As if I weren't depressed enough, after RA's post, reading this over my a.m. coffee has really saddened me. As we learn more and more about fetal development, the excuses of those taking a prochoice stance grow weaker and weaker. It has never ceased to amaze me that the same people (mostly) who would not, drown an unwanted litter of kittens, can ignore the mounting proof of the babyhood/personhood of the developing child.

Dawn, I may have gotten this site from a post of yours originally--I don't remember. If others have not seen it, it is worth a look. The pictures of the developing baby at all stages are simply a marvel. If any of your readers go there, they need to just scroll down a bit: http://www.amazingpregnancy-pict...ex.php/cat/514/ .
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 6:54 am | #

So apparently you find the plight of a rape victim, who faces the prospect of carrying her rapist's offspring for nine months and then ejecting it through her cervix, funny. That anti-choice advocates would use the power of the state to force such a girl to give birth to the rapist's child against her will upon threat of prison -- which is what we're talking about if we criminalize abortion in such cases -- is sick enough. That you find the situation worthy of sarcasm is even more telling.
Tequila Jones | 08.30.05 - 9:51 am | #

Tequila I was raped as a child. If I had been pregnant it would have been my child. Rapists dont(or rather shouldnt) have parental rights. And futrthermore do you presume that if I had become pregnant by my molestor abortion, where I would most likly have been very far along, would have been the kinder thing to do to me or my child. And do you really think it would be some caring "healthcare professional" taking me for it? No it would have been him. To kill my baby after the man himself, on many occasions, had put a hunting knife to my throat would be the ultimate cruelty. You wanna know the worst part about my story. GG is still out there raping little girls. You care so damn much about the poor little rape victim then do something to keep those bastards in prison. Or in my case to get them there in the first place. You know it was democrats that had all those penalties lightened dont you?

Bottom line prolifers would have been there and ready to care for me and my baby. Prochoicers truly give a damn about niether.
PreggieJose | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 10:12 am | #

Tequila:
Where on earth do you get the notion that we would threaten any woman with prison? There may be some who take that extreme position; heck there are still people who believe that the earth is flat. But so what? They will never have any influence.

Now I do certainly hold that jailing the abortionist would be appropriate (and we used to do it, you know) but the woman who finds herself in such an emotional, horrible situation? I think not.

You also underestimate how much it helps anyone in a hard situation to be surrounded by a circle that sympathizes and helps with his/her emotional, physical and material needs. If we ever succeed in creating a culture that loves its children into existence, the plight you are imagining will not be quite so terrible.
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 10:37 am | #

You know it was democrats that had all those penalties lightened dont you?

who said anything about democrats or republicans?
Vidiot | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 11:06 am | #

For the record, the twenty-eighth week is the last week of the second trimester, followed immediately by the third trimester, in which only one percent of abortions take place. And those that do take place are generally for serious medical issues, usually either the result of the death of the fetus in the womb or a suddenly emerging and deadly threat to the mother.
Garnet | 08.30.05 - 11:38 am | #

No medical body that I am aware of has ever agreed that abortion in the 3rd trimester is the cure for anything. If you can point to one that has, I would interested to read up on the matter.

If the baby is dead, I don't believe that it is correct to refer to the removal as an abortion.
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 11:50 am | #

Colleen, in medical parlance, a miscarriage is an abortion (it's called a spontaneous abortion; the medical definition of abortion is "expulsion of fetus before it is viable"). And that 1% of pregnancies that are ended are nearly always done to save the life of the woman, because pregnancy itself can be life threatening.

I can understand being opposed to abortion, although I don't agree with that opinion. But to use such a sarcastic tone towards those who are pregnant due to being victimized speaks to Dawn Eden's limited ability to empathize with existing human beings...apparently her sympathy for others ends when they emerge from the vaginal canal.
maurinsky | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 12:06 pm | #

Colleen, if a woman or girl is pregnant, I will always ask her what she needs and what she wants to do. I don't care how the pregnancy occurred. I will ask her questions, I'll be quiet when she needs to think, I'll bring her a warm blankie and a bowl of soup. I'll hold her hand if she cries. If she's in pain, I'll do what I can to ease it. I will listen to her with respect. And then I'll help her, because I'm pro-choice.
larkspur | 08.30.05 - 12:14 pm | #

i had a friend who was raped at the age of 13, and was forced to give birth and give the baby up. the pregnancy was traumatic, the (vaginal) birth was traumatic, and the fact that she has a child out there somewhere that she will possibly never see is continuously traumatic. she would have rather had an abortion- in the first trimester, when the fetus didn't have a brain, much less the ability to cry. the non-existent pain of a 3-month fetus with no brain should not trump the lifelong pain of a raped 13 year-old. she's still dealing with it 14 years later. to force a child to carry through a pregnancy is evil, especially given that the chance of health complications is much greater for a birth than an abortion. evil.

if you were raped and wanted to carry through, fine. that's why it's considered "choice." my friend didn't have a choice.

a 28-week fetus is not the same as a first trimester fetus. the conflation is disingenuous, and indicates a serious lack of understanding of biological development.
sarah | 08.30.05 - 12:19 pm | #

Sarah:
No one misunderstands the difference in fetal development between 1st and 3rd trimester. But those of us who are prolife understand that once you start drawing arbitrary lines between lives that you will respect and those you won't, you can't keep the line from moving from 1st trimester to 3rd trimester; from new born to handicapped child to the "useless" elderly.

I didn't come to this position easily because I, too, was and am torn by the plight of the woman who has been raped. Even though pregnancies resulting from rape are statistically insignificant, even one represents a trauma and horror for the woman, which I do not wish to be dismissive of.

Larkspur, I thank you on behalf of all people who have ever needed comforting and a helping hand. May your tribe increase (to steal from the poet).

maurinsky, I think I misread Garnet because I understood the message to mean that an abortion would be performed on a woman with a dead fetus. Clearly that is the result of a spontaneous abortion but the removal, is, I think, a D & C. Of course, neither being a doctor nor pretending to be one on the Internet, I cheerfully admit that I could be wrong.
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 12:51 pm | #

Maurinsky, I have a policy against abusive comments (see comments rules at left-hand side of blog). I've left yours in because it shows how readily pro-choicers label pro-lifers inhumane.

Sarcasm means using exaggeration, even stating the opposite of what one means, to make a point. One uses gallows humor when there is actually a gallows. When I'm not attempting as I was here to reach abortion advocates in what's sometimes the only way to reach them--by shocking them--I write like this:

The idea that women who are raped should abort their children contains within it the idea that the offspring of the rape is somehow vile in its very nature and deserves to be destroyed....

A rape victim cannot erase her own experience. For her to abort her child...she would have to believe that her own unwillingness to have further pain precludes her child's right to live, and that any emotional pain she might have from the abortion would be less than what she would experience if she bore the child....

No, I can't imagine what it would be liked to be raped and carry my assailant's child. But I can tell you one thing. That unborn child would not carry the evil of its father. It would be like any innocent baby—any child who deserves to live and not be destroyed.

I know someone who had an abortion after a rape. I resent you calling her a murderer for that.

I suppose she should have just sucked up the physical and mental anguish of a 9 month pregnancy and extremely painful labor and delivery for your moral comfort.

Stephanie | 08.30.05 - 1:56 pm | #

Stephanie, there is healing after abortion. Please tell your friend about the resources available through Silent No More Awareness. Another helpful Web site is After Abortion, which contains links for information on healing.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 2:04 pm | #

"Now I do certainly hold that jailing the abortionist would be appropriate (and we used to do it, you know) but the woman who finds herself in such an emotional, horrible situation? I think not."

This argument--so commonly made by "pro-lifers"--is, of course, completely indefensible. If abortion is the taking of a life and therefore subject to criminal prosectution, then of course a woman who seeks one is at least as responsible as a doctor who performs one and should be subject to the same laws (unless you think that someone who orders a contract killing, say, should not be morally culpable.) The only way your position makes any sense is if women simply lack even basic moral agency--which I think tells us a lot about anti-choicers.
Scott Lemieux | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 2:19 pm | #

"...The idea that women who are raped should abort their children contains within it the idea that the offspring of the rape is somehow vile in its very nature and deserves to be destroyed...."

Dawn, I would consider this a gross mis-statement of my position. I most certainly do not believe that women who become pregnant after being raped *"should abort their children"*. But I am saying - and I will continue to say, regardless of whatever gallows humor you feel is necessary to shock me into holding your point of view - that I will help these women as they consider their situation and make their choices. I will take them to a Birthright office if they want assistance through their pregnancy. I will help collect baby clothes if they need them. I will also drive them to and from an abortion clinic, if they so choose. And I'll do it without believing them to be or treating them as murderers.

So here's where you and I cannot find common ground. If there are any responses to my comment that ask me questions, I'll answer. Otherwise, I'll go away now, wishing each of you the best.
larkspur | 08.30.05 - 2:33 pm | #

From the article you cited:

"It was not known, he said, whether the crying response might occur in foetuses at 20 weeks or earlier, when abortions are usually performed.

In a separate finding published yesterday, researchers at the University of California in San Francisco said a foetus probably did not experience pain before 29 or 30 weeks, even though the pain pathways of the nervous system were developed.

A foetus pulling away from a needle or noise did not prove it was in pain because the same responses were possible with a stimulus that was not painful."

I have often wondered why there are so few conservatives who are also reliable clinicians and scientists. I think it's because the plural of anecdote is not "data."

As to why one might be pro-choice, as opposed to anti-choice, it might just be a predisposition to favor actual life before "potential life."
Rest of the story... | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 2:42 pm | #

Dawn -- Your response to Stephanie is a non sequitur -- she was talking about the emotional and physical trauma of pregnancy, which was avoided by the abortion, not the trauma of the abortion itself. I would also point out that even women who regard abortion as a tough moral decision do not necessarily find it a traumatic experience.

Colleen -- What standard of personhood are you advocating here? (Sorry if it's been made clear in other posts on this site; I'm just visiting from Pandagon.) Even if defining a sharp line between personhood and non- is impossible (which I do happen to believe), then we can still recognize a difference in most cases between persons and non-persons. In the case at hand: it seems clear (to me at least) both that a newborn is a person, but a 3-week-old embryo is not. Even granting for the moment that the study Dawn links to is a sign of personhood around the seventh month of pregnancy, it tells us nothing about personhood five or six months earlier on -- when the overwhelming majority of artificial abortions take place.

