When is a baby a baby?
Sep 6th, 2007 by Amanda
Check out this post from MIntheGap:
Feminist Jean Garton tells the moving story of her three-year-old, who wandered into her room late at night and inadvertently saw a photo of a ten-week abortion. his mother describes his reaction:
His small voice was filled with great sadness as he asked, “Who broke the baby?”
How could this small, innocent child see what so many adults cannot see? How could he know instinctively that this which many people carelessly dismiss as tissue or a blob was one in being with him, was like him? In the words of his question he gave humanity to what adults call “fetal matter”; in the tone of his question he mourned what we exalt as a sign of liberation and freedom. With a wisdom which often escapes the learned, he asked in the presence of evidence before his eyes, “Who broke the baby?”
[…]
When’s the last time you’ve seen a shirt that says “Blob”, “P.O.C. - Product of Conception” or “Fetus” with an arrow pointing to a pregnant mom’s belly?
What about when the baby moves around inside the mother: Does she say “My, that fetus is really moving around!” or “My fetus kicked me!”
It’s a baby folks.
How many late term abortion are performed? You know abortions where there is actually something moving or kicking?
about 0.24% of all abortions. Wanna ban it? I’m not totally against it. But lets ask her:
http://tinyurl.com/35lbw2
The rest of them are very early term. no kicking, no moving, doesnt even look like a baby.
Feel free to go to the other thread you linked to for more actual information about the effects of banning all abortion.
Forcing women to bear unwanted children is unfair to the women and unfair to the children, itincreases suffering over all.
Tech- your link provides some very powerful stories and insights. I don’t think I’ve ever read anything from the perspective of mothers who sincerely felt a NEED to abort. Those were very sobering circumstances.
It’s very easy to say you are for or against abortion, without having insight or full understanding of those who have to endure the results of decisions such as these. Personalizing this makes everything a shade of gray instead of the black and white the right would like us to see.
Moving story - truly. But the issue at hand is when is a baby a baby. The story you linked to provides a compelling story in favor of keeping abortion legal, but does nothing to answer the question.
When is the line crossed that determines that a child is being carried versus a glob of cells?
Amanda- if we were all to agree when a baby is a baby, would it change the story these women told????
NO, it wouldn’t!
Would it have changed their very difficult decisions?
Doubtful.
Way to brush aside pain and suffering to make a point.
That wasn’t my intent at all. But one thing that happens when two differing sides debate is that one side asks a question and the other side answers a different question. Usually the conversation continues, but it ends up losing sight of the original intention of the discussion or debate.
If we were all to agree when a baby is a baby, it wouldn’t change the story those women told, because they all knew that they were losing their baby. What it would change, however, is the way women who use abortion as a form of birth control view abortion. And unfortunately, the women who have those heartbreaking stories are in the minority when it comes to women who have abortions. Most abortions are simply unwanted pregnancies, rather than terminating a pregnancy that has severe and life threatening health problems.
Techskeptic, at 6 weeks (all abortions done after this point), the baby has all the organs it will ever have. It has a heartbeat and detectable brainwaves. You’re advocating the killing of a baby.
An unconscious person looks like it isn’t moving, it certain isn’t kicking– wouldn’t you say that it was ok to kill him?
How can you say that early term abortions don’t look like a baby? Have any pictures? Again, at 6 weeks, it has hands, feet, toes, every organ that it will ever have it has.
Allowing women to have their babies slaughtered by people only interested in profit is inhuman. Killing an innocent child is not being fair to a party that did no wrong. Assuming that a child that is born rather than aborted somehow is going to live a miserable life is no justification for killing it. Otherwise, let’s go around and kill all children that aren’t having a life worth a given standard.
Just a few weeks ago I remember hearing a news story where there were some kids kept in cages, soiled in their clothing, forced to eat dog food, at the point of starvation. The police found them, and immediately fed them, clothed them, and protected them.
Perhaps, instead, they should have taken out their side arm and just shot them right there– so that they wouldn’t have to go on public support, it could have ceased their suffering right there, and no one would have been the wiser?
Musicguy, Amanda’s point is to the point. If it’s a baby, then you’re advocating that people have a right to killing a baby.
