... Dr. Seuss's widow, Audrey Geisel... is a pro-abort who has given money to Planned Parenthood.

Dr. Seuss, aka Theodor Geisel, was also reportedly a pro-abort. Said his biographer Philip Nel, "[D]uring his lifetime Seuss threatened to sue an anti-abortion group unless they took ["A person is a person, no matter how small"] off their stationery... but it's still used."

Indeed.

ABC News reported March 17....

Kristi Burton, who leads Colorado for Equal Rights... led a group of several dozen activists who attended the movie premiere of "Horton Hears a Who" in Denver... and hand[ed] out T-shirts with Horton's famous statement.

That could get them in trouble with Dr. Seuss Enterprises....

Burton insists her group talked to attorneys to make sure they could reprint the sentence on their shirts. A lawyer for Dr. Seuss Enterprises did not return calls seeking comment.

I hope the good widow and her multi-million dollar company have undergone a change of heart, if only because fewer kids mean fewer book sales.

But my guess is they have opted against provoking an obvious public relations nightmare....

Continue reading my column today, "Pro-lifers rip off 'Horton'? So sue us," on
WorldNetDaily.com.

That writer for the Los Angeles Times epitomizes how liberals get things 180 degrees backwards. The premise that life begins at conception is the reasonable and sensible one, and the premise that life doesn't begin until sometime later represents the world going mad. That writer, however, is in a deep secular fog.

It's too bad that Dr. Seuss apparently was a pro-abort, and that his wife is. The first book I ever remember reading was "Green Eggs and Ham" in the mid 1960s and Dr. Seuss and his wife were probably pro-life then. Even Ted Kennedy was pro-life in the 1960s.

The Good Dr. Seuss: A quiz
by David Buckna
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08030097.htm

Green Eggs and Ham [Pastor John Van Sloten, New Hope Church, Calgary]
http://www.newhopechurch.ca/page.php?pgid=search&id=searchbrowse&movieid=233

The Gospel According to Dr. Seuss by James W. Kemp, Judson Press, 2004
http://www.judsonpress.com/product.cfm?product_id=7822

Dr. Seuss Spirituality
http://www.umtv.org/archives/dr_seuss_spirituality.htm

Pastor puts Dr. Seuss among theological giants
http://www.wfn.org/2004/04/msg00046.html

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080315/ENTERTAIN/80316001

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4454256&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4454256&page=2

Bible Lessons from Dr Seuss Books
http://www.creativebiblestudy.com/Dr-Seuss-books.html

What will all the pro-choicers in Whoville say when the pro-life Grinch is right?

The thing you gotta love (if you're a prolifer) about this particular "controversy" is that it speaks (and so eloquently) for itself. No interpretation, no explanation is needed... you just repeat the quote... and it drives the proabort absolutely up the wall! :D

"The epic moral battle of our time?"

It seems to me at a time of war, recession, grinding poverty in Africa, Asia, and South America, that an issue that the writers of the Bible did not feel important enough to even mention once cannot be "the epic moral battle of our time."

What does the bible have to do with anything, John S?

Commenting on the Horton Hears a Who! movie (2008) Jason Anderson writes: “Screenwriters Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul emphasize the book’s value as an allegory about religious belief, while mocking those who despise new and unorthodox ideas. One reason Horton is so detested is that he believes in something whose existence can’t be proven; according to Sour Kangaroo -- in a line that Geisel did not write -- ‘If you can’t see, hear or feel something, it doesn’t exist.’ Horton is cast as a believer who will not be swayed, despite mockery and abuse.” (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/horton.html)

I actually go choked up when she said this:

‘If you can’t see, hear or feel something, it doesn’t exist.’

‘If you can’t see, hear or feel something, it doesn’t exist.’

To quote one of my other favorite movie lines: "Sometimes seeing is believing, but sometimes the most real things are the things we can't see".

S.

Well, Bobby, if you take away the Bible what moral authority to we use to judge abortion? Which opens up a much larger issue, because if you read Roe v. Wade, what you will see is that Blackmun started with the Bible(which said nothing) so he looked at the views of the ancient Hebrews, Persians, Romans, Greeks, and went thru most of modern Christendom including British Common Law to see what the prevailing opinion on abortion was. And he found that it was almost universally adopted that abortion was permitted up until "quickening" or when the baby started moving around, which is usually 18-20 weeks, or somewhere in the second trimester. Soooo....you got the Roe rule that 1st trimester is protected, 2nd can be regulated, 3rd can be prohibited, and anything after viability can be prohibited. With that analysis, from what springs any MORAL argument against 1st trimester abortions? And if your argument is based on the Bible (passages about God knowing you in the womb and all that) then why not a condemnation of abortion in the Bible (it was a well known practice in Jesus' day)? And if not based on the Bible, on what?

The Cat In The Hat has a clear Pro-Stay at Home Mom message, even if Dr. Suess never intended it. Liberals are clearly just ignoring the fact that if the kids mom had been home in the kitchen like she SHOULD be, the cat never would have been allowed in the house to make such a mess and traumatize the family goldfish.

Whether he intended it or not, Dr. Suess's story sends a simple message to all of us that a woman's place is in the home, and it a sad sign of the times that liberals are ignoring that message.

Also, Green Eggs and Ham has a very anti-vegetarian and anti-kosher message to it. I mean, come on, the guy did NOT want to eat the green eggs and ham! What if he was Jewish? Shouldn't Sam-I-Am have respected the fact that the little guy might have been following a kosher diet and not eating ham for religious reasons? Maybe Dr. Suess was an anti-semite!
Sam-I-Am was just SO persistant that he eat those eggs and ham, and instead of sticking to his vegetarian and/or kosher diet, the dude eventually just folded and ate the green eggs and ham...and LIKED them! Even if Dr. Suess didn't mean to, he was obviously trying to tell vegetarians and Jews that if they just stopped avoiding it and ate ham, they'd love it... here or there, and even with a mouse!!

Ha Ha and Bravo to Amanda!

Well, the idea of "quickening" is based purely on speculation, and not on science. Now that we are in a scientific age, we can show that quickening has nothing to do with the humanity of the unborn. Science has unequivocally shown us that we were all once zygotes. Hence destruction of a zygote, embryo, or fetus is the destruction of a human life.

"Well, Bobby, if you take away the Bible what moral authority to we use to judge abortion?"

Sound philosophical reasoning and science. Otherwise, how do we reason with the agnostic or Hindu?

"With that analysis, from what springs any MORAL argument against 1st trimester abortions?"

The fact that it is a human being. No one permits the willful and direct destruction of innocent born human beings. Once the humanity of the unborn is established,

"And if your argument is based on the Bible (passages about God knowing you in the womb and all that) then why not a condemnation of abortion in the Bible (it was a well known practice in Jesus' day)?"

This is a straw man. No one uses the bible as their primary source of argumentation for the humanity of the unborn. The unborn is a complete integrated whole who, given the proper environment and nourishment, will grow just like any one of us.

John S. - Why was it that Mary was asked by God if she would be willing to carry Christ? Luke 1:26-38

As for the argument for the full humanity of the unborn:

Clearly, embryos are human "flesh and blood" beings - we know this scientifically. You cannot scientifically refute this point. I dare you to try. The next question, given the existence of that human being is whether it is a moral agent - subject to all the rules of morality that we ourselves are subject to. There are only 4 differences between the born and the unborn: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency. None of these differences are enough to negate the personhood of the unborn, because we aren't allowed to kill any born human beings for these differences.

If you make the argument that the unborn are not moral persons because they are non-sentient, you have to prove conclusively and not merely speculate (such as Blackmun did) that sentience is unknown. We don't demolition buildings carelessly without checking to see if people are inside. Blackmun's logic is well known as circular. The more that is being revealed about about the origins of life, the more horrific the abortion industry looks.

You cannot assume that the unborn are not human - it begs the question of what you are trying to prove.

That's some sound philosophy Chris! Have you read Beckwith's latest book?

You've got to take what you can get when it arrives. I find this to be amusing beyond control. I've spent a lifetime of being told I can't say something because of a very small minority. It's about time their words are turned against them.

That the Geisels were pro-abort is icing on the cake. That children will know the argument from their earliest years is a boon. I think this statement, "no matter how small" has long legs and can go a long way.

Thanks for the good news.

"The epic moral battle of our time?"

It seems to me at a time of war, recession, grinding poverty in Africa, Asia, and South America, that an issue that the writers of the Bible did not feel important enough to even mention once cannot be "the epic moral battle of our time."

Oh yes - one more thing:if we do not defend the smallest weakest, and most helpless of humanity, why defend any other? Would any other defense be truly moral or simply utilitarian?

Chris and Bobby -

you are both conveiently ignoring one of the most important arguments for the legality of abortion that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is a human being.