Finally, I would speculate (but not idly) that pregnancies artificially aborted after about 24 weeks all involve either an imminent health risk to the mother or a foetus with such severe physiological abnormalities that (if it's a person) we would say it's either in constant pain or incapable of feeling pain. That is, wherever this study is relevant to the permissibility of an actual abortion, there are superceding factors.
Noumena | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 2:45 pm | #

as a small aside sarah, first trimester babies do have brains. Individual brain waves can be detected 40-43 days past conception, many women aren't even sure of pregnancy at that point.
sarah | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 2:49 pm | #

Dawn, It's very telling that you suggested post-abortion counseling instead of rape counseling.

[Read my comments rules at the left-hand side of my blog, Stephanie. Abuse is not allowed. - Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Stephanie | 08.30.05 - 3:05 pm | #

I find the idea of abortion to be horrible and nauseating to think about. I know that I personally could never make the decision to have an abortion, and that is why I have a 5 year old at the age of 20 because I was raped when I was 14. However, I find your sarcastic and almost joking way of discussing it to be horribly tactless and rude. I feel sorry for any girl who reads this post after being raped and having made the choice to have an abortion
Mal | 08.30.05 - 3:24 pm | #

Since we have an abortion-rights sarah and a pro-life sarah, perhaps one of the sarahs could call themselves sarah1 to avoid confusion?

Noumena, regardless of your speculation, Roe vs. Wade makes abortion legal until birth, with no restrictions allowed during the first trimester. It is up to states to decide the circumstances in which abortion may be restricted after the first trimester. In many if not most states, a woman may receive an abortion at 28 weeks for any reason.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 3:33 pm | #

Mal, we have to call murder murder.

A woman who has an abortion may not be aware of what she is doing. But the abortionists are, and they're the ones who should be prosecuted.

Women who have had abortions deserve help with healing, which they do not receive from the pro-choice movement, which refuses to acknowledge their pain and loss. They can turn to organizations such as Silent No More Awareness.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 3:38 pm | #

"The only relevant choice regarding reproduction is the choice of whether or not to have sex. Beyond that, nobody has the right to make a "choice" to kill another human being." -- Dawn Eden, the comments section of a previous post.

So if a woman is raped, she has no relevant choice regarding her own reproduction? Fantastic. A man gets to make her sexual choices for her, and then a group of mostly wealthy, mostly white, mostly male right-wing legislators get to make her reproductive choices for her.

If you're against abortion for rape survivors, how about agitating to make emergency contraception available to them immediately? That way they can make the choice to prevent pregnancy in the first place. And I know the immediate response is going to be "EC is an abortifacient," but that's not true. Pregnancy begins at implantation, which EC prevents. Even if you believe that life begins at fertilization, the medical evidence demonstrates more and more clearly that EC prevents fertilization from occuring in the first place.

That said, many genuine pro-lifers do support EC, and want it made available -- considering that it could prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, that's pretty logical. Others (and I don't necessarily mean you, I'm just speaking generally) are more concerned with controlling women's sexuality and their bodies, and want to deny them any control whatsoever.

Another question: If "murder is murder," then how do we legally sidestep prosecuting women who have abortions as murderers? That would be a pretty tough argument to make -- the doctor who performed the procedure is a murderer, but the woman who went to him and paid him to do it didn't know any better. I'm not arguing that I want women prosecuted -- I don't -- but we have to recognize the serious flaws in this line of thinking.
Jill | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 3:48 pm | #

Jill, a raped woman has no right to kill the child in her womb. I have said this before and I will say it again.

Rape is a crime against a woman. It is a tragedy. The crime and tragedy should not be compounded by the murder of an innocent life which, as this new research shows, can cry in the womb.

What I wrote earlier about emergency contraception and rape still stands:

Let's look at this, starting with the words "emergency contraception."

It is not contraception.

It is abortion.

According to a U.S. Department of Health Web site, "emergency contraception" works in one of three ways:
By preventing ovulation,

By preventing fertilization, or

By preventing implantation, or—in the government's words—"stopping a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus."
Note the word "fertilized egg." The government's Web site defines a pregnancy as occuring when the egg implants; hence, in the government's words—as in Planned Parenthood's—"emergency contraception" does not end a pregnancy.

But regardless of whether the woman is quote-unquote "pregnant," the fact remains that emergency contraception is meant to destroy a dividing embryo that is a genetically unique individual. That is not just killing a single sperm or a single egg. That is abortion.

It's important also to consider the nature of "emergency contraception" versus other methods of abortion. A woman who is under great emotional stress following a rape is vulnerable to a well-meaning person's suggestion that she take a pill and be rid of her child. That same woman, a few weeks later, might realize that she was wrong to have the embryo expelled from her body. But by then, it would be too late. She would be left with not only the rape in her memory, but also the knowledge that she herself had caused the extermination of a human being.

A rape victim cannot erase her own experience. For her to abort her child, either via "emergency contraception" or via another kind of abortion, she would have to believe that her own unwillingness to have further pain precludes her child's right to live, and that any emotional pain she might have from the abortion would be less than what she would experience if she bore the child.

Your other question regarding prosecution is off-topic and has been deleted. Feel free to discuss it on your own blog.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 3:57 pm | #

Dawn, the latest evidence is that Plan B works by preventing ovulation or fertilization, not implantation.
Hamilton Lovecraft | 08.30.05 - 4:09 pm | #

Hamilton, you show me your evidence--and who funded it--and I'll show you mine.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 4:11 pm | #

This comment is not about the previous comments, but about the study. I think that's so interesting! I'm currently 24 weeks pregnant and have during my ultrasounds (at 18 weeks, 21 weeks and another tomorrow, not to mention the low-res ultrasound I get every three weeks - I have high-risk pregnancies) seen my baby boy yawn, swallow, suck his thumb and get the hiccups. I saw his heartbeat at nine weeks. I've watched him develop from a little "blob" with a heartbeat and his own fingerprints to a "real" little person who has his own personality and his own destiny. This is my third child and it's just as amazing this time around. Thanks for posting the study.
tessertime | 08.30.05 - 4:23 pm | #

I guess all you folks who advocate killing the baby after a rape also advocate executing the rapist?
John J. Simmins | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 4:25 pm | #

Incidentally, Dawn, it doesn't come as any surprise to me that a 28-week-old fetus can feel pain, and I didn't find that a compelling argument against abortion of a 3-week-old embryo.

But then I realized that fetuses can win the Nobel Prize after as little as 26 years after conception! I totally get it now.
Hamilton Lovecraft | 08.30.05 - 4:25 pm | #

You're welcome, tessertime. God bless you and your family, and may He protect you and your child during your pregnancy.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 4:26 pm | #

I just can't get behind the loss of a fertilized egg being an abortion. Absolutely a blastocyte has no brainwaves. It's a few cells with a unique genetic pattern, not a baby. If it were a baby then thousands of women should be mourning a miscarriage every month.

At the present time it is uncertain whether Plan B causes any more failed implantations than would occur naturally - a pretty darned high percentage.

A third trimester fetus is a very different critter from a small ball of indifferentiated cells. To say that there's no defining line, therefore we can't differentiate is malarkey. By that reasoning you can't differentiate between my five-year-old and me, but we do differentiate all the time. I can drive - he can't. I'm done with school - he has to go. We make that kind of distinction every day when there is no hard line.
Tapetum | 08.30.05 - 4:28 pm | #

Sorry about the off-topic post, I got carried away. I'll stick to the issue at hand.

Fertilized eggs naturally don't implant more than 50 percent of the time. When an egg doesn't implant, it can't grow. Pregnancy can't even be detected. Is that a spontaneous abortion? Because if so, our miscarriage rates are really gonna skyrocket (although we'll have no way of tracking that, since these "miscarriages" were never actually pregnancies in the first place).

I'm pro-choice, and I can certainly respect the choice to be personally, and even politically, against abortion. What I can't understand is why many anti-choicers won't offer women the tools to prevent pregnancy in the first place. The fact is that you just aren't working with medical or scientific definitions here.

And with regards to the rape survivor's emotional state, any sexual assault counselor will tell you that rape is a crime of control, and regaining control of your own body is key in psychologically overcoming your attack. That means that the best thing you can do for a rape survivor is to give her all of her options, and let her make her own decisions -- offer her EC, but don't push her if she doesn't want it. Offer to take her to the police, but don't force her. If she gets pregnant, let her decide what to do. That's a lot more helpful than forcing her to make one particular choice, thereby furthering her feelings of powerlessness and causing further psychological damage.
Jill | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 4:33 pm | #

Jill, the medical and scientific definitions have all been changed post-Roe vs. Wade to allow emergency contraception.

A woman who is subject to an abortion after a rape is not in control of her body. Abortions are invasive.