Amanda Yates felt a strong need to kill all of her children. Does her “need” make what she did right? Absolutely not.
Spina Bifida is curable through an intrauterine surgery. This woman didn’t need to abort her baby. My heart just breaks for her, what a terrible thing to feel like you need to do.
Besides, the condition of the child doesn’t matter. If life begins at conception, then they should be constitutionally protected. We wouldn’t sentence someone with cerebral paulsy or downs syndrome to die just because of their condition. Why does it make sense to do the same to an unborn baby?
“But one thing that happens when two differing sides debate is that one side asks a question and the other side answers a different question. Usually the conversation continues, but it ends up losing sight of the original intention of the discussion or debate.”
Yes, you are correct and that happens quite frequently. These hot button issues are not nearly as black and white as you would have us believe. That was my original point.
You think and there is NEVER a reason for a woman to have an abortion. Your premise is that since most woman have abortions to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, then ALL women shouldn’t have the choice, even if their situations are much different.
To ban abortions for all women is a leap I cannot make.
PS- Minor forms of Spina Bifida can be fixed in utero. More severe forms cannot.
Let’s do a little exercise. I’m going to take a statement made in comments, you tell me if it’s justifiable:
Replace the things in brakets however you’d like. 2-year-old, 95-year-old, 7-month-old, doesn’t make any difference. To say that it’s ok to kill a baby simply because of its physical location, its age, or its size implies that it’s ethically fine to kill a child at any age.
To say that it’s ok to kill a baby simply because of its physical location, its age, or its size implies that it’s ethically fine to kill a child at any age.
No, it doesn’t imply that. It only works if I buy into your line of thinking, which we all know, is not the case.
Musicguy, you have yet to scientifically or medically prove that it’s not a baby, that it’s not a young life, or that it is ethical to kill a baby simply because it’s inside the womb.
Up until now, all you’ve done is all that pro-abortionists ever do– use euphemisms and shift terms in an attempt to confuse the issue, to disguise what the procedure actually does, and to hope to not let the truth out.
I mean, Abortionists believe they are killing babies, the media admits it, Pro-Abortion leaders admit it, everyone but you. Everyone knows it’s a baby in the womb. Medical textbooks, scientific research, etc, define life as beginning at conception. No abortion is performed on a baby that doesn’t have a heartbeat or brain waves. And no amount of compassion you have on hard cases will change the fact that your solution kills babies.
So, stand up to the plate and say as much, present some kind of argument, but stop pretending that somehow you’re position is the compassionate one. Yours ends in murder. Mine ends in life.
round and round we go. where it’ll stop, nobody knows.
sigh.
call it abortion. call it murder. call it termination. call it evacuation. call it dsfh83092hef. it doesn’t change a damned thing. Perhaps my position does end in murder. Thankfully, I’ll never have to make that decision. But I’m also alright with euthanasia/doctor assisited suicide, so I guess I don’t mind killing them off on both ends.
And yet the interesting thing is that in doctor assisted suicide (which you know I obviously don’t support either) the party that’s about to die is expressing his choice. With abortion, the party is innocent and is not allowed to even have a chance to say what his/her wishes would be.
But thanks for, at last, being (kinda) honest about your position.
How can you say that early term abortions don’t look like a baby? Have any pictures? Again, at 6 weeks, it has hands, feet, toes, every organ that it will ever have it has.
Boy, have you got your development facts all kinds of buggered. For the most part, a six week fetus has buds for limbs and only resembles anything human in a very liberal sense. Hell, a fetus doesn’t even have the capacity to feel pain until somewhere around 20 weeks.
I’m not advocating abortion on demand, but at least get your facts straight.
(Sorry, Mandi, for jumping in with my asshole-ness dispenser turned on, but this is one argument I despise)
Sigh… I hate this debate I really do… most especially now as a future mom-to-be. No, I don’t think anyone would say “Oh, my little fetus kicked me.” But I do have to say that one of the first things to develope is the heart. Heck we heard our baby’s heartbeat at 7 weeks in the womb.
I also know if I was accidentally or intentionally killed outside, whether in a car crash or murder whatever… legally they killed 2 people. Not 1 but 2 because of the fact that I’m pregnant.