Nothing and No one - human or not - "small" or not - has the right to use or inhabit the property of another without consent. Organ donation is a perfect example - because pregnancy is essentially a bodily donation. No one can FORCE me to donate my kidney to my cousin, even if refusing to do so ensures her death. Likewise, if a woman does not CONSENT to the use of her uterus by a fetus, regardless of its humanity or lack thereof, even if it ensures its death, the woman has the right to refuse the use of her organs.

Is that NICE? Well, I'd say no. Is it selfish? Maybe. But thats my opinion - I can't force someone else to be nice and selfless.

Bobby Bambino 10:22.

Yes - Francis Beckwith's Defending Life is an excellent book. I'm ready to get into Robert George & Christopher Tollefson's Embryo as well.

Oh I read George and Tollefson's book last month; fantastic!

Amanda,

"Nothing and No one - human or not - "small" or not - has the right to use or inhabit the property of another without consent. Organ donation is a perfect example - because pregnancy is essentially a bodily donation. No one can FORCE me to donate my kidney to my cousin, even if refusing to do so ensures her death. Likewise, if a woman does not CONSENT to the use of her uterus by a fetus, regardless of its humanity or lack thereof, even if it ensures its death, the woman has the right to refuse the use of her organs."

Okay, sure, I grant that. Does that justify the direct and willful killing of an innocent human being? What other cases do we see where one can directfully and willfully kill an innocent human being?

"No one can FORCE me to donate my kidney to my cousin, even if refusing to do so ensures her death."

This analogy does not hold up because the death of your cousin will be the result of a PASSIVE action that you took i.e. not donating your kidney. However the death of the fetus is because of an ACTIVE action that one takes i.e. direct abortion. The intent and the means of an action are key to understanding its morality.

"""With that analysis, from what springs any MORAL argument against 1st trimester abortions?"
The fact that it is a human being. No one permits the willful and direct destruction of innocent born human beings. Once the humanity of the unborn is established""

Isn't this what is the crux of the issue (whether or not fetuses are human beings)? So saying "the fact that it is a human being" isn't really an argument, it's just the conclusion you're trying to prove.

With respect to proving that an unborn is not sentient, that burden shouldn't fall on pro choicers. In order to say that embryos are not sentient, you must show there does not exist any embryo that is sentient. Proving the non existence of something is a logical fallacy. The burden is on those making the claim that it is sentient. In fact, if pro lifers could give an example of just ONE first trimester embryo that is self aware, I'm sure a lot of people would change there minds.

"Likewise, if a woman does not CONSENT to the use of her uterus by a fetus, regardless of its humanity or lack thereof, even if it ensures its death, the woman has the right to refuse the use of her organs."

Assuming agreement with your premise, the difference in the case of abortion is that the woman (as well as the man), in 99% of the cases, has consented to the act that led to the presence/existence of the baby. The potential organ donor did not "consent" to any act that led to the disease of the person who needs the organ to live. The woman - and the man - consented to the act that led to the existence of the baby. Accordingly, they have some obligation to that baby (created by their own willful actions) that your average organ donator does not have.

Now, this is not to say that sex is "bad" or that pregnancy is a "punishment" as PC'ers often say about PL'ers. Rather, it simply acknowledges the biological facts of our existence. Sex makes babies; babies, by nature, reside in their mothers' bodies for 9 months. When two people decide to have sex, unless they have been living under a rock for their entire lives or were abandoned as youngsters on a deserted island like the kids in that dumb movie "Blue Lagoon", they know that a new human life could result.

S.

"The fact that it's a human being" Well, that settles it. How about "The fact that it's a blob of cells?" It certainly has the DNA of a human, but so does a cloned body part, but an ear grown on a pig's back (which has been done) is clearly not a human being. And Blackmun's argument is certainly less circular than what is being proposed here. If we are not using the Bible, what is the source of the moral code that we apply? The Romans put babies with birth defects out in the elements alone to die. Were they right? By what measure? If we were purely utilitatian, we would measure the loss of the unborn life(less workers, soldiers, people to pay into social security) v. the economic and social problems from unwanted children (crime, drugs, poverty)and decide which adds more "good" to society. Science can tell us facts, it can't make moral decisions. Here in America most of our moral/ethical decisions flow from the Bible and English Common Law. The Bible is silent, and English Common Law supports Blackmun. What's the source for anything else? What's the moral standard that we apply the science to?

"Isn't this what is the crux of the issue (whether or not fetuses are human beings)?"

Not in the case we were discussing above, no. Above, we were talking about whether or not abortion should permissible based on biblical considerations. Now, eventually it should boil down to that, but we were in the midst of discussing why certain a priori arguments do not hold.

But Bobby - if someone broke in to your home and started using your TV and taking your food, if you come in and find them and hit them with a baseball bat, you won't be charged with a crime- because they were in YOUR property without your consent, and could possibly have harmed you.

That is also an ACTIVE action. I don't think theres a huge distinction between actively or passively denying consent to your body or your property.

The morality and/or justification comes down to the individuals beliefs I think. I don't own a gun, because I could never live with myself if I shot someone, even if they were breaking in to my home. For the same reason, I'd never even think about having an abortion unless I was raped - and even then I can't say for sure if I would abort or not. At the same level, I'm horrified by the idea that anyone would be so selfish as to be unwilling to go through some risk and pain to donate a kidney to someone who's life is literally depending on it. So for ME - and for you I'm sure - denying that consent WOULD be immoral and unjustifiable, but for others its not. My opinion of them is irrelevent when it comes to the idea of personal consent.

I think the most logical arguments for AND against abortion have more to do with whether or not sex is legal consent to pregnancy, as opposed to the size or humanity of the fetus.

"How about "The fact that it's a blob of cells?" It certainly has the DNA of a human, but so does a cloned body part, but an ear grown on a pig's back (which has been done) is clearly not a human being."

First of all, we're all just a blob of cells, albeit highly developed. And thats the only difference between the embryo and the adult; this level of development. It is not simply DNA that makes the unborn human, yet the fact that it is an integrated whole, a complete being. A cloned body part is not an organism like the embryo is. Given any conditions you like, a cloned body part will not grow into a person. All science confirms that you and i were once embryos. No science will tell you that you and I were once a cloned leg.

"What's the source for anything else? What's the moral standard that we apply the science to?"

Natural law.

Nothing and No one - human or not - "small" or not - has the right to use or inhabit the property of another without consent.

Amanda - 3 points:

1. The mother granted prima facie consent by agreeing to intercourse. Rape is another case, but that's not your current argument. Using your logic: it's okay to invite a child into your house to kill her, because it's your house.

2. On what basis does the women claim that right to her body? What's the logical basis? And when did those rights accrue to her?

3. Your argument is old - it's Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist argument. As I mentioned in point #1, and I point out by questioning in point #2, a woman's natural body is a vessel for reproduction. You're argument is that a woman's "choice" should override her natural capacity for childbearing. Pregnancy is a natural result of intercourse. The obvious answer is, you consented the moment of non-forced penetration.

Jarvis-Thompson's illustration, as well as the variants fail because they overlook the intrinsic nature of the beings involved, and they equivocate human beings as parcels of property. You don't have the right to kill anyone in your house, simply because you "own" it. Likewise, the very basis you are arguing sovereignty of your bodily rights (it's intrinsic "living" nature) you are denying to the human being inside. It begs the question.

Anon -

Yes, like I just said to Bobby, I think THAT is the most sound argument - from a legal point of view - on both sides. I know it probably doesn't make sense that I'm saying the idea of whether or not consent to sex = consent to pregnancy is a sound argument for both pro choice and pro life, but honestly - I can see very logically where both sides are coming from on that topic. I lean to the pro choice end because of things like rape, incest, abusive relationships, and failed birth control - but I do also understand the belief that sex = consent to pregnancy.

However I believe the - "BUT LOOK IT HAS FINGERS!!!" and the "ITS JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS!!!" argument make both sides (who ever is using those types of statements) sound ignorant.

Hi there Amanda.

"But Bobby - if someone broke in to your home and started using your TV and taking your food, if you come in and find them and hit them with a baseball bat, you won't be charged with a crime- because they were in YOUR property without your consent, and could possibly have harmed you."

Indeed. I agree it is an active action as well. But they are not innocent. That is a crucial difference. The unborn has done nothing to put themselves in their mother's womb. In fact, that is EXACTLY where an embryo should be; in a mother's womb. A robber should not be in my home. The embryo is precisely where it needs to be in order to survive and grow, just as you and I an everyone else came into this world.