Emergency contraception only adds more pain to a woman's life and erases the evidence of the rape. Abortion is a rapist's best friend.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 4:44 pm | #

Dear Rest of the Story and Others:
The reason the Roe v. Wade fans have to use euphemisms for their abortion-permitting views is that they are uncomfortable with the truth. Pro-life people are not "anti-choice". We are pro-choice, because we know that all of us are given free choice by our Creator. What separates us from the Roe v. Wade apologists is that we believe that we _must_ choose life! Others are free to choose death. Yet, in choosing death, people must accept the consequences of that choice. The ones who would like to be known as "pro-choice" really want exculpation from their actions.
Old Philosopher | 08.30.05 - 5:00 pm | #

'Abortion is a rapist's best friend.'

i am sorry. i have read this blog for a while, and i have remained silent, but this statement i cannot let slide. what is this supposed to mean, exactly? you can bet that the rapist isn't going to be the one to go through a nine-month ordeal culminating in an hours-long, agonising birth, perhaps culminating in emergency surgery. and you can be absolutely sure that the rapist isn't going to be the one bearing the emotional and financial and possibly life-destroying burden of raising, clothing, feeding, educating, and looking after the resulting child for eighteen years. abortion is the rapist's best friend? no. for many women, carrying to term the result of a rape is simply going to ensure that the vicious powergame that began the moment they were raped lasts for months longer, if not years. you say that the sins of the father are not the sins of the child, but neither are the sins of the father the sins of the rape victim. why punish her with a pregnancy she doesn't want?

you say time and again that you hold up rape as a crime, but then you insist that women cherish the results of that rape. 'Abortion is invasive', you say, but surely rape is a lot more invasive. surely carrying to term the offspring of a man who raped you is more invasive still.

whether a fetus cries in the womb at twentyeight weeks is up for debate, depending on who does the research. i can tell you that a victim of incest or rape cries at day one. is it your place to judge the suffering of one greater than the suffering of the other?
halation | 08.30.05 - 5:08 pm | #

Noumena:

You are right in thinking that I have talked about this (personhood of the fetus) at length in other posts and made an assumption that most people would recognize the argument. That was taking way too much for granted. So to recap:

While I recognize that there are enormous developmental differences between a a 3 day old fetus and 9 week or 26 week old fetus, I hold that reason and history tell us that if we do not take the position that the human person must have his life respected at all stages, we will, inevitably find reasons to disregard the respect due at other stages, when it suits our convenience. So the handicapped newborn is endangered, as is the profoundly brain-damaged teenager, as are the "useless" elderly. We inculcate a utilitarian attitude in ourselves toward our fellow human beings that endangers and impoverishes us all.

I would point out that in the Netherlands doctors have been making unilateral decisions to terminate the lives of infants and the elderly, if they deem them too ill to waste resources on, for years. I have read that it has gotten to a point there that otherwise healthy elderly are afraid to seek medical care for fear of being disposed of.

God forbid that it happen here any more than it already has and is happening.
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 5:09 pm | #

Halation, a victim of rape or incest's tears won't end with an abortion. The baby's will.

Abortion is a rapist's best friend because it destroys the evidence.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 5:14 pm | #

Dawn;

"Abortion is a rapist's best friend because it destroys the evidence."

So you really do believe that "something magical happens when a rape or incest victim has an abortion. The crying child turns into fairydust and just vanishes away at the touch of the curette".

I can't find any other explanation for how you could believe the first statement but claim that the second is meant only sarcastically.

Why must a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest be brought to term to constitute evidence? Fetal tissue can be tested for DNA matches just as easily as a blood sample or a cheek swab.
katthemad | 08.30.05 - 5:45 pm | #

"A woman who is subject to an abortion is not in control of her body"

I would agree with that - but a woman who freely chooses an abortion has not been "subject" to one. It's the difference between sex and rape - the difference is all in the decision and who has control of it.

Plan B is no more invasive than any pill one might take. To ellide that with a violation is a major stretch.
Tapetum | 08.30.05 - 5:46 pm | #

Abortion is a rapist's best friend because it destroys the evidence.

And here I was thinking that vaginal tears and other injuries were the evidence, e.g. as mentioned in the following post:

"the technique [colposcopy] once reserved for victims of child abuse has been used across the lifespan and has been shown to identify genital injury in up to 87% of women who have been raped... In one study, the frequency of injury by anatomic sites was posterior fourchette (70%), labia minora (53%), hymen (29%), and fossa navicularis (25%)."

http:// thewelltimedperiod.blogsp...od_archive.html

Robyn | 08.30.05 - 5:48 pm | #

Abortion isn't always invasive -- early procedures can be done without surgery.

I'm troubled that you write, "Emergency contraception only adds more pain to a woman's life and erases the evidence of the rape." How do you know what every woman will feel after taking EC? I sure don't. I know that I have EC onhand in case of an emergency, because getting pregnant would cause a whole lot more pain for me than preventing it would. I think it's safe to say that for you, taking EC would cause you pain. Therefore, I would never suggest that you should take it. I trust you to make your own best decisions. I've never known a woman who regretted taking EC (although I'm sure they exist, because there is always an exception). Likewise, I'm sure there are women who regret not taking it. We all make choices. Sometimes we wish we had chosen differently, but I personally believe that it's arrogant and limited to believe that what's best for you is what's best for everyone (and I don't use "you" to mean "you, Dawn," I mean it broadly).

As for "erasing the evidence," semen has to be present to cause pregnancy in the first place. If the rape survivor gets a rape kit done immediately, that's all the DNA evidence you need. I'd also add that DNA evidence can be gathered from a fetus, or from an embryo. And a lot of rape survivors don't get pregnant. While rape survivors in general have trouble proving their case, having a baby certainly isn't the only way incriminate someone.
Jill | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 5:51 pm | #

Katthemad and Jill, abortion providers actively oppose the use of fetal tissue to determine a rapist's DNA.

Jill, not all rape survivors get a rape kit done immediately.

Robyn, the test you mention is to determine injury, not the identity of the rapist.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 5:57 pm | #

Dawn;

Ok, I like your article, especially this bit:

"Brownlie has criticized the size of tissue sample required -- 5 square centimeters, or roughly 2 square inches. He noted that a several-week-old fetus is only about one-sixth of an inch long.

Despite that, preliminary regulations contain the provision "because having anything less than this amount will impact the ability to perform a successful test," Deputy Attorney General Julene Miller told the committee."

Just perhaps, their objections have some logical basis after all.

And this is Kansas we're talking about in this article, home of abortion-records-fishing-expeditions ala AG Phile Kline.
katthemad | 08.30.05 - 6:39 pm | #

Dawn -- Once again, you've committed a non sequitur; political advocacy does not determine what evidence is and is not, in principle, available to scientists. Furthermore, if a pregnancy is aborted, whether naturally or artificially, the same genetic tests can be done to determine paternity; in fact, this is exactly what's discussed in the article you link to.

Also, in an additional illustration of a non sequitur, the PP chief executive quoted has a problem with the law in that it "takes child rape cases out of the hands of social services groups, which have more experience handling such sensitive issues". This article provides no evidence of objection by anyone to paternity tests in themselves.

Colleen -- You still haven't given a positive account of your criteria for personhood. You're not a utilitarian; great, I'm not either. As it happens, I'm more-or-less a Kantian, and based on that I do not consider an embryo a person, nor a part of the life of the person which it might become after a few more months' gestation. So, what are the criteria by which you consider an embryo a person?
Noumena | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 6:45 pm | #

[Entire comment is off-topic. Pompano Pete, please repost if you have anything to say about what I wrote in the post that spawned this thread. Thank you - Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Pompano Pete | 08.30.05 - 7:31 pm | #

My cousin aborted a pregnancy at 18 weeks gestation. She hadn't been raped, but a week before she had the abortion, she was diagnosed with cancer, a cancer that couldn't be treated while she was pregnant, and allowing the cancer to spread untreated for five months would probably have been a death sentence for her.

My cousin and her husband struggled with the decision, given that it was a wanted pregnancy. But ultimately they were in a situation where either my cousin or her baby were going to die, and they had to make that very painful choice.

My cousin was given aggressive treatment for her cancer, it went well, and several years later, she and her husband were given the all-clear to try and conceive again. They now have two gorgeous, adorable little girls.

You say the abortion of her first baby was murder, but neither of her two daughters would exist today if she hadn't aborted. She very likely would be dead as well, which if we say that abortion can NEVER be permissible, that would make three lives either cut short, or never able to happen in the first place, as opposed to one life.

My cousin and her husband love each other very much. By making the choice she did, she didn't make her husband a young widower struggling with grief. She and her husband are good parents to their daughters, and she is healthy, which means she gets to be around to nurture them and watch them grow up.

I don't know anyone who had a second-trimester abortion after a rape, but I do know my cousin, who is a good person, and had a second trimester abortion under the same "exception clause". When we talk about women who have abortions after rape/incest, or because the pregnancy endangers their health, we're not talking about faceless, nameless, personality-free women here. We're talking about individuals, each with their own story, and their own reasons.

I find abortion personally distasteful, but I supported my cousin's decision then, and I support it now. Yes, her abortion was a sad thing, and she and her husband treated it as such. But I don't believe the doctor who performed it was a murderer, or that my cousin was a murderer for choosing her own life.

If a pregnancy would make a woman's life utterly intolerable, either emotionally, through 9 months of having to carry her rapist's baby, or physically, through a threat to the woman's life, surely exceptions must be made. It's a question of compassion.
Raincitygirl | 08.30.05 - 7:36 pm | #

Raincitygirl, I don't know your friend's situation. But it's my understanding based on my knowledge of similar situations that she could have been treated for the cancer while pregnant. If the treatment caused damage to the baby, she would not have been responsible for the baby's infirmity or death, as she was trying to preserve her own life and the baby's.

Cancer treatment does not always kill an unborn child. Abortion does.

Please tell your friend that there is healing after abortion. She should check the resources at Silent No More.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 7:41 pm | #

So the handicapped newborn is endangered, as is the profoundly brain-damaged teenager, as are the "useless" elderly.

We're in no danger of going down this slippery slope. Could you please stop with this strawman?

Elderly people who have every legitimate reason to want to die aren't allowed to die in the manner of their choosing. We're more humane to our elderly animals than to our elderly humans.
Hamilton Lovecraft | 08.30.05 - 7:53 pm | #

We're in no danger of going down this slippery slope. Could you please stop with this strawman?

Elderly people who have every legitimate reason to want to die aren't allowed to die in the manner of their choosing. We're more humane to our elderly animals than to our elderly humans.

"...reason and history tell us that if we do not take the position that the human person must have his life respected at all stages, we will, inevitably find reasons to disregard the respect due at other stages, when it suits our convenience. So the handicapped newborn is endangered, as is the profoundly brain-damaged teenager, as are the 'useless' elderly."

Unfortunately, those days appear to be upon us, as laws such as the Texas Futile Care Law - signed into law when our current president served as governor of that state, and endorsed by National Right to Life - allow hospitals to make the decision to withdraw life support against the wishes of next of kin. When the law is invoked, the family has the right to take their loved one elsewhere for care, if they can afford it and/or can find another institution willing to take on the care of the patient. The FCL can be invoked even in cases where the patient is conscious. In other words, if you can't afford private alternative end-of-life or hospice care, you are expendable in the eyes of the state of Texas.