I’m not here to vouch that abortion should be banned legally for all women. There are certain woman who it would be dangerous to have a baby, life threatening. And there are some women who get pregnant through rape. As a woman, I can understand and appreciate the choice then.
But to use it as a form of contraceptive, that and only there is where I have to draw the line. It’s a pathetic form of contraceptive. Everyone here knows all the consequences of sexual intercourse be it STDs or pregnancy or both. People who are old enough to have sex should understand there could be consequences. If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant use a freakin’ condom. Go on birth control. Tie your freakin’ tubes. I’ve known quite a few women who don’t bother with birth control because of how much it costs and still have sex, and then grieve at the fact that they’ve gotten themselves pregnant or that the guy got them pregnant. HELLO? Use common sense there. You don’t want a baby and you don’t use birth control? Fine. Don’t have sex. If you want sex… then be smart about it. Sex isn’t something people should be stupid about in the first place.
Carmel- that’s very well said!
Here’s the next issue though- when your government is pushing abstinence only sex education, young people have are not knowledgeable about contraceptives, diseases, and the like.
You cannot preach against abortion AND contraception at the same time.
When have I ever said contraception is bad??? When have I ever preached against contraception? Especially in what I said?
First off, I may not agree with abortion, but I never said I would ban it and make it illegal. I said abortion is understandable in some cercumstances especially where it concerns the health of the woman or where raped might have occured. I, once again, say that as a woman I appreciate the choice then. The only time I have a problem with abortion is when women use it as a form of contraception… as if they had no other option to prevent that pregnancy from taking place.
I said that contraception should be used in the first place so we can PREVENT unwanted pregnancies and resulting abortions.
Most “young people” today are more educated about contraceptives and diseases than you must be aware of. What they aren’t aware of is the reality of such consequences.
None the less, who’s responsibility is it to teach young people about sex? Am I as a parent going to leave it to the schools? Or to my son’s future peers? No. I have to talk to him about it too, or his father. I would rather if my son be roaming around having sex, that he at least be smart about it and use protection rather than not. I repeat, “sex isn’t something people should be stupid about in the first place.”
But as to sex education? I don’t know about you… but I had sex ed in 6th, 7th, 8th, and even 9th grade.
Carmel, dear, I wasn’t referring to you. There are a number of commentors here who push the no abortion/no contraception platform. You are obviously enlightened and it’s pleasantly refreshing!
I had watered down sex ed in 6th grade. I had no idea what a condom was until I was in 10th grade. Way too late in my opinion. I wasn’t having sex, but if I had been, it probably wouldn’t have been safe.
Carmel, thanks for taking the time to wade in here. I appreciate your honesty and cutting through all the deception that’s been going on before. As you may have noticed, it took quite a few posts before we could even acknowledge that what was done was killing a child. Also, congratulations on your pregnancy and I pray that it all goes well and that your baby is born healthy and well.
You address two issues, I have two comments (I know, surprise surprise).
First, like I said, it’s a baby. Although I can understand the problems that are associated with rape, I still cannot believe that killing an innocent child is the appropriate response for the terrible act that the man did. He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but the baby should not have its life ended simply because carrying that baby to term would bring up bad memories.
I know that, right now, it may feel like you have been pregnant a long time– and that would probably be the feeling of those that were carrying the product of a rape. However, nine months is a short period of time to give to a life that could live to be ninety.
Second, the topic of [un]safe-sex ed. I think that it would surprise all of you to know that I have to problem teaching about condoms, birth control, or any of these other things, as long as they are taught from a factual point of view. This includes the fact that most STDs are transmitted not through seminal or vaginal fluid, but through skin to skin contact. That pregnancy can still happen regardless of being on the pill. That the pill works both to prevent ovulation AND implantation– namely, you could have created a new life via fertilization, but then killed it vai not allowing it to implant.
To me, current [un]safe-sex ed does nothing but tell kids “you want to do it, here’s some ways you can” but stops at the important part. Sure, they pay lip service to abstinence, saying that it’s the only 100% way, but then they go right on preaching about how to put a condom on a cucumber and talking about the benefits of the pill.