"The morality and/or justification comes down to the individuals beliefs I think. I don't own a gun, because I could never live with myself if I shot someone, even if they were breaking in to my home. For the same reason, I'd never even think about having an abortion unless I was raped - and even then I can't say for sure if I would abort or not. At the same level, I'm horrified by the idea that anyone would be so selfish as to be unwilling to go through some risk and pain to donate a kidney to someone who's life is literally depending on it. So for ME - and for you I'm sure - denying that consent WOULD be immoral and unjustifiable, but for others its not. My opinion of them is irrelevent when it comes to the idea of personal consent."

I understand what you're saying here, Amanda. And I would agree if the unborn is not a human being. Women should be able to do what they wish with their bodies. But to say that it is up to the individual begs the question as to whether or not the action that they are considering to take is morally justifiable or not. Both you and I would agree that no one has the right to rape someone. I would never argue that rape might be right for you but not for me and I won't force my opinion on the potential rapist. The problem with rape is that the rapist is doing serious physical and emotional harm to another human being. And this is how pro-lifers see abortion; as one human being killing another human being.

Now I agree that it is a conflict of interests. The women does have a right to her body, yet the fetus has a right to life (or maybe that will be argued). But the question is; who has more to lose? The women, granted, had many things possibly on the line to lose. But none of them are as crucial as life; the alternative is that the fetus has to lose his life.

"I think the most logical arguments for AND against abortion have more to do with whether or not sex is legal consent to pregnancy, as opposed to the size or humanity of the fetus."

This is a large part of it, although I tend to shy away from it because there is still the question of rape to consider.

"Using your logic: it's okay to invite a child into your house to kill her, because it's your house"

"You don't have the right to kill anyone in your house, simply because you "own" it"

Ummm.... NO and NO. Those are completely ridiculous statements. If you invite a child in to your home, you've obviously CONSENTED to the child being there. The end. If someone is in your house with your consent, you don't have the right to kill them just because you own it. If they break in though, you absolutely do.

"Likewise, the very basis you are arguing sovereignty of your bodily rights (it's intrinsic "living" nature) you are denying to the human being inside. It begs the question."

Again... NO. I'm not denying that its living or human at all, in fact I said that is irrelevent. Whether its alive or dead, human, fish, or alien - if it has consent to be there, fine. If not, it can be removed.

Natural law???? Per Wikipedia, "The use of natural law, in its various incarnations, has varied widely through its history. There are a number of different theories of natural law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms." So good luck with that one. "Natural law" means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

"However I believe the - "BUT LOOK IT HAS FINGERS!!!" and the "ITS JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS!!!" argument make both sides (who ever is using those types of statements) sound ignorant."

I agree Amanda. These are appeals to emotion. It may have fingers, but maybe there is a good reason to say it isn't a person. Apperences can be deceiving. And while it may look like a clump of cells, science may tell us that it is a human being. Apperences can be deceiving.

But as I mentioned above, part of the problem arguing along those lines is the rape case. So, even if one builds a strong case that sex=consent to pregnancy, that only stops 99& of abortions (or whatever), so i do tend to want to build a case around the humanity of the unborn.

But I do respect your honesty and integrity, Amanda, and your willigness to really get at the heart of the issue. I can tell you've taken time to study the issues, so it is nice discussing this with you.

"but I do also understand the belief that sex = consent to pregnancy."

Amanda - thank you for taking the time to read and understand my argument!

"However I believe the - "BUT LOOK IT HAS FINGERS!!!" and the "ITS JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS!!!" argument make both sides (who ever is using those types of statements) sound ignorant."

I'm curious, though, how does basic biology (as beared out through ultrasound and photographs) make pro-lifers sound ignorant? The facts of fetal development show that all body parts and systems are pretty much in place early in pregnancy. There aren't really two ways about that. So I'm not sure what you mean here.

S.

No John. Natural law has an objective meaning. It is the job of ethicists as well as government officials to figure out what that objective meaning is.

There are also a number of different (and I would argue more) interpretations of the bible, the source that you would base all laws on. If you want all morals to be based on a book that was written 2000 years ago, who interprets it? Who says what the bible says is moral and not moral? And why should everyone be subjected to the bible? Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists I'm sure don't want to be living in a country where the morality comes from a book full of stories that they believe are false. You have given no criteria as to why anyone should believe that the bible should be upheld in our government as tech rule of morals.

Again... NO. I'm not denying that its living or human at all, in fact I said that is irrelevent. Whether its alive or dead, human, fish, or alien - if it has consent to be there, fine. If not, it can be removed.

Amanda - you're still begging the question about intrinsic bodily sovereignty. You're assuming that unborn human beings don't have the same rights you have when it comes to their bodies.

Denials aren't reasoning.

Why should one human being have the right to kill another innocent human being (which you are conceding for the point of argument) when the mother by her nature granted prima-facie consent to that human to "be" there?

Your argument is based on sovereign intrinsic bodily rights, which you have no problem denying to the other human being - why?

When you have a city of sentient self sustaining fertilized eggs living separately and autonomously then maybe you'll have an argument. Until then the 'analogy' is laughable.

Bobby -

Its hard for me to argue when I personally agree with you.

This is why it gets under my skin when I am labelled a "pro abort" - clearly I'm not. Its just that I think for the same reason some people are able to have no guilt what so ever about shooting a robber while I would be devastated by it, some women have no guilt what so ever about terminating a pregnancy, while I would be devastated by it.

I don't think theres anything wrong with encouraging ultrasounds, encouraging adoption, offering financial assistance, so on and so forth - which may end up changing a woman's mind and leading her to consent to her pregnancy. But FORCING any of those things by law crosses a line in my opinion.

In an ideal world, I'd imagine that Pro Lifers would accept that abortion should be legal for those who choose it, and Pro Choicers accept that there is nothing wrong with trying to encourage and help a woman choose not to abort and making sure she realizes she has options - and not to just panic and terminate the pregnancy without considering things first.

Bobby: The Bible is the word of God, I think that's pretty much the highest authority. But if you want to keep this entirely secular, I would put William Blackstone up against whatever source of your "natural law" you have. To quote Blackstone, "Life ... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor." What you got?

When there is only a functional brain stem, when there is no functional cerebral cortex, when there is 'no one home', when you are talking about oblivious nonviable human tissue and cell structure and its in the uterus of a thinking feeling reasoning woman who doesnt want it there then she has every right to have it removed. I dont have a problem with restrictions on later term abortions. You can roughly compare them to laws regarding common law marriage - after a certain point you've recognized a committment. A discussion of late term abortions - those after potential viability - cover completely separate issues than does a discussion of typical abortions and abortions in general terms. But a typical abortion - 95% or more - take place by 15 weeks. Arguing that oblivious nonviable tissue is 'no different' from the woman pregnant and 'should' have even more rights than she has and her rights are negated by the antichoice obsession with that oblivious tissue is preposterious.

Chris, you're awesome man! Nice to "meet" you. I'm also glad to see you're reading Beckwith and George & Tolefson. I"ve been telling pro-lifers (as well as abortion choice advocates) that they HAVE to read those books.

"The Bible is the word of God, I think that's pretty much the highest authority."

How do you know this?

""Life ... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor." "

Again with the quickening? There is nothing scientific about it. I have science.

I dont have any problem at all admitting that abortion isnt the right choice for a lot of women. I also dont have any problem at all admitting that abortion IS the right choice for a lot of other women. But the problem is having some total stranger insisting SHE (or he) should be the one making the choice for everyone else, based only on how THEY feel - and how the woman pregnant thinks, feels, believes and what she wants and needs simply doesnt matter.

Bobby and John - Blackstone died in 1780. Clearly, knowledge of early human in-utero development was lacking at that time, and was far behind that which we know today. Had Blackstone known what we know now, he may very well have *not* assigned the importance to quickening that he did, and may have viewed any and all abortions as "heinous misdemeanors".

S.

"I'm curious, though, how does basic biology (as beared out through ultrasound and photographs) make pro-lifers sound ignorant?" (Anon)

Its not pointing out the biology that makes that argument sound ignorant, its fact thats its continuously pointed out as though most pro choicers aren't aware of it - which we are.

Its just over simplifynig the argument for keeping abortion legal.

Its a Whoooooole lot more complicated than what it LOOKS like, or even how developed it may or may not be. And like Bobby said, appearances can be decieving - its just not a solid reason one way or the other.

Bobby:

1. It says so.

2. Science proves facts, it can't make moral judgments. Science can cure diseases and make biological weapons. Science gives us ultrasounds that in many countries they use to sex-select for abortions. All very scientific. I have quoted you William Blackstone, the most authoratitive source on English Common law that 99% of our American law is based. Blackmun in Roe listed the legal and moral opinions of a laundry list of ancient to modern societies. You are yet to quote me a single source from which I can find this mystical "natual law." Again, what you got?

Amanda - in my experience (going from PC to PL over a period of years) I found that once I accepted the scientific fact and truth of what abortion really *is* the rest of the concerns that you raise just fell down like a house of cards.