I'll begin to take the culture of life seriously when it begins to behave in ways that are less internally contradictory.
Cries you can hear | 08.30.05 - 9:05 pm | #

Cries, before you or anyone makes off-topic claims about the Futile Care Law, you should know what it is and why it was created—to improve an existing situation that was far worse than what the law prescribes.
Dawn Eden | 08.30.05 - 9:33 pm | #

Hamilton Lovecraft:
Are you serious? Are you unaware that children with spina bifida are routinely allowed to die not only in the Netherlands but, it has been reported, here?

The earliest case of deliberately allowing a handicapped new born infant to die that I can remember becoming public happened in April 1982. Baby Doe was born with Down syndrome and some operable inability to get nourishment. Because he would be retarded and probably have other problems, the doctor advised that he not be operated on but be allowed to die. The parents agreed. A legal fight ensued which went to the Supreme Court but the baby died before the Court could meet. One could, very easily multiply examples.

Straw man, indeed!
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 9:39 pm | #

"Raincitygirl, I don't know your friend's situation. But it's my understanding based on my knowledge of similar situations that she could have been treated for the cancer while pregnant. If the treatment caused damage to the baby, she would not have been responsible for the baby's infirmity or death, as she was trying to preserve her own life and the baby's. "

My cousin had a malignant tumour in her uterus. It is pretty darn hard to remove a tumour from the reproductive system when you're still pregnant.

"Cancer treatment does not always kill an unborn child. Abortion does."

My cousin and her husband did not take this decision lightly. They are both educated people who are capable of understanding the different types of treatment and the risk factors involved. They talked to several doctors, they did web research, they talked to family, and they talked to their clergyman. In the end they made what they felt was the right decision, in order to give my cousin the best chance at saving her own life.

Also, another factor was that they were told if they held off on surgery but did go ahead with the radiation treatment, the baby would probably die anyway, but at a later point in the pregnancy when there was more chance of severe complications for my cousin when delivering, on top of the cancer. She preferred to abort at 18 weeks and get it over with than miscarry at, say, 24 weeks, when her body was already seriously weakened by the radiation treatment and there would likely be complications.

"Please tell your friend that there is healing after abortion. She should check the resources at Silent No More."

Thank you for your concern but my cousin is fine now. Yes, she was sad. Yes, she grieved the loss, and she got counselling at the time. But she doesn't feel guilty about going through with the abortion, and I really don't believe she should.

What about the two beautiful kids she has now, the ones who would never have been born if not for her decision? Sometimes we have to make tough, painful choices. I believe that God gave us brains and free will so that we would be able to make the right decisions for us when those painful times came. Maybe my cousin's decision wouldn't have been right for another woman with a similar medical problem, but it was for her.

And no, in a case like this, there are no "good" decisions. But sometimes wwe have to pick the least awful of a lousy set of options. And I think a woman who is coping with the trauma of a life-threatening illness or a rape should be allowed to choose the option which is least awful for her, in her particular situation. And I say that speaking as a practicing Christian.
Raincitygirl | 08.30.05 - 9:45 pm | #

Colleen --

Make up your mind -- are we already there, or are we in danger of going there?
Hamilton Lovecraft | 08.30.05 - 9:51 pm | #

Noumena-- I'm sorry, I thought I was clear but see, upon rereading, that I wasn't.

I do not draw a distinction between humanity and personhood. It seems useless to me and is made primarily to leave wiggle room for killing the inconvenient.

I was quite surprised by your statement I do not consider an embryo a person, nor a part of the life of the person which it might become after a few more months' gestation. Where on earth did you and I come from, if we were not embryos? Human life from conception to death is part of a continuum. It is not interrupted from outside by some event that suddenly confers personhood.

I have changed in many profound ways, since I was 15, 25 or 35. Yet something connects it all and allows me to refer to myself at all those ages as "I". And I was an embryo and as uniquely me, as I ever have been at any point in my life, to date.

Does this help?
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 9:51 pm | #

Sorry, let me be more constructive and clear.

The US is not the Netherlands.

A 28-week old fetus is not a newly fertilized embryo, nor is it a 25-year-old Nobel prize winner.

Fraudulently trying to take your elder off life support in defiance of their stated wish is not the same as giving a patient the life-ending overdose of morphine they're begging for.

Deliberately ending the life of a handicapped newborn is not the same as withholding treatment that could prevent its death.
Hamilton Lovecraft | 08.30.05 - 10:00 pm | #

Hamilton L.: Can you remember the first time you told a lie, knew it was a lie and that it was a bad thing? Maybe you remember the sudden rush of childish horror at what you had done, followed by terror that you would be caught in the lie. If you weren't, you may remember that it was easier the next time and the next time after that.

And so it goes. Every time we act against what we were taught was wrong and know in our hearts is wrong (or at least once knew), it gets easier. What is true of individuals is true of societies. There was a time when we were in pretty near universal agreement that abortion was in most instances a gross moral evil. The fact that some women felt driven to it, makes no real difference. Many of act against our consciences when we feel trapped.

Even those who were most fervently pushing for the liberalization of abortion laws were usually promising that it would be reserved for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I was in college when Roe v Wade was decided. Overnight, the whole landscape changed. But not people's attitudes. Not at first.

If anyone had told us then that we would one day be delivering perfectly healthy babies, but for their heads, which would then be torn open and their brains sucked out; well, we would have called for an ambulance to take the monster away. Yet that is where we are. We got here by little incremental steps which allowed our hearts to grow harder and harder.

Yes we are on the slippery slope. The fact that so many of us are fighting the times and fighting hard gives me hope. But I do not think the outcome in the short term is at all assured. But even if I am on the losing side, I would far rather lose than consent to what is evil.
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 10:46 pm | #

If anyone had told us then that we would one day be delivering perfectly healthy babies, but for their heads, which would then be torn open and their brains sucked out

What is the percentage of abortions that occur in this manner and why?
Lauren | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 1:41 am | #

Rain,

I have known 5 women who have had the same thing happen. A woman who was 30 in the 50s had a haditiform mole and another baby in her womb. She carried to term and had the mole removed. It was her only child. Another lady I know from christ church had a large malignant cyst in her womb with another child. She carried to term and they removed the cyst. Another lady I knew at Bethel had a large cancerous growth on her ovary. She carried to term and they removed the growth. My sponser into the church had a mole as well. She isnt one of the five but they did remove it and it was not cancerouse as they said it would be. Another woman I know had a growth on her cervix. It was cancerous. She had been infertile for along time and to remove the cancer they had to do a full hysterectomy. Her baby was born at 30 weeks and they removed her uterus. Another lady I knew at belmont had what they thaught was fiberiods. Turned out it was 8 little warts that were caused by hpv. She got hpv from her husband who was cheating on her. They did divorce but she carried to 28 weeks and had surgery on the warts. She didnt say she had a hysterectomy. It was her only child and she is now celebate in order to avoid giving anyone else this disease. That's 5 babies. 3 of which were last chance children. I assure you it can be done.

As for rape victims. I assure you after having been threated with death I would have been destroyed at not having been able to protect my child.
PreggieJose | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 7:55 am | #

Sarah,

My mother swears she was raped. She wanted to abort me but didnt. Ive said this here before but she says she had the money and sombody stole it. I say she stuck it in a pipe and smoked it. And frankly I dont give a damn that she wanted me dead. Why does everyone think that a mothers desires are paramount. She didnt want me but I am perfectly happy to be here. Even after she tortured me for 13 years and left me out for the predators, to prove she hadn't wanted me.
You know what my mother told my aunt laura. If she hadnt been raped maybe she would have loved us and not wanted abortions. I give a damn what she wants/wanted.. I dont care if Im an unwanted child/fetus whatever. I am a perfectly wanted grown up gonna be 30 soon enough and happy to be here person.

A hard moment in my mothers life wasnt enough to discount my life. And certainly not enough to wish me dead. Whether I could cry at 12 weeks or 28 weeks I was me from day one destined for more than my mother wished for me and worth more than a pausing thaught about whether or not I might hurt or cry while they were ripping me apart. Is it cute to see babies mouths moving and see them look ohh so like little us'? Sure. If they arent really crying does it impact my belief that from conception to natural death we have rights? NOPE. Not even a little. Don'ta give a rats a**.
PreggieJose | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 8:10 am | #

Jose, I'm sure the women you mention who had cancer or other severe problems with their reproductive systems while pregnant made the right decisions for them. But I know my cousin, and I know how seriously she took this decision. She looked long and hard at the various different treatment options before deciding to abort and then have aggressive cancer treatment. Was it sad that she lost the baby? Yes. But I think she did the right thing, given *her* specific medical situation.
Raincitygirl | 08.31.05 - 9:46 am | #

Colleen -- Not really. At most, all you've done is changed the phrasing of the question: instead of "what criteria are you using to say an embryo is a person?", now the issue is "what criteria are you using to say an embryo is a human?"

In fact, I would argue that you've just made your position much harder to defend. An apple seed is not an apple tree is not an apple; each has the potential to be or create the next, and they all have the same DNA, but they are different things. Similarly, a clump of a dozen or so undifferentiated cells with the DNA of a human has the potential to be a human, but that doesn't make it a human. Except for genetics, the embryo has none of the attributes we use to define humanity -- no organs, no rational agency (or agency of any kind), no viability.

On the other hand, if you had stuck with personhood, you might have been able to offer a non-physicalist criteria -- say, God has created a soul for it, if you're a theist. But, to the extent that "human" is a physical kind, you're now obliged to offer a physical or scientific definition by which an embryo is a human.
Noumena | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 11:55 am | #

No Rain they made the right decisions for the babies. 5 of them. 3 who were only children and were the last chance for thier mothers. The mothers themselves went through absolute hell to get through these pregnancies. They didnt do it because it was better for them. The choice is not about your cousin.
PreggieJose | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 12:07 pm | #

Noumena,

Some of us dont distinguish between personhood and humanity. I was raised in a pagan home and in my first faith a soul was nothing more than a sole person. As in one single person. There were no stages of personhood it just was. My mother left them for a more wiccanesque group. *Easier to kill things you dont want*. And frankly I don't think faith has any bearing on personhood. It is what it is from beginning to end and at different funky stages. Thats science. You wanna go around weighing people before and after they die to see if the soul is measurable or to see if thier personhood left at a certain point then fine but your gonna be alone in you quest. I, personally, will not follow you.