Unfortunately, many women can no longer have children, have had to have hysterectomies before their time, or have passed on a deadly disease all because they were encouraged to have sex. I was just reading in the news (I know, I’ll find it if you don’t believe me) of another famous woman that ended up getting HPV while having sex on the pill and using a condom. Now she has to have a hysterectomy, and hope that she doesn’t have cervical cancer.
This isn’t something to play with. It’s not trivial. It’s both life (the woman’s AND the baby’s) and death, and we owe it to ourselves and our children to do the best we can to teach them the truth– not encourage “option 2″ when it comes to families.
And if I may, let me go one step further. I was recently asked what my contribution to those that were in positions to have abortion– was I going to adopt unwanted kids, and the like. I would like to ask this question of those that would advocate [un]safe-sex education. Are you truly serious about reducing abortions and teenage pregnancies?
Since the only way to get pregnant and “need” an abortion is to be having sex, it seems to be quite silly to be teaching and training kids how to engage in risky sexual behaviors. I would think that the best way to reduce this would be to go back to preaching that sex is for marriage.
Could you imagine the impact if all parents, television, churches, indeed all adults started telling their children “sex is for marriage”, “you’re wrong to have sex”, and instead of preaching “you’re going to do it anyway” tell them “just say no.” I seem to remember that as a pretty effective slogan for fighting some other problem.
Musicguy, what do you mean that you can’t preach against abortion and contraception? That’s a fallacy. Although there may be a percent that decide to have sex before marriage regardless of societal, familial and other pressures, I would posit that the number of these types of sexual encounters were fewer before birth control, before “free love” and before we decided for teenagers that they were incapable of self discipline, and created our own self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don’t see anything wrong with premarital sex. Puritanical beliefs make sex an evil, limiting experience. I see it as a natural, necessary bodily function. You have your right to see it as only for the purpose of procreation. I see it as two people (regardless of gender) sharing an intimate bond. Sometimes it’s for a lifetime, sometimes it’s for a quick thrill.
So yes, I’m teaching sex ed to keep teenagers safe while they get it on. You’re tryingt to scare them into waiting until they’re married. Such is the platform of the “immoral, godless sodomite.”
hehe. I love that quote.
Lots has happened since I last replied… wow. At least I know that anytime I want discussion to happen here, all I gotta do is post about abortion!
Musicguy -
I’m going to surprise everyone here and say that it isn’t true that I think there is NEVER a reason for abortion. The problem is that I still have to choose a side. And because I think the majority of abortions are needless murder, I choose the anti-abortion side. It would be awesome if laws were made that detailed very specifically when abortions would be permitted and when they wouldn’t. But I don’t foresee that happening because I don’t see anyone agreeing on where the line should be. It’s always going to be all or nothing - and I choose nothing.
As far as sex education goes - yeah, I think it’s good. Condoms should be distributed in schools. Kids have sex. We all know they do. And no matter how often they’re discouraged from it, they’re still going to do it. So we should at least make sure they have all the facts and resources to make it as safe as possible. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality because you want kids to not have sex doesn’t do anybody anywhere any good.
How could this small, innocent child see what so many adults cannot see?
My infant cousin is currently going through a phase where he thinks mobile phones are edible. He short-circuited five with dribble before his parents realised what was happening. Since we’re apparently assuming that every word coming out of a kid’s mouth is unadulterated gospel truth, I can only assume that handset manufacturers are going to be very busy in the future…
Sarcasm aside, no-one’s denying that a foetus looks a lot like a baby. What we’re questioning is whether it should be legally labelled as a baby, when it has only marginally stronger vitals than those rubber foetuses that anti-abortion activists hand out.
My personal feeling is that, until the final term, it’s too close to call. In these circumstances, I feel that the only reasonable position is to allow the decision to default back to the mother. Overemotional comments about how “even kids can see that a foetus is a baby” add little to the discussion.
To those of us who think that governments should intervene on this issue: please explain what your criterion is for banning stuff and why it should be applied in this case. I don’t think I’ve seen a clear explanation here - the conversation tends to devolve into “yes it is a baby”/”no it isn’t”.
Amanda: yeah, it’s an impressively-strong hot-button issue. Although I think what gets my goat is less the moral issue and more the horrific abuses of logic :-/
I’m going to surprise everyone here and say that it isn’t true that I think there is NEVER a reason for abortion. The problem is that I still have to choose a side.
