However, there is one obvious difference that we all agree on, I believe, and that is the fact that for a certain period of human life, the child is part of another person and cannot survive without the other person’s body sustaining their life. (I was about to say “giving them life” which might be biologically accurate, but does not address some religious views of the origin of human life.) In sum, we might all disagree on whether there is a qualitative difference in humans at different ages, but THE defining characteristic of pregnancy is that one life is part of another — and not part of another test tube, but part of another live being. So the question then becomes: when you have a developing life that is part of another person (which is surely the case by all definitions, yes?), does the growing life have the right to the bigger life’s body until it is ready to go out on its own? And, moreover, is this right to the other person’s body powerful enough that we wish to imprison someone for deciding otherwise?

The basic point I am trying to make is that I am not sure we really need to define human life precisely to make our decision on the morality of abortion. Instead, we actually know that a fetus is human and that it is growing inside another human. So what follows? (I think people will disagree with the way I just said this if they have a particular view of what the term human means, i.e., with moral and legal judgments that immediately follow. I am trying to use the term human in the strict sense that there are human fetuses and human infants and human adults.)

McAbortions…

> I think a strong argument
> that the Commerce Clause
> covers the Federal Government
> enacting national [federal]
> abortion laws and protections

!!! The Commerce Clause is one of the most abused parts of the Constitution used to rationalize illegitimate federal encroachment into state and local issues.

A private doctor in a town providing an abortion to a woman in that same town is in no way engaging in inter-state commerce!

For murder? Yes, to most people (those with souls).

First of all, that education should be provided by the parents. Yes, I know that there are poor parents. But it’s wrong to exhibit an entitlement mentality here and want “someone else” to do something that belongs a family matter. Sex education is part of being a parent (and an adolescent).

But more to the point, in the real world, those most in need of contraception cannot even spell the word frequently, much less be expected to be responsible enough to use it.

No. It was invalid because it was an especially remarkable example of the judiciary arrogating the role of the legislature and creating what is claimed to be “law” out of nothing but thin air (a description so accurate it is commonplace and a cliche’). Note in particular the “trimester rules”:

“… State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

4. The State may define the term “physician” to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. …”

That describes me and most Americans. Only a tiny fraction of the US public want all abortions banned, including in the cases of rape and incest (the two things you frequently hear that prove conservatives don’t overwhelmingly want an absolute ban, despite the distortion you hear from some).

In addition she refers to Planned Parenthood like some kind of monolithic national organization. It is not, but rather an association of smaller Planned Parenthood affiliates. And the story she tells certainly doesn’t resemble anything I’ve ever heard from the local affiliate.

If the particular hospital that you are referring to refuses to perform the procedure to remove a dead fetus from a woman after a miscarriage, I have no idea why. But in any event, that is completely separate from the legal issue because any private hospital can perform or not perform procedures according to religious prohibitions or for other reasons. I assume that you wouldn’t want the government to interfere in religion any more than you’d want religion to interfere in government, so even if abortion remains completely legal no one should be forced to perform one if the person has a reason of conscience to not do so.

You are using the
- all peiple on welfare are irresponsible sponges
- all unwanted pregnancies are the result of loose behavior

type of argument,
Not worthy of a response, IMO

Foster homes are bulging with unwanted children ready for adoption. Tell those people so desperate to adopt, to take as many as they like. Or are they looking for the kind of babies even God can’t guarrantee –
perfect in every way?

It’s always good to understand one another. Understanding does not lead to agreement, however. IMO, pro-lifers are willing to understand and ‘compromise’ – until they get their way. They define when life begins, they define what the role of the pregnant woman should be, and they define what is or is not a moral choice for a family to make.

Until the basics see some ‘compromise’, I see no hope for agreement.

But, it does upset me emotionally so much to suspect, common-sensically, that such a large proportion is undoubtedly caused to simply rectify undisciplined behavior and/or merely foster “lifestyle convenience.”

And this also infuriates me…..