Either we are going by science which says from conception(and funky occurances) till death it is the same being/beings in different stages or we are going to go on a goose chase trying to find the soul and measure when it enters the "indeffriciated cells".

Do you know what a Chimera is? Not the mythical creature. Its where 2 embryos collide in the same tube and become one. It creates one person (devoid of multiple mental personalities). They generally have 2 sets of DNA. Do you want to figure out which set is the real person. If so do it by yourself. How about siamese twins or or other types of conjoined twins. Are you gonna say which is a person and which isn't. How about identical twins. Do they share personhood?

In each of these situations a there are more than one sets of DNA or one set of DNA but 2 seperate people involved. I am unwilling to say that one set of DNA in chimera is the real *person* and the other set is a contributing source but not a person. They were 2 but became one and thus are one person with one personhood from the beginning of the conjoining of the of the embryos to the persons natural death. Identical twins begin as 1 and become 2(and rarly 3). They have 2 seperate personhoods not one. Do they have 2 souls or one? I dunno you go measure 'em, then explain you conclusions to them. They are 2 people. In spite of thier seperating sometime after they were concieved.

I believe we have more than one nature however I am not willing to go around measuring personhood or souls. Im not willing to go up to a person who is a chimera and tell them they have 2 souls or ask them if they hear voices in thier head. But I will say that whatever happened to cause thier condition they have a right to live. You shouldn't be allowed to abort them. I love them whether or not they have a double measure of soul or not. Your free to feel otherwise and by all mean find someone who is a chimera and ask them about this stuff. Have an ice pack ready though.

I am also not willing to go to a set of identical twins and tell one to go confess the sins of his/her other twin. Or heavan forbid tell them they are one person. As before your free to, but carry an ice pack.

Souls personhood blah blah blah. Who between heavan and hell do we think we are that we get to pick. Not only pick who has what and how much but who we get to kill because we dont think one has enough personhood or the other has too much soul. It aint up to us!
PreggieJose | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 12:40 pm | #

Potential is enough for me. I just don't see the problem here. We were all clumps of undifferentiated cells once. Left on their own, those cells will develop into a human being. I think the person/human dichotomy is your conundrum. It isn't mine.

It comes as news to me that organs or rational agency define human-ness. They are part of but do not define it. Consider the following:

Humans have stomachs
Socrates has a stomach
therefore Socrates is a human.

While this is true, and stomachs are not an accidental as, say, brown hair is, it still doesn't define human. My cat has a stomach (several, if I may judge from her appetite) but my cat is not human, nor is she Socrates.

Moreover, the profoundly brain damaged are still human, whether they are "viable" (can breathe on their own, feed themselves, etc.) or not.

I hope this helps you understand my position. I am afraid this is the best I can do-- at least on my lunch hour!
Colleen | 08.31.05 - 1:02 pm | #

In the case at hand: it seems clear (to me at least) both that a newborn is a person, but a 3-week-old embryo is not.
There was a time when we didn't consider negroes as being people. We do now. I believe in the near future the same is going to be true of the unborn rendering Roe v. Wade obsolete. Once the unborn are considered constitutional citizens, they are required to be given due process before being deprived of life.
Tony | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 2:49 pm | #

Does anyone have the right to exist at your expense?

Yes. As an example, you invite someone on your boat for a 9 month boat ride. 12 weeks into the trip, you don't have the right to push them overboard. You have an obligation to take care of them until the trip is over.
Tony | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 3:21 pm | #

"Negroes"? Really?
Lauren | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 3:50 pm | #

Lauren, I thought that was odd too. I left it in because I thought perhaps Tony meant it in context; the time to which he's referring is when blacks called themselves Negroes (with a capital N, as in the United Negro College Fund) or colored (which is what the "C" stands for in NAACP). Perhaps Tony could clarify.
Dawn Eden | 08.31.05 - 3:56 pm | #

The seed/apple tree argument brought up earlier is a poor argument. Look at it this way, take the argument further, is there a difference between a sapling tree and a 50 year old one...yes. People rip up saplings all the time, but if you go to cut down a 50 year old tree it is somewhat sad and regretable. Do we find it okay to routinely kill 5 year olds, but sad to kill 50 year olds, no, we don't.
sarah | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 4:41 pm | #

The idea that women who are raped should abort their children contains within it the idea that the offspring of the rape is somehow vile in its very nature and deserves to be destroyed....

I think you either misunderstand or are misrepresenting the beliefs of pro-choice people. No pro-choice person that I have ever met believes that children of rapists are less worthy. They don't believe that there is anything different about those children.

What they believe is that the women has less responsibility for that child, and thus should have the option to end the pregnancy. If a women gets pregnant via consentual sex, you can always say "Well, if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex. No birth control is 100% perfect. You had sex. You got pregnant. Now face the consequences." You can't say that in the case of rape.
Kris | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 4:44 pm | #

Kris, if somebody throws a bleeding woman into my face, do I have less responsibility to get her first aid because somebody else threw her on me? And do I have the right to deny her first aid because it would require me to carry her to the hospital--which is well within my power, but stressful, difficult, and painful?

Take it further. Suppose that bleeding woman is your mother and someone refused to help her. Suppose that person found your bleeding mother annoying and decided not just to let her die, but to kill her. After all, by being thrown into the person's space, your mother was an "invader" and an "unwanted tenant."

Human life is human life. Those of us who have the power to protect it have the responsibility to do so. Certainly, we have no right to take another human being's life away.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 4:56 pm | #

Response to PreggieJose's comment: "No Rain they made the right decisions for the babies. 5 of them. 3 who were only children and were the last chance for thier mothers. The mothers themselves went through absolute hell to get through these pregnancies. They didnt do it because it was better for them. The choice is not about your cousin."

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Jose. You can bring up cases where women who had life-threatening illnesses survived, and so did their babies. I can bring up cases where the women died, and so did their babies. Because there are cases on both sides. Bottom line, my cousin made a different choice than some other women would.

She went through the absolute hell of cancer treatment, but survived. Yes, she privileged her own survival, her husband's happiness, and the existence of her future children over the life of the baby she was pregnant with then, but I don't believe God finds that to be morally wrong.

If you're going to call it murder, then it would be murder in self-defense, because her prognosis was very bleak without the abortion and immediate aggressive cancer treatment. Yes, it's possible she would've survived if she'd chosen differently, but I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know what would've happened if she'd made a different choice.

I would never say to a child born of rape or born to a woman who died as a result of a pregnancy that they should never have been born. And I would never think it either. But I would also not say to my cousin's little daughters that their mom should have put the life of their older brother or sister before their lives, or before her own life. Because the chances are extremely high that the two children she has now (children she and her husband love dearly) would never have been conceived were it not for the choice she made. We deal with the situations we are presented with as best we can.

And getting back to what you said in the last sentence of yours that I quoted, I do believe that it was my cousin's choice to make. I believe God gave her that choice when He gave her free will and consciousness. In a case where it was her or the baby, she put herself first.

Is that selfish? Quite possibly, but I doubt her husband, or her parents, or my other cousins, or the two children she gave birth to later would think it was selfish. I for one thank God that she's alive and healthy. And I believe that God helped her and her husband when they were grieving after the abortion, and I believe He strengthened her during her cancer treatments, and He helped her create the family she has now.

Bottom line, we're disagreeing on fundamental issues here, and fundamental issues regarding religion and God. I just don't see any common ground between our two positions. I've stated my position, you've stated yours, and I respect yours. But I don't think we'll come to agreement on this issue, so I think we should agree to disagree.
Raincitygirl | 08.31.05 - 5:04 pm | #

Josie -- Your comments are misdirected at me; I brought up souls merely as a way one might give a non-physical definition of personhood. They might apply to Colleen's position, as she seems to be identifying personhood with having human DNA, but I'm still not clear enough on hers to be certain about this. I, personally, am agnostic about the existence of souls, nor would I attempt to define personhood using them.

Colleen -- First, your syllogism is logically invalid; it's a fallacy called 'affirming the consequent'. I'm not quire sure what you're trying to illustrate by it; my point was that, while there may not be a sine qua non or necessary condition for humanity, an embryo in itself has NONE of the features we seem to normally associate with humans, beyond its DNA.

I'm not offering a definition of humanity, or personhood. In asking for YOURS, I'm leaving it completely up to you; however, I suspect that, whatever definition you give, if it encompasses embryoes, it will be much broader than what we usually understand by 'human'. Note that this is merely a sketch of an argument right now: you have to actually give me a definition first. Thus far, you haven't, or I've missed it. However, if I am right, you then have the additional burden of arguing that your proposed definition of humanity is better than the narrower, more conventional understanding.

sarah -- You're right that analogies make for crappy arguments. However, my intention was not to use the apple seed, apple tree, and apple itself as analogies, but as illustrations that potentiality is different from actuality. If Colleen, say, is going to argue that potential personhood and actual personhood are on a par, morally speaking, then it seems like she has to give actual arguments for this -- what's peculiar about personhood that makes potential and actual the same?

I can't find it now, so I'm paraphrasing, but I believe someone stated that 'on its own, an embryo will develop into a person'. This is factually incorrect, even if 'human' is substituted for 'person': on its own, an embryo will do little more than divide a few times before all of its cells die from lack of nutrition. It must be gestated in a womb to develop or even continue to exist. If it were the case that embryos could develop on their own, we wouldn't be having this debate, as pregnancy would be superfluous.
Noumena | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 5:15 pm | #

Noumena: I wish I weren't 25 years away from my my logic class. Maybe I could tell you better what I think in terms that are meaningful to you. But I can't. I can only say what I said before and let others see if they can discuss this with you better.

To me the argument that there is a distinction between a person and a human is false. Therefore I use the terms interchangeably. I do not concede that there is a meaningful distiction that can be made between them, although, of course, there is an obvious developmental difference between a 6 week old fetus and a 45 year old Ph.D.

