I think ALL would be a good fit for them as well. It doen't have to be bitter, just going to a group that better supports their ideology.

Bethany - sorry I was busy all day - had internship this morning and then drove up to Mass for the weekend - my dad is having surgery tomorrow.

I need to respond to what you said, I promise I wont forget.

And just so this isnt totally off topic, no one answered me when I said this in another post about this issue, but if there is this much bickering going on regarding a decision which literally effects less than half of one percent of all abortions, whats going to happen if/when a bigger decision reaches a high court? If they dont get their crap together soon, looks like it could be total mayhem...no?

open question: (don't know where to post this so will do so here)

in modern biology, one of the main criteria for acceptance of a sub-theory is it's alignment with Darwin's theories. The normal state of early pregnancy has the offspring dependent on its mother. Is there a biological advantage to this, rather than producing an egg and then hatching as the birds do? Is there some biological advantage to having a maternal-baby bond? Is dependence not a critical aspect in such a bond ... kinda like cement?

John, the evolutionary advantage of internal fetal development has to do with the fact that humans form familial and social bonds throughout life, and live a great deal longer than most reptiles. For a bird, or any other reptile (or amphibian, or fish) the energy required to carry the pregnancy of multiple offspring internally would simply require too much energy, thus reducing their fecundity and fitness measures. But birds are still dependent on their mother to incubate the eggs; they just are not as attached as humans because birds, leading shorter lives, need to mature so much more quickly in order to reproduce efficiently.

Hi SamanthaT,

these are my thoughts also .... the actual dependency of the fetus is a 'natural' and necessary function, but maybe primitive form of maternal bonding seen in all mammalian species. Unlike most fish, reptiles, insects and birds .... (even if longer-lived) there seems to be an advantage to social and familial bonding, which is pushed aside by the so-called 'need' for abortion.

The pro-choicers may have to prove they have this option ... but I think it would be very difficult as a member of the human species. [I am thinking of 'a right to abortion'.]

The advantage of vivipary and maternal care is that one or a small number of embryos are more likely to reach maturity. The two basic reproductive strategies are lots of embryos with little parental care left to their own devices with the hopes that a few will survive, versus one or a few embryos with the highest likelihood of full development and high maternal investment. For long lived species, they can afford more lengthy developmental periods and parental investment, because they are likely to go on to breed numerous times in their lives. For short-lived species, breading is usually an all or nothing thing, and in order to assure a genetic legacy, offspring are copious. There are exceptions however. For example, sea turtles live a long time, breed more than once, but produce a lot of offspring with no maternal care and low survivability of offspring. In this case, it may be a compensatory response for the fact that it also takes them a long time to reach sexual maturity.

It all comes down to optimizing the probability of sexual success (i.e. passing on the genetic legacy) based on parity, resource availability, and competition. When you get into higher animals, or eusocial lower animals (e.g. ants and bees) where there a social aspects such as kinship, it gets a lot more complicated.... essentially genetically related individuals forfeiting their own genetic legacy in order to assure reproductive success genetically related family members... basically, a social unit functioning as a procreative machine with defined roles for each member, such that reproductive success is both efficient and guaranteed.

"which is pushed aside by the so-called 'need' for abortion."

Not necessarily so... but I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at; abortion and biological/reproductive significance or maternal bonding with respect to abortion.

Back to you’re previous questions, maternal bonding serves an obvious purpose because the offspring will grow-up and cooperate and/or protect the mother and their future siblings. It’s in the realm of kinship rules.

In my opinion, abortion curiously facilitates reproductive success in humans. In a way it’s not unlike cryptic mate selection in other animals where the mother or father eat/kill/abandon offspring or remove sperm plugs and such. In western civ. most men will not marry or sire further offspring with a woman who already has a kid by another father.... at least outside of the low income demographic in which the daily struggle to survive pretty much trivializes any other considerations. Likewise, a child bonded to a mother is likely to be problematic when a new father arrives on the scene. A woman desiring a family, has a better chance of doing so if she terminates that unplanned pregnancy with the not so optimal male, or if it means forfeiting her economic/social status and plans.

thanks for the thoughtful responses Cameron.