I’m going to jump in here and say that this approach sounds a lot like a result of your religious upbringing. In the religious world, especially the Christian one, things are supposed to be black or white… right or wrong.
How about, instead of choosing “a” side, you choose “your” side. Don’t feel the need to stick with established party lines on any hot issue. Make your own rules and apply them where you feel the need.
And all those people who insist that you just must choose a “side”? They can blow.
I see what you’re saying, but I’m going to disagree.
If I really thought that laws would ever be put into place carefully outlining when abortion might be acceptable, then I would agree with you. But realistically speaking, that’s never going to happen. And I’d rather see all abortions illegal than all abortions legal. As such, that’s the side of the line that I fall.
Ok… wow.
Now that that’s over with.
To Musicguy: Thanks for the clarification.
To MInTheGap: I understand where you are coming from. But like you, I have a reply too.
1. If I was to be raped and that rape resulted in me getting pregnant I will honestly admit that I would have torn feelings. Because one I know it’s a baby and a baby isn’t to blame for what the father did.
Yes, the kid could grow up to be 90. I could even put the child up for adoption. But I’d be going through an unwanted pregnancy because of a rape. Nine months may not seem like a long time, but considering I’m about to give birth soon enough, carrying this child took a LOT out of me, physically and emotionally. This child was something my husband and I wanted with all our hearts and we love our baby. Now, back to the point at hand. If I was pregnant as a result of rape, how hard would that be for me to deal with when I know that the child would be a reminder of how I was raped and was not even wanted in the first place. How fair would that be to my husband and to the son I carry now?
This is a great gray area for me. I personally feel that a fetus is a baby. But rape is something so horrible that a woman has to face… should she get with child because of it… Some woman have handled it, and cared for their children and did their best to raise them. But imagine that child asking his or her mother… where is my father? What would she tell them? I commend women who are able to forget their rapists enough to raise the child that came as a result. That’s honestly amazing. But I can’t say whether or not I would find the same joy in following their footsteps as I do in the pregnancy I’m in right now.
I would never want to resent my own child or think of my child as a constant reminder of something so ugly and horrific.
And 2.) As to the topic of Sex ed. Once again… why on earth would you leave your child’s sexual education up to the schools????
Personally, I’ve never been told how to put a condom on cucumber in the sex ed classes I had growing up. They told me that nothing but abstinence was 100% safe. I had good teachers who pressed on that issue, but at the same time, said that if you were going to do it, be careful about it.
The pill and the other forms of contracption aren’t 100% we all get that. But a kid’s education on sexual intercourse should not be the soul responsibility of the education system.
There are kids who do wait and are able to responsible. Those are the kids we don’t have to worry about. But there are kids who you realize will make you worry about them. Heck those are the kids who are going to do what they want to do. Telling them “No, wait” isn’t going to do anything. There are kids who WILL do what they want and they WILL find a way to do it. THESE kids are the ones that need to be informed. As Amanda said, at least let’s tell them of the possible consequences and how to avoid that.
Musicguy, aside from the moral reasons not to have premarital sex, the physical and emotional reasons are overwhelming. Physically, it’s most risky thing you can do. No amount of condoms or birth control pills will every be 100% effective against pregnancy– but that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that STDs are passed irregardless of these devices. In essence, we are telling teens to go ahead and play with loaded guns because doing so is fun and they’re going to do it anyway.
Emotionally, it is a tool for manipulation and control– hence the big argument for women to be able to “have control of their bodies.” Men can have sex with women and, without a covenant relationship, expect to have to deal with little of the consequences. They rejoice that the woman would terminate the child– the ultimate in no responsibility. And the women that are used in this way are not divorced from feelings. How many women feel that they have to give sex because “everyone’s doing it” or “I have to do it to keep the guy.”
Pre-marital sex does exactly the opposite of what you suggest– it gives girls/women more burden, allows them to be more callous about the relationship, and also means that if/when they do find a life partner their chances of remaining committed are extremely diminished– let alone the comparisons.
People are inflicting damage both emotionally and physically all in the name of fun, and your position finds this acceptable and even commendable!
