it because she knows she possibly has something to lose by answering.

I realize that it might not make her decide a human has worth at that age, but it will prove to everyone reading here that even she knows the truth of when human life begins.

Do you see where I'm coming from, John?

Kate, I have yet to hear your answer.

Kate -

Here it is in a nutshell.

When asked when life begins you state that life begins at conception. "-fertilized egg fufills all the requirements of life." and "- Nobody denies that a zygote is alive, or that it isn't human" Then you back track "There is a difference between life and personhood."

Welcome to eugenics. Who decides personhood? And you can't say that you don't know. "There is a difference between life and personhood". According to you, this human is not a person because "-It cannot survive without being implanted and receiving nutrients from inside the mother." So, someone who cannot survive without receiving nutrients from outside the mother is a person. Why? Because we can see it now? Do you have to see someone before it is a person? oh, but that would blow the whole partial birth abortion thing wouldn't it? You can see the baby before its brains are removed. hmm.. How do you decide this. Is a quadraplegic a person? S/he has to have their nutrients brought to them. S/he cannot live on their own. They need constant help, so what is the difference? Is it because they can talk for themselves and tell you not to kill them? Is that the requirement? oh, but then what about a quadraplegic who cannot talk, is that not a person?

Welcome to eugenics, where someone decides the difference between life and personhood. Jews were human, but not people. Sound familiar? Native Americans were alive but they are not people, they are savages. Sound familiar?

Now - lets take planned parenthoods reasons why someone would choose an abortion.

"She is not ready to become a parent. " LUST
"She cannot afford a baby. " GREED
"She doesn't want to be a single parent. " SLOTH
"She doesn't want anyone to know she has had sex or is pregnant. " PRIDE
"She or the fetus has a health problem." ENVY
"She was a survivor of rape or incest." WRATH
"She has all the children she wants. " GLUTTONY

Now, it doesn't matter if you like it just because we as a society has made exceptions, but with every reason there is a deadly sin.

"-Science can't tell us whether the fetus has a soul," ; "-when the products of conception becomes a peson" ; "-when rights should be given"
"-The biological "aliveness" is not the issue, it is whether we consider them a person." ; "-Different races and sexes are still human and still PEOPLE because they think, feel, eat, drink, etc. like you and I."

Scary when you put all your comments together like that. I especially like that last statement. Someone has to think, feel, eat, drink etc. just like us. That helps ease the conscience when it comes to killing Down's Syndrom children doesn't it.

"-You want medicine to progress, but without cloning." ; -You want disease research to progress, without stem cells. "

The end does not justify the means.

Sorry I havne't had much time before to respond--I had a huge test today that I had to spend a lot of time studying for (today I asked myself "why"...because I hate the class so much)

Anyway, regardless of your inability to accept my answer, I think John has hit it on the head. I'm not afraid to answer the question. I've answered it already. The biology is simple. Biology isn't subjective. Development begins at conception. It is "alive," it is "human." But as I've been saying, biology has its limits. Abortion is NOT a biological issue, it is a philosophical one, and you all know that. Because biology is my field of study you probably were wanting a different answer but just because it's not the answer you wanted doesn't mean I haven't answered it.

"Then you back track "There is a difference between life and personhood.""
It's true. Biology doesn't tell us that a zygote is a person (though when you say "human being" you probably mean "person"), but the beginning of a development of a person. Nobody denies the simple fact that a zygote is alive and the beginning of development; it's not the issue at hand. I am not sure why this is hard to grasp.

"Welcome to eugenics. Who decides personhood? And you can't say that you don't know."
Well the reason why abortion is legal (within limits) is to let the person decide for themselves. If I decide it is a person at viability, and if I decide to get an abortion (for the sake of argument), it would be before viability. Those that believe in personhood at conception will never get an abortion. Those that believe it is at different times if faced with the decision will have to come to terms with it.

"So, someone who cannot survive without receiving nutrients from outside the mother is a person."
Because the responsibility can be shifted to another person after birth. Before birth it cannot, only the mother can, ONLY her. See the difference?

"oh, but that would blow the whole partial birth abortion thing wouldn't it?"
By this statement I can only think that you missed the point of my D&X post entirely.

"Is a quadraplegic a person? S/he has to have their nutrients brought to them. S/he cannot live on their own."
Yeah, and sometimes people shift the responsibility to the hospitals, etc. (Normally we would consider this distasteful because it sends the statement that they only love the person if they are mobile, that's another topic for another day). But we all agree that any responsibility toward this person can be hired if need be. But inside the womb, NOBODY at all can take care of it except for the mother. Noone can be hired to transplant the fetus into another person (right now).