If the baby in-utero is alive, human, and innocent (i.e., not guilty of any wrongdoing or threat to life of the mother); if the baby in-utero is there by virtue of conscious, willful acts of its parents, then becoming pro-life (in the sense that abortion should be illegal) was an easy step to make. There are no situational ethics here - either a baby in utero is a living human being with as much right to exist as the rest of us (in which case, abortion should not be legally or morally permissible for anyone), or the baby in utero is not a living human being (in which case, why should abortion be a problem for me personally? In that case, no one should have any objective objection to any abortion.) Clearly, the first of these possibilities obtains (i.e., the baby in utero is a living human being). As Bobby said, it's not an issue of situational ethics; it's a matter of scientific fact.

And again, I do appreciate your willingness to consider these issues - it's a breath of fresh air!

S.

Next time I throw a dinner party and the guests are still there at 2am, even after I've yawned and expressed loudly how tired I am, I'm getting my gun...

John -

Re: natural law - here ya go for a source:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I don't think I need the cite!

S.

I don't get it. Isn't that argument that life begins at CONCEPTION? If so, who cares what we know now about in-utero development, as of the sperm hitting the target a human begins? And if that is true, then why dismiss older authorities on the subject?

I dont agree that you can rationally call an oblivious nonviable collection of tissue and cell structure 'a human being'. There is a huge difference between human used as an adjective and human used as a noun. And I certainly dont agree that oblivious tissue has 'as much' right to anything as the woman who is pregnant. Even a PERSON doesnt have any rights to my body if I dont grant them and having sex is NOT agreeing to pregnancy any more than swimming is agreeing to drown.

John -

I'm confused about your statement - can you clarify?

S.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

************************
When those words were written women (and minorities) did NOT have the right to 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' - not the way caucasian men did - but they COULD have an abortion if they chose to do so and it was not illegal.

Tex, swimming may not be agreeing to drowning, but swimming IS an act that by definition implies consent to the POSSIBILITY of drowning.

John,

"1. It says so."

This post is the word of God. Does that make it so?

"I have quoted you William Blackstone, the most authoratitive source on English Common law that 99% of our American law is based. Blackmun in Roe listed the legal and moral opinions of a laundry list of ancient to modern societies. You are yet to quote me a single source from which I can find this mystical "natual law." Again, what you got?"

As S. pointed out, your source was from the 18th century, when we didn't have science as developed as it is now. What I am saying is that science says that the unborn in all stages is a human being. Almost all people agree that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. So this appeal that you keep wanting me to make to a natural aw quote would simply be someone saying that killing an innocent is wrong. Is that in question? Science tells us that the unborn is a human being, and using that fact, we apply philosophical reasoning to CONCLUDE that it is prima facie wrong to kill the unborn. That is how I am using science.

But if you would like a solid source for the foundations of natural law, I would reccomend "In Defense of Natural Law" by Robert P. George. It isn't something so simple that I can just give one quote to build my case.

hence; signs at public swimming pools that say:
"Swim at your own risk" and
"No lifeguard on duty"

S:

I hardly see where the Declaration of Independence addresses the abortion issue. Also you'll note that the U.S. Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, only extends to "born" citizens. I think that would negate the argument that there was some intention along the way to extend rights to "unborn" citizens.

'a human being'

TR - If not a human being - what is it, then? Clearly it is not a dog, fish, or doorknob. If you say a "potential" human being, what, in that "oblivious, non-viable collection of tissue" changes to change it from a "potential" human being into an actual human being?

"having sex is NOT agreeing to pregnancy any more than swimming is agreeing to drown."

Only in your mind, that is. Biologically speaking, pregnancy is the normal, natural, untempered consequence of sex. You may not WISH for pregnancy to occur, but you have to admit that PREGNANCY (and any secondary, consequential pair-bonding in order to nurture and aid the survival of the resulting offspring) is the raison d'etre for sex. Whether by evolution or by design, sex exists, and feels good, so that organisms will do it and perpetuate their kind. The fact that sex, in humans, often creates a bond between man and woman is, again by evolution or by design, an outgrowth of the need to stick together and raise the young.

S.

S:

Somehow an argument is being made that the science of in-utero development would change the opinions of older authorites on the issue of abortion. But I thought that the premise behind PL's is that life begins at conception, so who cares how quickly a heart starts beating or brain activity develops? Likewise, if that is not the argument, and so it is some measure of development that a potential human becomes a human, then maybe science can lend something on that (although I really doubt that's the road PL's want to go down) but why would not the old common law "quickening" that the modern Roe decision updated to "viability" not make sense then?

"I hardly see where the Declaration of Independence addresses the abortion issue."

I know - you asked for a source of natural law. I was being a little too "clever" when I quoted that.

Also you'll note that the U.S. Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, only extends to "born" citizens. I think that would negate the argument that there was some intention along the way to extend rights to "unborn" citizens.

Perhaps, but do you think the framers of the 14th amendment actually ever considered or envisioned that abortion could become an unbridled "industry" of millions per year?

"Somehow an argument is being made that the science of in-utero development would change the opinions of older authorites on the issue of abortion. But I thought that the premise behind PL's is that life begins at conception, so who cares how quickly a heart starts beating or brain activity develops? Likewise, if that is not the argument, and so it is some measure of development that a potential human becomes a human, then maybe science can lend something on that (although I really doubt that's the road PL's want to go down) but why would not the old common law "quickening" that the modern Roe decision updated to "viability" not make sense then?"

Thanks for the clarification. The point is, back then, quickening was essentially the first objective evidence of the existence of a pregnancy, and the new human therein. Anything prior to that was simply a "missed period" or a "late period", and could be corrected by medicinals to make a woman regular again, probably as administered by a local midwife or by the woman herself. If Blackstone and the fathers of the common law had been privy, as we are today, to similar objective evidence of the pregnancy in its earliest stages (and the new human life that it entailed), they may have concluded that abortion - even prior to quickening - was a heinous misdemeanor. Does that make sense?

So, to answer, yes - it is objectively a fact that life begins at conception; what changed between Blackstone's time and ours was our knowledge of that objective fact. Blackstone's legal conclusions were based on incomplete knowledge of the facts.

S.

'a human being'

TR - If not a human being - what is it, then? Clearly it is not a dog, fish, or doorknob. If you say a "potential" human being, what, in that "oblivious, non-viable collection of tissue" changes to change it from a "potential" human being into an actual human being?

"having sex is NOT agreeing to pregnancy any more than swimming is agreeing to drown."

Only in your mind, that is. Biologically speaking, pregnancy is the normal, natural, untempered consequence of sex. You may not WISH for pregnancy to occur, but you have to admit that PREGNANCY (and any secondary, consequential pair-bonding in order to nurture and aid the survival of the resulting offspring) is the raison d'etre for sex. Whether by evolution or by design, sex exists, and feels good, so that organisms will do it and perpetuate their kind. The fact that sex, in humans, often creates a bond between man and woman is, again by evolution or by design, an outgrowth of the need to stick together and raise the young.

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2008 12:06 PM

***************************
Back to the refusal to face the difference between an adjective and a noun. I dont agree that oblivious nonviable tissue can rationally be called 'a human' or 'a being' or 'a human being'. Its genetically human tissue and cell structure.

And no, agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy whether youre able to face that fact or not. Biologically speaking the majority of human intercourse is not going to lead to pregnancy. If humans were only sexually active when the woman was fertile - as is the case with a lot of mammals - then youd have an argument. But thats not the case. SOMETIMES sex will result in pregnancy in humans - MOST of the time it wont. Women are fertile for about 4 days at most. Reproduction is not the only reason humans have sex. Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy.

Tex, swimming may not be agreeing to drowning, but swimming IS an act that by definition implies consent to the POSSIBILITY of drowning.

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 19, 2008 12:02 PM
***************************
And? The possibility exists. Youre not required to drown if youre swimming and start having difficulties. You can try to rescue yourself or someone can rescue you. If you have sex there is a possibility of pregnancy but you are not agreeing to the pregnancy or agreeing to continue the pregnancy.

The Declaration of Independence is more a reflection of a belief in natural law amongst it's drafters than a source of it. John Locke would be a better citation. But my point is just that "natural law" is merely a personal philosophy (like individual liberty v. collectivism or submission to a sovereign)and can be in the eye of the beholder. So we have to measure abortion, at least 1st trimester abortion, which is where I started on this, against some standard. And there are so many. So whose do we go with? Blackmun, in Roe, tried to survey as many as he could and come up with something that fit with those older authorities and modern science. As far as personal opinions you can go from Gloria Steinem to Phyillis Schafley, they both think they are right. You have to build a case on precdent and authority. The vast weight of prior precedent and authority supported the old "quickening" rule. Blackmun updated it with "viability." I am yet to hear from anyone a scientific or moral reason to contradict that other than to say "it's a human, end of argument." Which is funny coming from some posters who deny the Bible cause oftentimes Bible supporters make the same argument (God said it, end of story.)