While the number of people waiting to adopt an infant of any description is unknown, Atwood thinks there may be as many as 2 million couples who would be willing to take a newborn into their home–if one were available.  Keep that number in mind as you ponder the many abortions in America–1.31 million in 2000, the most recent year for which the Alan Guttmacher Institute has collected statistics. In most cases the lives prematurely ended by abortion experienced that fate because they were deemed–for one reason or none at all, after much agony or upon casual reaction–unwanted.  Note also that most abortions prevent the birth of what would have “normal” babies.

http://www.ilchoose-life.org/AllChildrenAreWanted.htm

The rare part comes into play, at least from my point of view, is that if there were proper education about sex and *all* the ways to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, then the abortion rate would go down. You do realize that *all* terminations of pregnancy, including those that are definite risk to the life of the mother, including the removal of fetus’ that have died at whatever stage, and all spontanious miscarriages are labled medically as abortion and are reported as such. A miscarriage is labeled as spontaneous abortion, regardless of stage of pregnancy and the procedures to remove the fetus is also labeled as an abortion. I ask only because there are some that are not aware of this fact. I got my info from the ob/gyn nurses/doctors from the 4th floor of the hospital I work at.

There is a Catholic based hospital in town that will not perform the procedure to remove a miscarried fetus, even if the miscarriage was in the 6th month of pregnancy, becuase it is considered abortion. They fully expect the woman to carry until her body tries to expel the dead fetus, or have the woman come into the emergency room with a raging infection caused by leaving the dead fetus in the womb. A good friend of mine lost three girls in the 5th and/or 6th month of pregnancy. She was able to get the medical care at a Presbyterian hospital and she’s an avowed Roman Catholic and wanted each of her 6 pregnancies. This hospital is not an isolated incident.

And the thing is, it’s not just the money angle (though I do think that is a big problem). It’s also that everyone who has been involved in abortion in any way has a vested interest in making sure no one thinks too much about the so called “clump of tissue”. So while I agree with you that there are probably many, many pro-choice citizens who really do want abortions to be rare but legal, there are also many people for whom that position causes a conundrum: if abortion isn’t killing, then why is it bad enough to say that it should be so rare? And the stats show that there are a lot of people who’ve either had an abortion, have had a partner who’s had one, or have been involved in providing one or helping someone else get one. So I don’t really agree that there isn’t a similar pull for people not necessarily to promote abortion, but to be so uncomfortable with the thought that the fetus is a preborn baby that they want that information kept out of the discussion in a difficult pregnancy.

And that’s mainly what I’m getting at. Christine’s experience and mine both illustrate the extremes of information being given out that would push one viewpoint or the other instead of a more balanced approach. I actually find it far more disturbing in her case that they weren’t offering counseling services or discussing the prosecution of the rape than that they were showing her films about fetal development, although I agree that that wasn’t the appropriate time to do so.

“I’d like the same respect rather than your argument that the whole point of the pro-life movement is to restrict other people’s rights while the rich can still get abortions.”

—————

If you paraphrase me, don’t change my meaning in the process. We’ve argued this tipic many times before, and you should know better.
This is what my ‘whole point’ is.

1. I think there are people who share your beliefs, sincerely, with no ulterior motives.
2. I think there are people, different from you, who are calcualting their options under both the legal/illegal version of abortion.

Neither 1s nor 2s are necessarily concerned with how this impacts others, the 1s for ideological reasons, and the 2s for reasons of their own (not caring?)

I respect your sinceretiy. I can’t respect the pro-lifers’ oblivion as to tha consequences of their beliefs for oher women. I’m not saying this about you, because I don’t know, but in many cases it isn’t just oblivion, it’s willful oblivion.

The rich women’s abortions case is not a pursued goal, as far as I know but it is one such consequence. That’s what was true in the pre Roe days.

This reminds me, again, of the Mormons who baptized Jewish dead people into their religion in order to save their souls. They were sincere and they believed they were doing God’s work. But they caused enormous pain to those Jewish people who discovered these unauthorized baptisms of their relatives. [Mormons no longer do this]

We can bandy respect around, and that’s okay. A little humility about the reach of one’s beliefs would be welcome, however, and long overdue. Missionary work in many people’s private lives causes suffering.