Lifewish, if it ended with a child, that’d be something. However, everyone– Pho-Choice Feminists, Doctors, Abortionists, Medical periodicals, Pro-Choice Advocates, etc.– all believe that it’s a baby in the womb. Medical and Scientific research (testimony before the U.S. Congress) proves that life begins at conception. We’re not talking about rubber babies that Pro-Lifers show, we’re talking about a being separate from her mom or dad that has every organ that they will ever have at 6 weeks, with a discernible heartbeat and measurable brainwaves. Again, the dictionary defines baby as including the age at which the baby is a fetus. Baby = embryo, fetus, infant, toddler. It’s a superset, encompassing all these terms with fetus being a specific time period while the baby is in the mother’s womb.
Government’s duty is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s why we prosecute murderers– regardless of what age the victim is. Why should it be banned? Because the government is not to be sanctioning mass murder based on age or location discrimination.
The whole point of this post, and my series about everyone knowing that it’s a baby, is that the term HAS to be shifted if you’re to try to justify that you aren’t killing a life. It’s a euphemism because no one wants to “tell the Emporer that he isn’t wearing any clothes.” At least be as honest as Musicguy, when he says that he realizes that it is murder, but doesn’t have a problem with that– at least that’s honest.
Amanda, once you go down the slope that says “there are certain cases where murder is tolerable,” then you start eroding the sanctity of life. Then people can start arranging standards for when life outside the womb needs to continue to exist.
One day, you could find the government saying that if you aren’t making a certain amount of money, are on welfare, need some expensive drug to keep you alive, etc. then it would be better to terminate you than to keep you. What will be the recourse then?
Either life is precious, and to be defended at all costs and all stages by the government, or life is something that someone arbitrarily can decided isn’t worth having/living. Where’s the choice in that? And whose choice is it really?
Been away for a while and have not kept up here.
No big surprise that Min posts a bunch of baseless assertions without a single link to back up what he is saying (and I have little doubt you are a ‘he’, am I wrong?). That assertion that abortion must happen after 6 weeks was the most laughable one. Ever hear of Plan B? How about ru486?
Instead of ripping his pontification apart, again, I’ll just post this:
There is no scientific law or mathematical equation that says life starts at this point and not at that point. There is always grey areas, even if you choose conception at the starting point (all cells have genetic data to make up a human, IVF regularly tosses out more fertilized eggs than those which are carried to term, etc, etc). Ok so lets choose when blood starts to flow (something we can only detect once its too late), or when we detect brain waves, etc etc. It is not a scientific debate as to when life starts (so stop trying to make it one). All science can do is answer the questions like: When does the heart start? How many days does the blastomere last? Further using the Bible (as Min does) to choose a date is equally ridiculous (do I really have to go into why?)
It is a human and a societal debate. It needs to be a debate about numbers of people. folks like Min think we can’t hear you when you say trite things like “Would you kill a two year old?”. As if we don’t know you think life starts at conception. The problem is that folks like Min don’t hear the other side. They don’t want to bother to think about the good of everyone, just what you personally have decided to consider where life starts.
The goal, that everyone, pro-choice and pro-life can agree upon is: reducing abortions is good for society. Sadly that is where the similarities end.
The hard core pro-lifers have this bizarre notion that if you ban it, abortions will stop. This is clearly not the case as we know from pre Roe V. Wade era data and studies in Ireland and Mexico (who recently caught on that its better to be able to measure abortion rates than to pretend it doesnt happen).
We know that if it is banned, medical D&E (I think that are called D&X now) procedures increase. We know that people will leave states or the country to have an abortion. Our solution before Roe was obviously a horrendous one
http://ricklibrarian.blogspot.com/2006/11/girls-who-went-away-hidden-history-of.html
Is it not obvious to everyone that banning abortion, besides not stopping it, simply increases suffering? Unwanted births bring more infant deaths, more abuse and neglect, more school failure, more foster care and juvenile courts and more mothers who blame themselves. (check the other thread for my links to data supporting all that)
No, contrary to the constant unsubstantiated babble that comes from Min (sorry, i just can’t help it when someone spews so much nonsense) the best way to eliminate abortion is to address the cause: unwanted pregnancy.