Perhaps, but do you think the framers of the 14th amendment actually ever considered or envisioned that abortion could become an unbridled "industry" of millions per year?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2008 12:18 PM
******************************************
And just when were there *millions* of abortions per year in the US? I seriously doubt if the framers of the constitution could envision todays health care industry in general. But the fact of the matter is there were no laws against abortion in the US when the BOR and Constitution were written, and none of those men made any effort to push for laws making abortion illegal.

"If humans were only sexually active when the woman was fertile - as is the case with a lot of mammals - then youd have an argument. But thats not the case. SOMETIMES sex will result in pregnancy in humans - MOST of the time it wont. Women are fertile for about 4 days at most. Reproduction is not the only reason humans have sex. Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy."

From my biology/anthropology days, I learned that, evolutionarily speaking, hidden estrus developed so that pair-bonding between male and female could be facilitated, in order to maximize the survival of the very dependent and comparatively (to other species) underdeveloped and slow-developing human newborn/infant/child.

When estrus is visible, the male does his thing, then moves along to the next visibly-fertile female to do more of that thing. Hidden estrus means fertility is less detectable; consequently, he has to stick around all the time to ensure that his genes make it into the next generation, so to speak. Therefore, sex exists for reproductive purposes. The rest is just an outgrowth of that.

And, can you please answer my first questions - or noun... if the unborn individual is not a human, what is it? When does it become "human"?

S.

S:

I have to go back to work, so this will be my last post on this. Re-read Blackstone and Roe, you will see that you are wrong, abortions were legal up until quickening, there is no reason to have an abortion unless you know you are pregnant!

"But the fact of the matter is there were no laws against abortion in the US when the BOR and Constitution were written, and none of those men made any effort to push for laws making abortion illegal."

probably because they couldn't envision such henious acts ever becoming legal -murder.

"But the fact of the matter is there were no laws against abortion in the US when the BOR and Constitution were written, and none of those men made any effort to push for laws making abortion illegal."

probably because they couldn't envision such henious acts ever becoming legal -murder.

Posted by: jasper at March 19, 2008 12:43 PM
*****************************************
Since there is no such thing as legal murder and there is no indication they viewed abortion as a 'henious act' your argument really cant be taken seriously.

"And just when were there *millions* of abortions per year in the US? I seriously doubt if the framers of the constitution could envision todays health care industry in general. But the fact of the matter is there were no laws against abortion in the US when the BOR and Constitution were written, and none of those men made any effort to push for laws making abortion illegal."

I believe there have been some 40+ million abortions in the US since RVW. I don't have the numbers here, but I did read that.

And I don't quite get your point. So there were no laws against abortion at the time of the drafting of the constitution. Laws change. Later, there were laws in the states against abortion - the constitution said nothing about whether such laws were allowed or not. In fact, it would seem that the 9th amendment (I think) would have allowed for such laws because it would have left abortion (like childbirth, medicine, education, etc.) as an area to be regulated by the states.

"I have to go back to work, so this will be my last post on this. Re-read Blackstone and Roe, you will see that you are wrong, abortions were legal up until quickening, there is no reason to have an abortion unless you know you are pregnant!"

John - me too (this board is addictive). I haven't read Blackstone or Roe in years, but I don't think a re-reading would have any effect on my point, which is simply that scientific knowledge as to the nature of the early pregnancy has changed since the time of Blackstone and since the time of Roe.
S.

Nice talking with you, John S. Take care.

And, can you please answer my first questions - or noun... if the unborn individual is not a human, what is it? When does it become "human"?

S.

************************
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I DID answer your question. I dont agree that oblivious nonviable tissue can rationally or intelligently be called 'a human'. Until there is 'someone home' its only human tissue. Now are you going to start whimpering about born individuals and whine 'what about them if ....' ? They arent attached to someone elses body. One has nothing to do with the other.

From my biology/anthropology days, I learned that, evolutionarily speaking, hidden estrus developed so that pair-bonding between male and female could be facilitated, in order to maximize the survival of the very dependent and comparatively (to other species) underdeveloped and slow-developing human newborn/infant/child.

When estrus is visible, the male does his thing, then moves along to the next visibly-fertile female to do more of that thing. Hidden estrus means fertility is less detectable; consequently, he has to stick around all the time to ensure that his genes make it into the next generation, so to speak. Therefore, sex exists for reproductive purposes. The rest is just an outgrowth of that.

**********************
Thats only a theory. And it has nothing to do with the point made. In human beings agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy simply because most sex will never result in pregnancy. It MIGHT happen but that doesnt mean you agree to it happening.

TR - I don't wimper, so you can save that invective. I'm just interested in an intelligent debate.

To get back to the point - so, you think it's human tissue. When and how (by what processes) does "human tissue" become a "human"?

And my reading comprehension is quite good, thank you.

S., Ph.D., J.D. ;)

believe there have been some 40+ million abortions in the US since RVW. I don't have the numbers here, but I did read that.(you said 'per year' - when were there 'millions' of abortions 'per year' in the US?)

And I don't quite get your point. So there were no laws against abortion at the time of the drafting of the constitution. Laws change. Later, there were laws in the states against abortion - the constitution said nothing about whether such laws were allowed or not. In fact, it would seem that the 9th amendment (I think) would have allowed for such laws because it would have left abortion (like childbirth, medicine, education, etc.) as an area to be regulated by the states.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2008 12:46 PM
****************************************
Your quote was 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' and I pointed out that even when women did NOT have those rights - not the same way white men did - they STILL had the right to obtain an abortion and the men who wrote the BOR and Constitution didnt make any effort to make laws against the practice.

S, I'm a doctoral candidate in mathematics. What's your PhD in?

"Thats only a theory. And it has nothing to do with the point made. In human beings agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy simply because most sex will never result in pregnancy. It MIGHT happen but that doesnt mean you agree to it happening."

TR- if what I stated is only a theory, can you provide actual, tested, scientific fact that backs up your point? True, evolution is a theory.... are you a creationist?

And I'll reword my point: "agreeing to sex = agreeing to the chance of pregnancy."

TR - I don't wimper, so you can save that invective. I'm just interested in an intelligent debate.

To get back to the point - so, you think it's human tissue. When and how (by what processes) does "human tissue" become a "human"?

And my reading comprehension is quite good, thank you.

S., Ph.D., J.D. ;)

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2008 12:55 PM
**********************************************
Since Ive answered that twice already its obvious you reading comprehension isnt very good at all.

Bobby -

My Ph.D. is in anthropology. It was very interesting, but I had to leave that all behind because, quite frankly, it ain't easy to get a job in that field!

How far along are you in your mathematics degree?

S.

I'm EXACTLY half way through it. I'm reading up on the area I'm interested in, and this summer my adviser and I will start looking at a problem.

Do you have an email addy that you are sharing? If you are, I can get it from one of the moderators if you don't want to post it.

TR - here's what you said:

"Back to the refusal to face the difference between an adjective and a noun. I dont agree that oblivious nonviable tissue can rationally be called 'a human' or 'a being' or 'a human being'. Its genetically human tissue and cell structure."

Clear: you think it is "oblivious non-viable tissue". However, you don't say "when" and how" this non-viable tissue becomes a human being.

S.

Anon --

Only in your mind, that is. Biologically speaking, pregnancy is the normal, natural, untempered consequence of sex. You may not WISH for pregnancy to occur, but you have to admit that PREGNANCY (and any secondary, consequential pair-bonding in order to nurture and aid the survival of the resulting offspring) is the raison d'etre for sex. Whether by evolution or by design, sex exists, and feels good, so that organisms will do it and perpetuate their kind. The fact that sex, in humans, often creates a bond between man and woman is, again by evolution or by design, an outgrowth of the need to stick together and raise the young.

Only in your mind.

You're talking about human beings as if we were a bunch of monkeys in a zoo. But what makes us different from other animals is that we have the ability to plan our reproduction. We've developed the technology to separate sex from reproduction when it suits our personal needs, so why shouldn't we?

I don't care what "evolution" wants. I don't need anymore kids, so I'm not going to carry anymore pregnancies. Pleasure is the only purpose of sex for me.

"Thats only a theory. And it has nothing to do with the point made. In human beings agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy simply because most sex will never result in pregnancy. It MIGHT happen but that doesnt mean you agree to it happening."

TR- if what I stated is only a theory, can you provide actual, tested, scientific fact that backs up your point? True, evolution is a theory.... are you a creationist?

And I'll reword my point: "agreeing to sex = agreeing to the chance of pregnancy."