Human embryos are human. They cannot develop into dogs. The fact that they must gestate in the womb is a biological fact but does nothing to diminish their human "ness". It seems a litte too much like splitting hairs to suppose that anything else was meant "by being left on its own to develop". This is what the entire discussion here has been about.

You write "an embryo in itself has NONE of the features we seem to normally associate with humans, beyond its DNA." That is enough, in my opinion. Nothing else has human DNA but ... humans.
Colleen | 08.31.05 - 5:45 pm | #

Lauren,
Interesting you zeroed in on my choice of words completely ignoring the point in question. Dawn had it right, it was context with regard to the time period in question. The Dred Scott decision did not address African Americans because there was no such label at the time.
Tony | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 9:40 pm | #

Colleen -- First, don't worry about how jargony I am. I've been a grad student for three years now, it gets hard to express yourself without the technical vocabulary.

Now, thanks for giving me a definition. Here's the thing: I think it's way too broad. For example, are you morally opposed to destroying the thousands of hair and skin cells we shed every day? Or what about menstruation? Should we mourn the significant percentage of fertilized eggs that merely fail to implant properly, and are flushed out during the woman's next period? All of these would qualify as human under your definition.

I think the last point is especially important here, because the only real difference between an embryo in its first couple weeks and the fertilized egg that gets flushed out is whether or not implanation was successful. So maybe you do think we should be mourning the fertilized eggs that don't implant?
Noumena | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 9:53 pm | #

No Noumena you are the one trying to weigh personhood. It cant be measured. And DNA is a part of the arguement. I wasnt arguing against the one but both. How do you weigh personhood and what makes you so special that you can define it and we cant?
PreggieJose | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 10:23 pm | #

And further more those eggs that fail to implant are usually the ones that didnt complete. As in they didnt combine to make a full set of DNA and therefore were not people. That is unless your quoting the fictional half of all conceptions figure. I just dont buy it. There has never been a study using ultrasound on healthy woman every day to see when the sperm enters the fallopian tubes and then is met by the egg followed by conception and failure to implant. We just dont know how often it happens or if it really happens much at all. Now they have done studies in other countries on woman taking the pill. Now if thats what your referring to then yeah theres a whole lotta dying going on. But a woman on the pill is not a woman without it.

And skin cells.. Come on are you saying that they could be used to make a clone and therefor are life or have you actually had a hair follicle jump out of your head and grow into a person. I dont mean to be snarky but I hear that crap all the time and it makes no sense when being compared to a living human child that is growing either in the fallopian tubes or the uterus. And no Im not suggesting that woman should be let to die for a fallopian tube pregnancy. Even I would have the tube removed if it happened to me. A fetus/embryo has human DNa. Unique human DNA and will grow into a child usually if left alone.
PreggieJose | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 10:38 pm | #

Noumena--
I shed no tears for my dead skin cells! I only wish they would turn over faster. But no matter how hard I wish, they will not turn into babies. I grant you the broadness of my definition. That goes back to what I have argued at length in this discussion and in related topics about the danger of saying it is ok to kill the (fill in the blank)__ fetus but no older/more developed.

We have already seen each limit overturned to the point that we are aborting the fully developed healthy baby whose mother decides she doesn't want him. (Pace, Lauren. The stats are very clear that there are many late term abortions and that most are not performed for any other reason than the mother's convenience. Google George Tiller or, if you have access to Lexis-Nexis, do a search on him there and see what he cheerfully admits to.)

No, I don't mourn the fertilized eggs that don't implant properly. That is up to nature (or God--what ever term is ok with you).

You are looking for a point at which it is ok to abort. I won't concede one (in discussion) because I do not believe it is safe to do so. I personally don't have a big problem with emergency contraception (or preventing implantation) but then... there's that damned camel again, sticking his nose under the tent ...

Preggie, don't be too annoyed with Noumena--I enjoyed my philosophy courses too much (I spent the late afternoon rereading Aristotles'
Categories and my surviving notes on it) not to find it interesting to try to precisely define what we are discussing. As a Christian I defer to God but as a former grad student myself, albeit quite rusty, it is a pleasure to try to put these old creaking bones back in the saddle again, so to speak.
Colleen | 08.31.05 - 10:59 pm | #

Josie -- I'm afraid I simply can't make heads or tails of most your arguments. Either you're not understanding my points, I'm not understanding yours, or both.

I will say that, no, I don't think skin cells are persons. And yet, they are, according to Colleen's definition. This is why I'm inclined to reject it.

Colleen -- It seems like you're admitting there are contradictions between what you practice and what you preach, so to speak. Are you just going to shrug or let the unpleasant thoughts trail off, or is there some way of reconciling things that I'm missing?

Also, I'm confused by your use of the word "safe". Do you mean medically, or is it more like "ethically safe"?
Noumena | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 1:08 am | #

Noumena: More like ethically safe. I am referring to what I wrote above--that every concession has led to greater concessions that have led to more and more bloodshed and have left us at a place where significant numbers of us shrug off letting handicapped newborns die, the inconvenient elderly, etc.

The contradictions are not between what I practice and preach but between what I could accept as a compromise in our current political and ethical climate and a perfectly consistent life ethic.
Colleen | 09.01.05 - 6:25 am | #

Human life is human life. Those of us who have the power to protect it have the responsibility to do so.

I feel the weight of this argument. (I might even take this argument further than you would in some cases.) But then make this argument with rather than implying that people who are pro-choice view the children of rapists as less deserving than anyone else.

Kris
Kris | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 1:22 pm | #

I'm sorry if I offended you, Kris. To me, the argument is a logical extension of the idea that a woman should not be "forced to bear a rapist's child." Abortion advocates really believe that a woman should not be "forced to bear" any child--that even if she's made the decision to have sex, she should still have the right to end her unborn child's life. So why, then stress the evil of bearing the "rapist's child"--as though the child were not the woman's as well? It implies that the child itself is worthy of death because of who the father is.

Abortion advocates will say that the rapist took away the woman's choice to have sex--"what about the woman," etc. If the pregnancy is not life-threatening, then the ultimate question is one of how many people are going to be left standing. Are two people going to live, or one? The rape victim is going to have trauma no matter what. To add to her trauma the trauma of an abortion or of takinga pill to kill her embryo—and thereby cut two lives down to one—is evil.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 1:31 pm | #

"Does anyone have the right to exist at your expense?

Yes. As an example, you invite someone on your boat for a 9 month boat ride. 12 weeks into the trip, you don't have the right to push them overboard. You have an obligation to take care of them until the trip is over."

That's not a very good example when compared to a pregnancy, when we're talking about a collection of cells that could not possibly survive outside of the woman's body, and that rely on her bodily functions for their survival. How about this: If I experience organ failure, do I have the inherent right to attach myself to your body for the better part of a year, and utilize all of your physical functions for my survivial? If you refuse to let me attach onto you, I will not live. If I attach without your consent and you remove me, I will not live. Oh, and you might also have to pay for the additional medical costs and time off work that you must take while I'm attached to you.

Do you have a moral and/or legal obligation to keep me physically attached to you and using your body as my own personal resource?

Not trying to sound callous here, but pregnancy is a whole lot more complicated than being on a boat with someone.
Jill | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 4:52 pm | #

Jill, your argument falls down easily. A baby could not possibly survive without someone to aid it. Neither could an invalid.

Your organ argument treats the unborn child as a parasite--a common argument of abortion advocates.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 5:02 pm | #

Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food:

an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Unborn baby: organism dependent upon the mother (another organism)

Dawn, the unborn child fits the dictionary definition of parasite.
Norah | 09.01.05 - 5:38 pm | #

Norah:
If you consult a parasitology textbook you will learn that: Parasitism is, like most other animal associations defined in terms of two different species ... (see http://www.aber.ac.uk/parasitolo.../PaIsmTxt.html) this is from the web site of the Institute of Biological Sciences, Aberystwyth University (Wales, UK).

You have a harsh way of thinking about children that does neither them nor society, whose future they are, any good.
Colleen | 09.01.05 - 6:04 pm | #

People who are pro-choice often have ambivalent feelings about abortion, and expect women to make reasonable efforts to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. (Writers on the PP site are not representative.) The more she avoided getting pregnant, the more okay it is for her to choose an abortion.
For that reason, many pro-choice people are disgusted with the concept of abortion when used by women who didn't bother with birth control. If they could, they might outlaw abortion for those women. And they mention the rape/incest case so much because in those cases the woman is pregnant through no fault of her own.

Personally, I want everyone to carry to term, and give up for adoption if they can't raise the child. But I don't feel I can tell someone that they must carry to term.

I am entirely against forced, routine, or unthinking abortion (or emergency contraception), whether for rape victims or anyone else.
Kris Hildrum | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 7:44 pm | #

Not trying to sound callous here, but pregnancy is a whole lot more complicated than being on a boat with someone.

Not really, Jill. I'll try and simplify it for you.

By spreading your legs and allowing a man to ejaculate into you, you are inviting a third person (a child) to ride the SS Uterus for 9 months.

The child may not take you up on the invitation, but if he or she does, you have no more right to abort it than you would have the right to push someone you invited off of your boat once you got in the middle of the ocean.

Now, after the 9 month ride is over, and the SS Uterus is safely docked in the harbor, you are welcome to escort the little passenger off and kiss him or her goodbye permanently.
Tony | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 11:45 pm | #

Kris -- Speak for yourself. Most pro-choice people I know don't think the right to an abortion should be conditioned in any way on birth control. That's sliding towards the sort of slut-shaming attitudes Tony's just exhibited for us ("it's okay for the good girls, but not for the bad girls").

This doesn't mean that pro-choice folks like me don't think the decision to abort isn't an extremely difficult one. We just think that the only person in the position to make that decision is the pregnant woman herself. We trust her to weigh the potential personhood of the embryo or foetus her body is nurturing against the other factors of her particular situation and make a thoughtful, responsible choice.