I wondered about the necessity of early development staging for the fetus. It has been proposed as a quasi-parasitic relationship and therefore justifiably one-gotten-rid-off via early (1st trimester) abortion.

This dependency is indeed the case, but it seems to be a necessary and first-staging of what we know as maternal bonding. Can an individual have needs that are opposite of the species ... like hydration, ... a sense of belonging - ie. family?

I wondered about the necessity of early development staging for the fetus. It has been proposed as a quasi-parasitic relationship and therefore justifiably one-gotten-rid-off via early (1st trimester) abortion.
One should never be in the position of justifying when it OK to kill another human.... and it is the wrong argument/tactic usually invoked by the fetus centric. The right question is when it is justifiable to force someone to donate their body and organs unwilling so that another person may live. When, why, and how should gestation be compulsory?

This dependency is indeed the case, but it seems to be a necessary and first-staging of what we know as maternal bonding. Can an individual have needs that are opposite of the species ... like hydration, ... a sense of belonging - ie. family?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. "...opposite of the species???"

Hi Cameron,

then the decision to abort has to do with the "will" (classical philosophy) of the mother predominating the 'rights' of her fetus. Even if this "will" is a whim, or it is interfered with events like depression, her 'choice' is paramount.

A New Zealand doctor (Patrick Dunn) found 2 specific stages of depression during pregnancy. The vast majority (80%) of 1st trimester abortions coincided exactly with the lowest part of the first depression. Does abortion then solve depression or should depression contraindicate abortion? [ A view from a medical person would help. ]

I thought the topic here was are Colorado Right to Life and
American Life League going to affiliate?

Les, the comments often are derailed. Please feel free to redirect with your thoughts. I hope all is well, sincerely. I hope you do affiliate with ALL. It will be good for you both.

"...then the decision to abort has to do with the "will" (classical philosophy) of the mother predominating the 'rights' of her fetus. Even if this "will" is a whim, or it is interfered with events like depression, her 'choice' is paramount."

perinatal depression,while common, is considered an abnormality, and I don't think we can broadly infer anything from it regarding reproductive biology and such. The finding with the depression low is curious, but I'd have to read it myself to give any meaningful response, and I can't find it any of the journals.

Do you have a complete citation?

Hi Cameron,

several decades ago while starting a pro-life group, this blurb was one of many that I had received. I have attempted several times to interest researchers, but the paucity of studies along this line continues .... very frustrating. To verify these findings, I found a Patrick Dunn of New Zealand who is a RC bishop there. The one I wanted was his father (same name) who was an Ob/Gyn specialist.

in my own studies these depression-developments seem directly tied to a zinc deficit. If people are seeking a non-combative strategy where the best health is sought for the Mom and her babe ... here it is.

Instead of the emotional-balanced calculating of a pregnant woman whose 'choice' is impeccable, if depression is suspected then treat the depression. Killing her child via abortion, makes as much sense as killing her lover because he-got-her-pregnant.

sorry Les,

but I think our work continues. Judie's blog is wonderful and her thoughts are A1, but I have this need to interact with those not pro-life. Jill has very graciously permitted such 'debate'. MK says it takes guts for pro-choicers to come to this pro-life site. The very fact that Jill has the courage to host such a mix, ingratiates me to her. Jill is one super lady!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've read a couple different studies that were conducted in New Zealand. The first was conducted by christian organizations attempting to link depression and abortion, but they did not attempt to explain the desire for abortion resulting from depression... or the way you've framed it. The 1980's study found that aborting women were more depressed than those who'd had miscarraiges. Controls were dubious and sample size was, not surprisingly, inadequate.

The recent 2006 study (Fergusson et al.), is better but still the minority report. They did a lot of statistical gymnastics. After log transforming data, their pooled moderate covariate correlations were heavily influenced by one cohort; the teens (18) that had had abortions and scored very high with mental health issues. Other between/within group cohorts... not so different.

Cameron,

I'd appreciate any studies in this area. The disinterest is almost palpable. I do not even know who to approach for this data. Ob/Gyn's or psychiatrists or psychologists ........... etc. If you presume health is common (as most GP's), then there is little to look for .... if it has been ignored and has never been studied as 'something', then it cannot have profound consequences, right? GP's are medical wizards that know all ... end of rant!