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2008 12:58 PM
***********************************
No, Im not a creationist. And no one knows WHY humans are about the only species where the female has sex when she isnt fertile. You offered a THEORY. It really isnt relevant. I believe dolphins are sexually active when the female isnt fertile too but they dont seem to have the same social structure as humans. And the Bonobo chimps are also very sexually active and they dont have the same social structure as humans either. I agree that having sex is agreeing to the POSSIBILITY of pregnancy. But its also acknowledging that MOST of the time there WONT be a pregnancy. And if you use contraceptives that possibility is even more reduced. So agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy and if a pregnancy does occur then youre still under no obligation to continue it.

Bobby -

I'm sorry, I don't have an email address that I'm sharing. I'm always a little bit guarded about posting stuff on line!

Now, in anthropology, we had to apply for and get funding to do fieldwork (usually in a foreign country), to design and conduct a study, and then analyze our interviews, questionnaires, etc., and write it all up.... I'm curious - what kind of research does a Ph.D. in math entail? I'm not too good at math (although less fearful of it than most lawyers)!

S.

My Ph.D. is in anthropology. It was very interesting, but I had to leave that all behind because, quite frankly, it ain't easy to get a job in that field!

****************************
My daughter in law will get her degree this year and is looking into working with immigrants, helping them to assimilate etc -

TR - well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on those issues we were debating, because I really do need to work some today.

In any event - good luck to your daughter-in-law in getting her degree.

S.

TR - here's what you said:

"Back to the refusal to face the difference between an adjective and a noun. I dont agree that oblivious nonviable tissue can rationally be called 'a human' or 'a being' or 'a human being'. Its genetically human tissue and cell structure."

Clear: you think it is "oblivious non-viable tissue". However, you don't say "when" and how" this non-viable tissue becomes a human being.

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2008 1:03 PM
**********************************
Yes, I did. Again, youre proving my comments about your lack of reading comprehension. This was my answer:

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I DID answer your question. I dont agree that oblivious nonviable tissue can rationally or intelligently be called 'a human'. Until there is 'someone home' its only human tissue. Now are you going to start whimpering about born individuals and whine 'what about them if ....' ? They arent attached to someone elses body. One has nothing to do with the other.

Then I wrote:

When there is only a functional brain stem, when there is no functional cerebral cortex, when there is 'no one home', when you are talking about oblivious nonviable human tissue and cell structure and its in the uterus of a thinking feeling reasoning woman who doesnt want it there then she has every right to have it removed. I dont have a problem with restrictions on later term abortions. You can roughly compare them to laws regarding common law marriage - after a certain point you've recognized a committment. A discussion of late term abortions - those after potential viability - cover completely separate issues than does a discussion of typical abortions and abortions in general terms. But a typical abortion - 95% or more - take place by 15 weeks. Arguing that oblivious nonviable tissue is 'no different' from the woman pregnant and 'should' have even more rights than she has and her rights are negated by the antichoice obsession with that oblivious tissue is preposterious.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 19, 2008 11:33 AM

S,

I totally understand. No problem.

Basically, for a mathematics PhD, we have to make and original contribution to some area of math. So you find a branch of mathematics that you like (for example- algebra, geometry, calculus(which is really analysis), etc.). Then you pick an area in that branch and study all the basics as far as what is known in that area. Basically, you should be able to pick up any introductory paper in that area and understand it. Finally, you pick an even smaller area to specialize in. You read all the papers and learn all the results as far as what has been done in this specialized area goes. You then look to see the big questions (or small) that haven't been answered in that specialization, you work on it, and hopefully you solve it. That is basically your dissertation.

So in some ways it is easier than anthropology, some ways harder. You can do it anywhere, at any time, without any special equipment or anything like that, no travel etc. On the other hand, you could probably explain what question you answered or the idea behind your dissertation to me in a few paragraphs. I'm still learning so that I can simply UNDERSTAND my question, so there's a lot of long, laborious work just to be able to get to the actual research part. So it has it's advantages and disadvantages. God love you, S.

Sorry - TR, but I initially asked you my questions at 12:06. The following post by you:

"When there is only a functional brain stem, when there is no functional cerebral cortex, when there is 'no one home', when you are talking about oblivious nonviable human tissue and cell structure and its in the uterus of a thinking feeling reasoning woman who doesnt want it there then she has every right to have it removed. I dont have a problem with restrictions on later term abortions. You can roughly compare them to laws regarding common law marriage - after a certain point you've recognized a committment. A discussion of late term abortions - those after potential viability - cover completely separate issues than does a discussion of typical abortions and abortions in general terms. But a typical abortion - 95% or more - take place by 15 weeks. Arguing that oblivious nonviable tissue is 'no different' from the woman pregnant and 'should' have even more rights than she has and her rights are negated by the antichoice obsession with that oblivious tissue is preposterious"

was made at 11:33. Thus, it was not made in response to my questions; nor, does it answer my questions. But, let me see, nonetheless, if I understand what you are trying to say... so, based on your 11:33 post, you are saying that later in gestation the oblivious non-viable tissue becomes a "human"? "After a certain point" to use your words? When? How? Why?

And, I don't think anyone has said that the unborn baby should have "even more rights" than the woman; simply that their rights should be equal, or that their more basic right (life) should precede her less basic rights.

S.

Bobby -

That sounds really difficult! Suffice it to say, though, that I have a hard time summarizing my dissertation succinctly as well!

S.

"Suffice it to say, though, that I have a hard time summarizing my dissertation succinctly as well!"

Touche!

was made at 11:33. Thus, it was not made in response to my questions; nor, does it answer my questions. But, let me see, nonetheless, if I understand what you are trying to say... so, based on your 11:33 post, you are saying that later in gestation the oblivious non-viable tissue becomes a "human"? "After a certain point" to use your words? When? How? Why?

And, I don't think anyone has said that the unborn baby should have "even more rights" than the woman; simply that their rights should be equal, or that their more basic right (life) should precede her less basic rights.

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2008 1:48 PM
******************************************
You really DO have a severe problem with reading comprehension. Until there is a functional cerebral cortex, until there is 'someone home'then its only human genetically. Its human dna, human tissue, human cell structure. But its not 'a' human. 'Nobody is home'. And the cerebral cortex kicks in about the same point as potential viability. By then abortion is a moot point. And yes, you ARE saying that oblivious tissue should have more rights than the thinking feeling reasoning woman who is pregnant. Its not possible for them to be 'equal'. Either that oblivious tissue has more rights and the woman has to stay pregnant or the woman has more rights and that oblivious nonviable tissue can be removed from her uterus.

Sorry - TR, but I initially asked you my questions at 12:06. The following post by you:

********************
Yes, and the answer to your question was in that post.

David wrote in Psalm 139: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb...your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (verses 13 and 16).

The phrase "you knit me together" is interesting in view of the fact it was only 54 years ago that the thread-like double-helix of the DNA molecule was discovered by Crick and Watson, suggesting we are literally "knitted" or "woven" together at the molecular level.

The Good Dr. Seuss: A quiz
by David Buckna
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08030097.htm

Hey Bobby,
YOu might be interested to know that my most difficult question at the reference desk (EVER!!) had something to do with the Zaremba and Hebesque solution to the

go on, Patricia...

sorry Bobby I hit the post button:
the question was:

"Zaremba and Hebesque solution to the Dirichlet problem to the Laplace equation" and can I help find some information on this??

HEEELLLLLPPP

When I heard Laplace I figured it was a math question!!
I always use that as an example for the interesting things we get at the ref desk (that and questions on how to spell words - good thing I was always a great speller!!)

"Zaremba and Hebesque solution to the Dirichlet problem to the Laplace equation"
should read

"Zaremba and Hebesque solution to the Dirichlet problem FOR the Laplace equation"

Sorry the phone rang and it was my 88 year old dad!!

Oh that sounds fun! I've never even heard of that solution! And do you mean "Lebesgue", as opposed to "Hebesgue"?

I have read with considerable interest the posts here. I enjoyed Bobby and Chris' posts and their debate with Amanda.
It amazes me how the abortion debate has changed over the years. Pro-aborts have for many years used the idea that the unborn baby is nothing but a blob of cells and therefore, abortion does not kill a person.
However, when science has proven that the unborn child develops relatively rapidly and has very human characteristics, prochoicers have backed away from this area.
Now, arguments for abortion are more "sophisticated" or maybe couched more in doublespeak.
What has been debated here is the baby's right to exist in the woman's womb and it's use of a woman's body. Incredible!
We also now have abortion advocates refusing to accept further developments in neonatology about the unborn child's response to pain which have been documented both in terms of gross physical actions and also via bio markers.
JP II stated that modern man is very experiential - that is we don't believe anything unless we can experience it?
How does one prove to such people, the humanity of the unborn and their right to life?

Yes, you are correct Bobby! I had the day from HELL, so I'm not surprised I made yet another error today but then it's only Wednesday of Holy Week, right!!??