Tony -- Arguing that an embryo is a person from the moment it's conceived because there's an obligation to carry the pregnancy to term because it's a person from the moment it's conceived is circular. The claim that there's an obligation to bear a pregnancy by virtue of consent to (unprotected) sex needs an argument, simply because most of the sort of pro-choice people in the last two paragraphs would reject it. Additionally, as it is completely irrelevant to the topic of pregnancies *by rape*, I might caution you against pursuing this line of argument -- our host keeps a very neat house, and hopefully she will not permit you to go too far beyond the scope of the discussion merely because you are advocating the anti-abortion position she shares, given her obvious enthusiasm for pruning posts that do the same from a pro-choice stance.

The language of parasitism does seem to be harsh, but it also seems to be accurate: by definition, until viability, the embryo or foetus is metabolically depend on its mother. We can avoid talking about the foetus as a parasite, but that doesn't change the underlying fact of this dependence, nor its implications: a woman sacrifices a part of her body and well-being in creating a baby. To my way of thinking, bodily integrity is sacrosanct, and the only position I think can take is that she must have the freedom to make the decision to sacrifice or not on her own.
Noumena | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 12:44 am | #

Noumena: Parasitism is not an accurate definition of reproduction and leads to an irrelevant conclusion. A woman does not sacrifice part of her body nor does she sacrifice her well-being in creating a baby. Women are biologically made to bear babies. What you mean, I think, is that there are times when it would be darned inconvenient to be pregnant and give birth but that is not the same thing.

I am with you on Tony. Blech! That is pornography in the service of a position I (mostly) hold. But no thanks.
Colleen | 09.02.05 - 8:23 am | #

Colleen -- Have you ever been pregnant? Or been good friends with a pregnant woman, saw what her day-to-day life was like? Seen a woman giving birth?

Every woman experiences each pregnancy a little differently, but you never hear it described as routine or a walk in the park. Hormone levels swing rapidly between extremes, leading to mood swings, nausea, and other unusual and unpleasant physiological and psychological states. Breasts start to produce milk and become heavier, larger, and sensitive. The sheer bulk of the womb shifts her centre of gravity forward and down, making standing up, standing, and walking awkward in the later months. All this requires a lot of energy, which has to come from her body, so she has to eat a lot more, and in the right quantities, just to maintain her own weight and health. And don't forget the delivery itself, which is often described as one of the most painful things a person can experience (not to mention dangerous); and while c-sections are routine these days, women almost never fully recover for them (that's why later children have to be delivered by c-section as well).

This isn't to say that some women don't experience their pregnancy has a wonderful and exciting time, letting them overlook the nine-month physiological roller-coaster that is pregnancy. But this is the sort of stuff they *will* experience, and I can't think of anything that better fits the definition of sacrifice. To my mind, it's unconscionable to force someone to make sacrifices of their own body.
Noumena | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 9:43 am | #

Noumena:
I don't dispute most of what you have written. The fact remains, however, that as "animals" we reproduce in a certain way. Women are the bearers of children and, even though it is no walk in the park, designed to do so. It is simply not a sacrifice, biologically speaking. It is the nature of the beast.

While I sympathize with those who find it inconvenient to be pregnant and who may suffer all sorts of discomfort during pregnancy, that alone, cannot justify slaughtering our young.
Colleen | 09.02.05 - 10:28 am | #

"Jill, your argument falls down easily. A baby could not possibly survive without someone to aid it. Neither could an invalid.

Your organ argument treats the unborn child as a parasite--a common argument of abortion advocates."


My point wasn't about assistance or helping, as with a disabled person or a child. My point was the ethics of direct attachment to one's body. If I choose to have a child, then an argument can be made that I have an obligation to feed and care for that child. That's all fine and good. But my question was, should a person choose to physically attach himself to me, and utilize my organs for his own survival, do I have an ethical requirement to let him? Certainly, I may allow him to do so if I choose. But must I?

I'm not arguing that a fetus is a parasite. It wasn't me that started the philosophical "a pregnancy is like a boating trip" argument. I'm just taking it to its next logical step, and demonstrating that even if we concede that a cluster of cells is a person (which I don't, but will allow here for arguments sake), the idea still fails because we are talking about one "person" using another's physical functions for survival. I know it sounds callous. But it's the logical outcome of the philosophy that some of your readers have forwarded.

As for Tony's argument that "By spreading your legs and allowing a man to ejaculate into you, you are inviting a third person (a child) to ride the SS Uterus for 9 months," well, what if you don't allow him to ejeculate into you? What if you're raped, and therefore that fetus was uninvited into your uterus? Does that then morally justify abortion? Or, what if you're using birth control -- thus disinviting said fetus -- and by some flaw you get pregnant anyway? Does that justify abortion, if you were making an attempt to prevent pregnancy? Or what if the pregnancy threatens your health? If someone on your boat is a threat to your physical well-being, you do have a legal right to self-defense. (I'm not saying that abortion should be legal because self-defense is legal, I'm just pointing out that this is one place where Tony's argument fails).

As for the idea that one is issuing an invitation to pregnancy by, as Tony so quaintly put it, "spreading [her] legs," give me one iota of legal truth to that -- show me where such an action qualifies as a legal contract. Show me where one can make a legal contract with a separate sperm and egg. Please, tell me where you're getting this argument. Or at least tell me how it's even possible to issue an invitation to a being that has yet to be created.

Finally, you'll have a hell of a time proving that an unintended pregnancy was "invited." To use the boat analogy, contacting someone to come ride your boat with you would be more equivalent to seeking out fertility treatments or otherwise making a direct attempt to get pregnant. Then, a fetus is more arguably "invited." Taking an action -- having sex, riding a boat -- doesn't inherently invite a third party to do anything. If I go out sailing, and I know that by showing up at the dock there's a chance that someone else may want to go with me, and that someone shows up and hops into my boat, do I have an obligation to allow them full use of all its resources? I'm not so sure. Sex itself is not a direct invitation to pregnancy, even if we know that it's a possiblity. That's why we use birth control -- to disinvite third parties.
Jill | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 11:54 am | #

The claim that there's an obligation to bear a pregnancy by virtue of consent to (unprotected) sex needs an argument, simply because most of the sort of pro-choice people in the last two paragraphs would reject it.

This argument is specifically to address another poster's "parasite" argument, and to drive home the point that the purpose of sex is creating babies, much like the purpose of eating is nourishment. Contracepted sex is comperable to bulemia. Thwarting the intended purpose of eating to get the pleasure without the consequences. But I digress.

Additionally, as it is completely irrelevant to the topic of pregnancies *by rape*,

If I remember, the topic of this discussion was "cries in the womb". If our hostess allows a little topic drift, I'll run with it. If she doesn't and edits me, well, that's ok too. I'm pro-life. I take the consequences of my actions
Tony | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 11:58 am | #

Noumena,

Im pregnant with my sixth. This is the first pregnancy where I havn't experienced severe MS and heartburn. Emotions.. Ohh I could tell you about emotions. Have you ever been around a pregnant woman with post tramatic stress disorder due to both her mothers abortions, sexual abuse, starvation and physical abuse that led to scarring and brain damage.
Your more than welcome to move down here. I'll clear out a room for you and you can come see how its done first hand. I'll even teach you how a woman washes dishes with one hand with a toddler trying to slap stuff out of it and how to breast feed with a sling while cooking and not even get the baby near the hot stove. You just let me know when your ready and I'll clear out the room and see about getting you a ticket for the trip.
PreggieJose | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 12:26 pm | #

I'm not a fan of Tony's language in the instance cited, but he didn't use slang (though the "spread your legs" comment is indeed pushing it). He was responding to a comment of Jill's that referred to all pregnancy, not just rape, so I think he was being relevant.

For the record, Tony, please be more careful about your language in future. Thanks.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 12:51 pm | #

Kris -- Speak for yourself. Most pro-choice people I know don't think the right to an abortion should be conditioned in any way on birth control. That's sliding towards the sort of slut-shaming attitudes Tony's just exhibited for us ("it's okay for the good girls, but not for the bad girls").

I didn't mean to speak for everyone, but I am speaking for more than myself--my husband and my friends who mostly feel that that using abortion instead of contraception is wrong, but are pro-choice. I've never heard anyone claim that women should be denied abortions if you didn't use birth control, but there's absolutely no way to enforce such a thing, so it's hard to imagine an intelligent person would seriously suggest it.
Kris | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 12:57 pm | #

"But my question was, should a person choose to physically attach himself to me, and utilize my organs for his own survival, do I have an ethical requirement to let him?"

That question ignores the fact that the fetus does not CHOOSE to attach him/herself to the mother. That attachment is the result of the parents' willed actions (both parents, usually, one only in the case of rape).

May I take a moment to point out that several of the commenters here sound like rape trauma only lasts a little while if there is no pregnancy or if the pregnancy is termintaed, whereas carrying that pregnancy to term makes the trauma last nine months? I don't think that's the case. I've never been raped, but from what I've heard the trauma stays. The pregnancy is not the trauma. We seem to be conflating two issues that are not, in fact, identical.
Kate B. | 09.02.05 - 1:44 pm | #

The pregnancy is a direct result of the trauma. If a woman who is pregnant by rape does not want to carry the baby to term, she should not have to. I'm not sure why you think you have the right to judge her choice.
Norah | 09.02.05 - 6:29 pm | #

Norah,
we have the right to judge her choice because we are humans with brains and a moral sense. We, all of us, make judgements every day about right and wrong. Laws are based on those judgements and consequently enforced based on those judgements. If we didn't, anarchy would reign.

The question is more accurately framed thus: what interest does society have in preventing abortion? Is that interest great enough to trump the woman's wish not to bear a child?

We talk about that here all day long. I swear we need a FAQ that sums the most cogent arguments up, so that those who don't read regularly, would have a good idea of what undergirds the positions we take.
Colleen | 09.02.05 - 7:14 pm | #

Working back from the latest comments real quick before I get some sleep:

Colleen -- "The question is more accurately framed thus: what interest does society have in preventing abortion? Is that interest great enough to trump the woman's wish not to bear a child?"
This begs the question in favour of the abortion opponent: pro-choice folks say that society has no interest in preventing abortion. While the decision to abort is a weighty one to be thought through carefully, we, as neutral observers, do not set one options or the other as automatically preferred. That's what 'pro-choice' means, or at least what I take the term to mean.