"Jews were human, but not people. Sound familiar? Native Americans were alive but they are not people, they are savages. Sound familiar?"
You all try to make this argument by an emotional appeal, but you see the difference like everybody else. There is a difference between trying to justify mass genocide of living, breathing, human beings and recognizing grey areas where they exist.

""She is not ready to become a parent. " LUST
"She cannot afford a baby. " GREED
"She doesn't want to be a single parent. " SLOTH
"She doesn't want anyone to know she has had sex or is pregnant. " PRIDE
"She or the fetus has a health problem." ENVY
"She was a survivor of rape or incest." WRATH
"She has all the children she wants. " GLUTTONY"
None of these are illegal. Distasteful maybe, but not illegal. This argument doesn't fly.

"Now, it doesn't matter if you like it just because we as a society has made exceptions, but with every reason there is a deadly sin."
If this is just an issue of legality then this argument is useless. If you are saying it is a sin according to Christianity, then you are probably right. I'm not opposed to the Christian's dislike for abortion, just like the fact that premarital sex is considered a sin. However, the two arguments are very separate. You should not confuse them.

"That helps ease the conscience when it comes to killing Down's Syndrom children doesn't it."
Not at all. Just because you like to twist my words doesn't make them wrong or justify killing of any human being. I never said, "they have to be just like us to be a person," I only said that the presence of these abilities are usually signs of a human person. People with asthma don't breathe like I do, but they still breathe on a daily basis. Down's syndrome kids may not have the same mental agility as I do but their brain still functions. I may not have said it eloquently or very technically but the point still stands.
Please tell me where I ever stated that disabilities made people less of human being. Mental handicaps don't make them less of a feeling, breathing, human being. You know as well as I that it is very true to say that biology is different from ethics, politics, religion and philosophy.
I didn't feel I needed to elaborate on my last statement for you to understand it's means..

"The end does not justify the means."

You can believe that. Arguments for the two asaid, the point I was trying to make was the statement right before it: "Therefore you seem to want progression, you just want progression to go your way." My point was that it's still progression. That was sort of a meaningless argument though.

Something I should point out here is that this is a situation where biology falls short. Biologically cloning is okay. Biolgically stem cells are quite easy to expoit (the body does it, now we can do it at will) and would be great medicine for the people. Ethics and philosophy exist to place value on things. In the book 'Brave New World," this is demonstrated perfectly. In it, science exists without placing value on individuality-as a form of government. See the discrepancy here? Ethics/religion/philosophy/government are here to protect the people and the citizens of its country. Philosophy is the main issue with cloning, stem cells, and abortion. Biology doesn't do much to answer your questions.

Kate -

This is what I think we have been asking.

What do * you * think? We don't care what a philosopher thinks, we don't care what a politian thinks, we don't care what a scientists thinks.

You are obviously an intelligent person. We want to know what * you * think. It is just an opinion. It is not a fact.

Here is my opinion:

Life begins at conception
personhood begins at conception
therefore all the rights of a person begins at conception.

I have no political proof. I have no ethical proof etc. This is my opinion and this is what we debate here. We do not debate text books. We debate our opinions.

As for the deadly sins. Religion is a way of life, it is an attitude. For the truley religious person it cannot be seperated. Why? Because it is how we live our life. The concept of the deadly sins is in almost every major religion. Check it out. You'll find it on that religiontolerance (?) website you mentioned. (I know which website it is, can't remember the name. good website) If all the religions believe this is a good way of life, then how can we all be wrong. A society cannot survive on Pride, Lust etc....

A society is not an individual. A society is a community, a group of people. We have to think of other people before ourselves sometimes in order to make society complete. That is why Christians have the Golden Rule. That is why Buddhist and Hindu's believe in Karma.

All we have wanted is * your * opinion.

As for intact dialation and extraction. We will never agree and never see eye to eye on that. I didn't miss your point. I completely disagree with it. These are differences in our opinions.

We don't want to be lectured. We don't want a textbook. We want a healthy debate of different opinions. That's all.

"What do * you * think? We don't care what a philosopher thinks, we don't care what a politian thinks, we don't care what a scientists thinks.
You are obviously an intelligent person. We want to know what * you * think. It is just an opinion. It is not a fact."

Yes. Let me repeat what I've said, "Based on my personal philosophy, personhood begins at viability. I think that most people would agree with me. So for me, abortions after 24 weeks, unless the baby poses danger to the mother, are morally wrong. This is my personal opinion, but I also realize that many people have several other opinions on the subject."

"I have no political proof. I have