Chris Arsenault: As for the argument for the full humanity of the unborn:

When we get to "humanity," there's more to it than merely "human." Sentience does come into it, and that affects people's valuations, often.
......

Clearly, embryos are human "flesh and blood" beings - we know this scientifically. You cannot scientifically refute this point. I dare you to try. The next question, given the existence of that human being is whether it is a moral agent - subject to all the rules of morality that we ourselves are subject to. There are only 4 differences between the born and the unborn: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency. None of these differences are enough to negate the personhood of the unborn, because we aren't allowed to kill any born human beings for these differences.

You're confusing the construct, the attributed status, of personhood, with the physical reality of the unborn. Agreed - human, living organism, but are the unborn "moral creatures of reason"? I don't think they are. And they're inside the body of a person, which is a huge deal per human nature, history, and tradition going back thousands and thousands of years the world over.
......

If you make the argument that the unborn are not moral persons because they are non-sentient, you have to prove conclusively and not merely speculate (such as Blackmun did) that sentience is unknown.

The personhood that is the issue in the abortion argument - the societal deeming of it - isn't dependent on sentience, certainly not directly anyway. You're asking for the proof of a negative, and that's a logical fallacy. If I was a pregnant woman, and you wanted to reduce my rights in this matter, I think at the very least you should have to prove your assertion - that sentience is there.
......

We don't demolition buildings carelessly without checking to see if people are inside. Blackmun's logic is well known as circular. The more that is being revealed about about the origins of life, the more horrific the abortion industry looks.

Personhood has been attributed to the people in those buildings, and they're not inside the body of a person.
......

You cannot assume that the unborn are not human - it begs the question of what you are trying to prove.

I'd say that's a straw man argument. You don't see anybody saying the unborn here are "not human."

Doug

Does that justify the direct and willful killing of an innocent human being? What other cases do we see where one can directfully and willfully kill an innocent human being?

Bobby, good questions (as always).

There aren't other cases where the life is inside the body of a person, for starters, and I feel that it's a greater good to allow women the choices they now have, versus having the unborn lives continued against the women's will.

Again with the quickening? There is nothing scientific about it. I have science.

Bobby, a girl once blinded me with it.

Seriously, "quickening" really just meant moving around, right? Being "quick." I think for most pregnancies that occurs prior to what we say is viability, 23 24, 25 weeks, do wouldn't "quickening" be more favorable to your position than viability?

PajamaMama: Tex, swimming may not be agreeing to drowning, but swimming IS an act that by definition implies consent to the POSSIBILITY of drowning.

True, and if one's in the water and can't swim well enough, or is tired or in a dangerous current, etc., then that situation is not desired, and they'll try to get out. Make for shore, grab a rope, branch, helping hand, etc. - a remedy will be sought.

Same for an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, the possibility of it from having sex would apply to many people and be acknowledged by them. If it occurs, same deal - a remedy would be sought, and often that's having an abortion.

John S: I hardly see where the Declaration of Independence addresses the abortion issue. Also you'll note that the U.S. Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, only extends to "born" citizens. I think that would negate the argument that there was some intention along the way to extend rights to "unborn" citizens.

Right - the Declaration of Independence was by and large white, male landowners telling England and the King to go take a hike.

In 1776 and 1789 (when the Constitution was finished) rights were not extended to many minorities, not even to women, as they were to those white guys. In any case, abortioin was legal before, during, and after the writing of both documents, to at point in gestation, same as now in most states.

Doug

TexasRed: But the fact of the matter is there were no laws against abortion in the US when the BOR and Constitution were written, and none of those men made any effort to push for laws making abortion illegal.

I think that English common law, which prevailed in the US prior to the Constitution, did provide for possible penalties after quickening. It's an argument whether it was actually seen as a crime and prosecuted, but I do think there technically that it would be said there was a law, then.

Hey Bobby,
What has your wife studied? She must be very special if she can manage a math guy. Very dry, very dry indeed!!!

Patricia,

"I enjoyed Bobby and Chris' posts and their debate with Amanda."

That Chris is a heavy hitter. We've read some of the same stuff, but he's actually internalized it. I think you also frame the current debate on abortion well.

"What has your wife studied? She must be very special if she can manage a math guy. Very dry, very dry indeed!!!"

My wife majored in biology and minored in math, chemistry, and environmental studies. She is the brains of the household.

Hey Doug.

"There aren't other cases where the life is inside the body of a person, for starters, and I feel that it's a greater good to allow women the choices they now have, versus having the unborn lives continued against the women's will."

Right. Well, that is where the current debate is, I believe. One should, as you do, at least admit that the women's bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of the fetus.

"Seriously, "quickening" really just meant moving around, right? Being "quick." I think for most pregnancies that occurs prior to what we say is viability, 23 24, 25 weeks, do wouldn't "quickening" be more favorable to your position than viability?"

The problem I have with it though, Doug, is that it really is fairly arbitrary, and it was the best that people could do hundreds of years ago. I mean, it seems to me that what one is saying when one cries "quickening" is that "once I can feel it move, then it has a right to life, or a right to not be killed." I just think that's bad philosophy from BOTH sides. If embryological development was such that it was clear that until, say, week 30 it didn't have any human characteristics, yet it somehow still moved, I would not take that as evidence for the unborn's humanity. It just seems like such poor philosophy that is left over from many years ago before we knew much about how the embryo develops, although like I said, it was the best they had to go by at the time.

"My wife majored in biology and minored in math, chemistry, and environmental studies. She is the brains of the household."

How true this is! You're a one chapter man, Bobby! I studied environmental geology and hydrogeology at the Masters level but my B.Sc. studies included applied math, and basically a wide variety of sciences!

I have placed the Embryo book on my list of books to read. I working on getting to it. A book you're wife might like if she's so inclined is "Women in Christ. Toward a new feminism" by Michele M Schumacher. Some of the chapters in this book are available online for reading that's how I found it!

Basically, how I see the abortion debate today is that those that support abortion KNOW they've lost the debate on all levels.
The fall back position is essentially what you've stated:"that the women's bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of the fetus."

And this logic or lack of it ultimately WILL be applied to other areas sooner or later.

Sorry - TR, but I initially asked you my questions at 12:06. The following post by you:

********************
Yes, and the answer to your question was in that post.

Sorry, nope, but you go on thinking that. And thanks for the nice compliments about my reading abilities! I tailored them directly to match your writing :)

S.

"I have placed the Embryo book on my list of books to read. I working on getting to it. A book you're wife might like if she's so inclined is "Women in Christ. Toward a new feminism" by Michele M Schumacher. Some of the chapters in this book are available online for reading that's how I found it!"

Heck, I'm gonna read it!

"And this logic or lack of it ultimately WILL be applied to other areas sooner or later."

Sadly, you are correct. It is quite scary...

Bobby,
the book is a collection of essays
the one's I've read are:
Philosophy of Relation in JP II's New Feminism by Sr. Prudence Allen
and
The Unity of the Two; Toward a new Feminist Sacramentality of the body

Here's an interesting one though:
Woman's Threefold Vocation according to Edith Stein by Sibylle Von Streng

Very meaty!

Seriously, "quickening" really just meant moving around, right? Being "quick." I think for most pregnancies that occurs prior to what we say is viability, 23 24, 25 weeks, do wouldn't "quickening" be more favorable to your position than viability?

Posted by: Doug at March 19, 2008 6:54 PM
-----------------------------------------------
Doug,

One problem with the "quickening" definition is that it varies from woman to woman and from pregnancy to pregnancy. For our first, my wife felt the baby move at around 20-21 weeks. For the second, she knew what it felt like, and felt the baby move at ~15 weeks.

You're right, though, that a demarcation line of quickening would be earlier in pregnancy than viability. But, the variability would result in an even larger gray line than viability.

And though I don't post often, Doug, thank you for being one of the more even tempered PCers on the site. I know I disagree with your positions, but you usually manage to avoid the insults that all of us sometimes succumb to.

Bobby: One should, as you do, at least admit that the women's bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of the fetus.

Well, I don't really see the "should" there. It's a fact that the bodily autonomy does count for something, in practice and as of now, but I don't get the "should." It's not at issue. Also, right to life is not attributed to the fetus, thus this debate. That's where the "shoulds" come in - you think it should be.
.....

"Seriously, "quickening" really just meant moving around, right? Being "quick." I think for most pregnancies that occurs prior to what we say is viability, 23 24, 25 weeks, do wouldn't "quickening" be more favorable to your position than viability?"

The problem I have with it though, Doug, is that it really is fairly arbitrary, and it was the best that people could do hundreds of years ago. I mean, it seems to me that what one is saying when one cries "quickening" is that "once I can feel it move, then it has a right to life, or a right to not be killed." I just think that's bad philosophy from BOTH sides. If embryological development was such that it was clear that until, say, week 30 it didn't have any human characteristics, yet it somehow still moved, I would not take that as evidence for the unborn's humanity. It just seems like such poor philosophy that is left over from many years ago before we knew much about how the embryo develops, although like I said, it was the best they had to go by at the time.