Kate -- The options are not 'deal with rape trauma' or 'deal with a pregnancy'. Rather, they are 'deal with just the rape trauma' or 'deal with both the trauma of rape and the stress of pregnancy and raising a child'. Incidentally, adoption is not always a good solution -- some women feel that they aren't going to go through all the trouble of creating a new life just to abandon it to strangers.

Also, regarding this: "That question ignores the fact that the fetus does not CHOOSE to attach him/herself to the mother. That attachment is the result of the parents' willed actions (both parents, usually, one only in the case of rape)."
The issue of whether or not the embryo or foetus chose to attach itself to a woman is, I would say, irrelevant here. We have a woman, and a distinct biological entity that depends on her body, and her body alone, for its continued existence. The means by which it became attached don't seem to matter at all, compared to the question of whether she wants it attached.

Josie -- Congratulations! I'm glad you agree with me that pregnancy and parenthood have both their joys and their difficulties. Now, why do you think you have the right to force those same difficulties onto another person?

Tony -- I find the argument that the human body was 'made for' reproduction to be excessively reductionist. If the sole point of our lives was to make more humans, there would be no need for our wonderful minds. Also, there's a sense in which this is factually incorrect: the female human body is rather poorly adapted to giving birth to new humans. The vaginal opening is barely large enough to accommodate the unusually large head; this is why birth is so painful, and the reason most of the women who have ever existed died in childbirth. This is also why intact dilation and excavation -- the most common type of procedure abortion opponents have mislabelled as 'partial birth abortion' -- is often the safest way to perform a late-term abortion.
Noumena | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 3:02 am | #

Noumena:

No, I can't agree that it begs the question in favor of any position at all to ask what interest society has in preventing abortion. Autonomy, writ as large as you describe the pro-choice side wanting to conceive it, is deeply anti-social. But, not to pick nits, I will happily reframe the questions, thus:

Does society have an interest in the childbearing of the women in it? (the answer to that seems self-evident. I'd love to hear an argument opposing that position.) If so, is that interest important enough (serious enough, etc) for it to involve itself in the decision of an individual woman to abort or carry her child to term? If so, is that interest great enough to trump the woman's wish not to bear a child?
Colleen | 09.03.05 - 6:09 am | #

Noumena,

I have never forced a woman to get pregnant nor gotton one pregnant. And believe me if an abused, born of a bisexual woman with a severe drug habit that caused years of bouncing from foster home to family members child can manage having 6 anyone can.

My difficulties, like my mothers before me, do not negate the absolute wonder and value of the life within me. You would probably say that I should be able to abort the child I am now carrying. I say its not my right to do so.

I knew when my mother "left for the day" when she was 23 weeks pregnant and David came back it a fit that something horrible had happened. And when he said something went wrong I knew mommy was coming home without the baby. It has tramatized me all the days of my life. I have become convinced that me need and want for that baby caused my first pregnancy. I secretly hoped, while unmarried and emotionally unstable, to become pregnant. And having my first daughter brought to the front of my emotional and mental state the reality of what I had lost. As far as my mother is concerned she only lost her uterus. I lost a family member. A little person I would have dearly loved.

Why, Noumena, are you willing to allow woman- because of temporary problems- to force that trauma on thier daughters and sons? Abortion, like suicide, is a permanant solution to a temporary set of problems. Also, like suicide, it leaves many with an empty space where a loved one should be. Only in suicide the person doing the killing is dead. When its abortion they are right there in your face telling you they wish you were dead too.

If abortion is so great for woman why does it have this effect on woman? And if its *just an abortion* and a *womans right* why does it impact so heavily those around the woman who choses to exercise that right? Tell me why do I hurt over that baby? Tell me why Im afraid to let my mother touch my belly to feel the baby kick? Or for that matter let her around my living children at all? Tell me why no matter how many children I have I can always see another space for a bunkbed, and find the desire to fill that bed? And the best question- How do I relieve this awful aching in my arms for a little brother that I cannot comfort or hold?

You want me to not "force" any one to bear a child right? Well you figure out how to limit the pain to the woman doing the killing and keep everyone elses hearts out of it and I will consider your position. Im not saying I'll become prochoice 'cause that will never happen, there is still a baby to consider, but I'll listen to you. I will give your pinacle right another look. In my mind and heart I know why its a must to most who agree with it, and it aint cause some 14 year old down the street who got raped, but I will give it another listen if you can just answer the questions I've posed. And tell me how to unbreak my heart.
PreggieJose | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 11:55 am | #

I'll respond to both of you at once, Colleen and Josie, because my answer is the same. It should be clear that I see abortion as a medical decision. I hope we can all agree that, in most cases, medical decisions should be made by the patient themselves. Hopefully they will do this with their family and friends in mind, but it's still their right to decide whether or not to undergo a medical procedure. That, incidentally, is why I think assisted suicide is ethical, but euthanasia is not.

There are exceptions to this, of course. We don't think that children have this right. When an adult is brain-dead or even just comatose, we have legal standards for attempting to determine their wishes while they were still awake; if we can't make such a determination, we give someone, usually a close relative, the power to make those sorts of decisions. To prevent the spread of disease, quarantine and forced innoculation might be deemed necessary, as with polio, measels, &c.

Like personhood, I don't think there's a clear tipping point where public health overrides the right to decide what medical treatments one will undergo. But, according to the principles of justice and freedom that we hear so much about, I think it's important to err on the side of autonomy. Arguing that there's an 'epidemic of abortions' seems to presuppose that an aborted foetus constitutes a person. You might be willing to make that presupposition, but I've yet to hear a solid, non-theological argument for it. Going further, I don't believe such an argument can be made -- I don't believe there are objective grounds for establishing personhood in borderline cases like a foetus -- which means, by the principle that policies should be guided by objective arguments, not subjective religious beliefs, that I don't think there can be any grounds for taking away the right to an abortion based on public health concerns.

Josie -- I'm very sorry you're still upset over your mother's decision. However, your personal issues with your mother don't make good grounds for public policy, nor do I feel that your desire for a little brother or your father's desire for a son outweight your mother's right to decide what happens with her body. In fact, I consider this argument, as you present it, highly selfish and absolutely despicable: you want(ed) your parents, and especially your mother, to take on the burden of an extra child, not to create a new rational being for his own sake, but so you could get the emotional satisfaction of having a baby brother. In Kantian language, this is using your parents and your potential brother as means to your emotional ends, not as ends in themselves, and as such violates what I consider to be the basic moral principle. I do apologize if I'm misreading your motives, but that is what I'm seeing her, and I find it intolerable. I would strongly suggest you seek counseling, if you haven't done so already, to work through these issues with your mother and your own motivations.
Noumena | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 12:43 pm | #

Noumena writes:
Tony -- I find the argument that the human body was 'made for' reproduction to be excessively reductionist. If the sole point of our lives was to make more humans, there would be no need for our wonderful minds.

I think you misunderstand. I never said the sole point of our lives is to make more humans. I said the design of our penises and vaginas is to make more humans.

There are people who have vocations to the single life who live amazing lives. One that springs to mind is the Blessed Mother Teresa.

Also, there's a sense in which this is factually incorrect: the female human body is rather poorly adapted to giving birth to new humans. The vaginal opening is barely large enough to accommodate the unusually large head; this is why birth is so painful, and the reason most of the women who have ever existed died in childbirth. This is also why intact dilation and excavation -- the most common type of procedure abortion opponents have mislabelled as 'partial birth abortion' -- is often the safest way to perform a late-term abortion

You claim most of the women who have ever existed have died in childbirth. I'm not going to let that one stand unchallenged. Please provide a credible cite for that particular claim. Thanks.
Tony | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 1:25 pm | #

Tony -- This is the best I can do right now. First, follow this link: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/c...328/7449/1152- a

This is a summary of an article in the British Medical Journal, a prestigious peer-reviewed medical periodical. It states that maternal mortality rates in the worst-off developing nations is right around one in six pregnancies.

Now, consider the following points:
1) Infections due to pregnancy complications count as deaths from the infection; thus they do not contribute to maternal mortality rates (unless this study has an unusual methodology).
2) While "average historical conditions" were no doubt much better than the situation in, say, contemporary Sudan, the reason for the comparatively low maternal mortality rates in developed countries today are medical innovations over the past 150 years -- sterilization, antibiotics, etc. A midwife or physician prior to 150 years ago might have been able to sew some stitches or help if the baby was coming out wrong, but they simply didn't have the medical knowledge to deal with infections, malnutrition, and so on.

So, let's be optimistic, and say the average historical maternal mortality rate was 1/10. A dozen pregnancies, historically quite typical, is obviously going to be pushing the odds of death rather high. I don't have hard data on the actual percentage of women who died due to pregnancy complications on hand, but I think this paper abstract and these two facts make my assertion warranted.
Noumena | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 2:49 pm | #

People, I understand that discussions are heated. I've participated in more than my share. However, please tone down the sarcasm and snide remarks. While such comments are not blatant enough to warrant deletion, they are just as contrary to intelligent discussion as profanity-laced tirades.

Thank you.
Alex Jordan Harris | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 7:24 pm | #

I cleaned out a lot of off-topic and snarky comments here. When I clean out snark, I also clean out responses to snark. Sorry if anyone's offended.

Norah's been banned. Too much snark.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.04.05 - 1:39 am | #

It is very controversial issue I don't know any things about it.
Susan R | Homepage | 01.26.06 - 6:33 am | #

During a Google search for pregnancy websites, I somehow got a hit for this page. I find much of the commentary interesting and refreshingly intelligent and not overly emotionally charged. Many on this page are making good, sound statements (rather than simply screeching and taking shots at one another). I like that. I am interested to read more, but here is my dilemma - I clicked and was brought right to this page which starts with a posting from 8-30-05. How do I get back to the beginnimg or go on to anything posted after the last message on this page I am viewing (which was 1-26-06)?
Vali | 02.22.06 - 8:07 pm | #

Vali, click the cache button next to Google's search result, or click the archives link for that date at the lower left-hand side of my blog.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 8:17 pm | #