Heh - yeah, sure, and I wasn't making a serious deal out of this, just noting that it comes earlier than "viability."

Agreed that it's arbitrary, and that it'll vary widely from pregnancy to pregnancy.

Michael: And though I don't post often, Doug, thank you for being one of the more even tempered PCers on the site. I know I disagree with your positions, but you usually manage to avoid the insults that all of us sometimes succumb to.

Michael, thanks, and actually it's you that gets the credit for mentioning the variability of fetal movement.

On insulting, any 8 year old can do it. Is that what we want, online?

That said, I think it'd be fun to have a chatroom where one could go and just let fly....

; )

Patricia: Basically, how I see the abortion debate today is that those that support abortion KNOW they've lost the debate on all levels.

Heh - I'd say the opposite is true, Patricia. I've heard Pro-Lifers say stuff just like that for 12 years, and abortion is as legal as ever.

Not every pregnancy is wanted. That's just a fact, and while I realize that many people don't like abortion, what "losing" do you really see on the Pro-Choice side?

We already know that some women will have abortions. The burden of proof is on you, if you want the status quo to be changed.
.......

The fall back position is essentially what you've stated:"that the women's bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of the fetus."

No - right to life isn't attributed in the first place. That was true even when abortion was generally illegal in the US.
......

And this logic or lack of it ultimately WILL be applied to other areas sooner or later.

Human nature, history and tradition argue against that, looking back over all societies around the world, for all time. We have the Birth Standard for personhood and full rights. The fact that the unborn are inside the body of a person is meaningful, even if you think it shouldn't be. Will women's bodily autonomy here be curtailed? It's not impossible, but pregnancy is a much different case from the "other areas" because of the realities of pregnancy.

You have to build a case on precdent and authority. The vast weight of prior precedent and authority supported the old "quickening" rule.

By that logic, we should still believe that smoking is good for you. I should be able to fight for my right to smoke in public places because in 1870 the precedent and authority said that there was nothing wrong with smoking...but that would be ludicrous.

New evidence means we have to readjust our thinking...

100 years from now people could look back and say that NOW has set a precedent...ie ultrasound. What's new today will be old tomorrow.

Reality,

How ironic...your post juxtaposed with the quote of the day...

You're talking about human beings as if we were a bunch of monkeys in a zoo. But what makes us different from other animals is that we have the ability to plan our reproduction. We've developed the technology to separate sex from reproduction when it suits our personal needs, so why shouldn't we?

"The Times article makes a huge philosophical assumption, that human beings are simply another animal species, and therefore it should be no surprise when they engage in behavior common to other members of the animal kingdom. But the Christian worldview offers a radically different perspective; that humans are made in the very image of God, actually reflecting aspects of His character and nature. Unlike rodents and flatworms, we are capable of rational thought and moral decision-making."

~ Dr. Bill Maier , vice president and psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family commenting on an article by the New York Times which says adultery is only natural, March 19

Doug,

True, and if one's in the water and can't swim well enough, or is tired or in a dangerous current, etc., then that situation is not desired, and they'll try to get out. Make for shore, grab a rope, branch, helping hand, etc. - a remedy will be sought.
*
Same for an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, the possibility of it from having sex would apply to many people and be acknowledged by them. If it occurs, same deal - a remedy would be sought, and often that's having an abortion.

Yes, but no matter how desparate you were, drowning another human being to save yourself would not be a moral "remedy"...

Life jacket, rope/adoption, abstinence...all acceptable.

Abortion/using a person as a flotation device, drowning them in the process...not so acceptabele.

Yes, but no matter how desparate you were, drowning another human being to save yourself would not be a moral "remedy"...

Life jacket, rope/adoption, abstinence...all acceptable.

Abortion/using a person as a flotation device, drowning them in the process...not so acceptabele.

Posted by: mk at March 20, 2008 6:24 AM

Great analogy, mk!

And this logic or lack of it ultimately WILL be applied to other areas sooner or later.

Posted by: Patricia at March 19, 2008 8:07 PM
************************
The only lack of logic lies in the insistance that other women have an obligation to live their lives based on how antichoicers see things while the womans beliefs count for nothing.

Sorry - TR, but I initially asked you my questions at 12:06. The following post by you:

********************
Yes, and the answer to your question was in that post.

Sorry, nope, but you go on thinking that. And thanks for the nice compliments about my reading abilities! I tailored them directly to match your writing :)

S.

******************************
Your refusal to acknowledge the fact that the answer to your question was in my post says a great deal about your lack of reading skills and your lack of honesty and integrity. Typical. One cant 'tailor' reading skills. Either you have them or you dont. And obviously you dont. The same is true of integrity.

TexasRed: But the fact of the matter is there were no laws against abortion in the US when the BOR and Constitution were written, and none of those men made any effort to push for laws making abortion illegal.

I think that English common law, which prevailed in the US prior to the Constitution, did provide for possible penalties after quickening. It's an argument whether it was actually seen as a crime and prosecuted, but I do think there technically that it would be said there was a law, then.

Posted by: Doug at March 19, 2008 7:07 PM
********************
I dont believe those laws existed prior to 1776 when the BOR and Constitution were written. But youre right in that the first laws regarding abortion did have to do with abortion later in gestation or after 'quickening'.

Yes, but no matter how desparate you were, drowning another human being to save yourself would not be a moral "remedy"...

Life jacket, rope/adoption, abstinence...all acceptable.

Abortion/using a person as a flotation device, drowning them in the process...not so acceptabele.

Posted by: mk at March 20, 2008 6:24 AM
***************************
The fetus isnt a person and you dont decide what is 'acceptable'. That is a huge part of the antichoice fantasy - that you define what will be 'acceptable' in the private lives of everyone else in the nation and what they think feel believe need and want are inconsequential compared to your standards of 'acceptable'. You dont agree to pregnancy by having sex any more than you accept drowning when you go swimming or accept having a car wreck when you drive. Its always a possibility but in most cases its not an issue.

However, when science has proven that the unborn child develops relatively rapidly and has very human characteristics, prochoicers have backed away from this area.
***************************
And you get this idea where?
Why is factual information so dispensable to antichoicers? Just what 'human characteristics' are you talking about? Just what 'rapid development' are you talking about? When DOES the cerebral cortex become functional? When IS the fetus potentially viable? When ARE abortions typically performed? Quibbling over development at 20 or 18 weeks has nothing to do with the facts of fetal develop in the first 14 weeks of gestation when 95% of abortions are performed. Over 60% of abortions are performed by 8 weeks ant this percentage is increasing. How have pro choicers 'backed away' from ANY of these facts?

Basically, how I see the abortion debate today is that those that support abortion KNOW they've lost the debate on all levels.
************************************
Back to antichoice delusions and the refusal to deal with reality.

“This is why it gets under my skin when I am labelled a "pro abort" - clearly I'm not.” (Amanda)

Clearly you're not labeled a pro-abort, or clearly you are not a pro-abort? Because that really isn't very clear.

“its fact thats its continuously pointed out as though most pro choicers aren't aware of it - which we are.” (Amanda)

…Well, which are you? Amanda, I would suggest deciding which side of the line you’re sitting on before you try and argue either point.

heh... H,

Thank you for your ever sohelpful suggestion.
I didn't know it wasn't okay to not see everything in black and white.

I would suggest reading more carefully before you try and argue my points. Fair?

My position is QUITE clear, and explained in depth over several posts when I was having a very interesting debate with Bobby and Anon.

And why would I say being labeled a pro abort gets under my skin if I wasnt being labeled a pro abort? That makes noooooo sense.

Reading comprehension = awesome.

Doug and TR
Your positions are untenable. Just because a baby resides INSIDE the mother does not mean we shouldn't protect that life.
Maybe BECAUSE pregnancy is such a special situation, this is why we should grant special protection to that new life.
Doug you seem to have an undefinable postion. NO matter what anyone says you deny it, up down and sideways, really without much proof of anything.
And TR,
I'm willing to "quibble" over development at 8 weeks. 59% of abortions are done by the 9th week of development. So what? Are you implying that because these children are killed so young,they are human or WHAT?
At 9 weeks, the baby has well formed feet and hands, a face with lips,responds to stimuli, yawns, has tongue movements, has a functioning lower intestine, has breathing movements, the heart is functionally complete and operating, the baby already undergoes startle reflex.
WE cannot know what the baby feels or senses, remembers or thinks at this time.
It is actually the anti-life people who are in HUGE denial so much so that they can't bring themselves to tell women the risks associated with abortion.
You've lost the