Here are some things that can be done:
Make ultrasound available to everyone (no, I dont mean force ultrasonic viewings). Viewing a fetus has a very strong effect on the decision to abort or not.
Stop wasting millions of dollars (206 million dollars wasted so far to be exact) on abstinence only programs
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2005/02/09/index.html
Use the media to help reinforce what is (should be) taught in schools. No sex is the safest sex, after that condoms are cool (for guys you can reinforce that they help with control), The pill is easy to use, the ring is a once a month thing, etc etc. I have no idea what they dont show pictures of advanced stages of gonnorhea, chlamydia, or syphillus. Perhaps they do! I’m pretty sure that would encourage condom use.
Focus the spotlight on the effects of single parenting (I personally have no idea how single mothers do it, I only have one child and its a lot of work!) in the media and in politics with real data, none of this alarmist crap that is so easy to see through.
People smarter than me probably have even more things that we could try to reduce unwanted pregnancy. If we keep abortion legal, we can measure the efficacy of any of these ideas.
Keeping abortion available means we can keep track of it and measure its rate (this is how we know the abortion rate has been declining, which is good news!). Its how we can measure the efficacy of various programs. This is how we check if new programs are working or not and allows us to pull the plug when its obvious that its not working (like in the case of AO)
We put a big smear in our constitution when we banned alcohol. Was alcohol consumption stoppped? What happened? Why didnt that work?
You can’t possibly think that making a law to ban abortions does anything to make you look good in the eyes of God, can you? Banning abortion is an infantile and ineffective way to get to your goal, that might make you feel good until you actually look under the carpet. No, if you actually cared about this problem something more than superficially, you would do what you can to reduce unwanted pregnancy, you would help out in teenage awareness programs, you would donate to causes that bring ultrasound to poor neighborhoods, you would donate to organizations that deliver good sex ed programs that have been shown to work, you would adopt children and help to remove the stigma associated with it (and the horrendous set of laws we have), you would focus on the data and demand that your representatives do so also to encourage the programs that have been shown to reduce unwanted pregancy.
If you arent doing some of these things or something similar, then you really arent doing anything at all to stop abortion. you are just shoving it under the rug and making women, unwanted children and society in general, pay for your intolerance.
whoa.. I didnt realize I wrote all that.. sorry.
I have no idea what they dont show pictures of advanced stages of gonnorhea, chlamydia, or syphillus. Perhaps they do! I’m pretty sure that would encourage condom use.
I meant to say “would encourage abstinence or condom use”
Whose morals are we talking about?? No such thing as moral absolutes. Sorry. You’ll have an easier time convincing me that abortion is murder.
There are risks involved in just about every activity we humans engage in. Whether it’s goin to the store and picking up a common cold or the flu (which by the way can certainly kill you, STD’s, although uncomfortable, are for the most part quite treatable), or driving down the street and hoping some jackass in an SUV doesn’t butt you off the road, we take risks. Hell, even childbirth is a risk. Should we just stay home and pray to our sky goddess and hope for the best?? Yeah, that’s called a cult. No thank you.
We take precautions in life, in all aspects of life, and hope for the best. That includes with sex as well. I’m not afraid of it. No one should be.
Techie, you make me smile!
Tech, some schools do show advanced cases of STDs in health classes. I know mine did. The effect on many was quite an experience…
See? i knew it. Isnt that a more effective way to try to scare kids out of having unsafe sex (or having sex at all) than showing them a picture of a cute baby? or worse, not discussing it at all!
I was the lucky student running the slideshow (I had the strongest stomach I guess). I still remember the images vividly, and that was about 12 years ago.
Coupled with stats showing the number of reported STDs in the area along with an estimate of the total number of cases, it’s a powerful tool for education.
Tech, get at least one of your facts straight. Go back to the Russia post and look– do a simple search for the word “Bible” and see who it is that mentions it first. Who brings it into the argument? Who asks the question about it? Who harps on it non-stop, or uses it as the basis of an argument?
If you can’t get this simple task right, why should I take the time to talk with you about anything else?
Min, we’ll all take that to mean, “You can’t.”
I fully recognize I mentioned it first. But I asked “where in the bible does it mention that life starts at conception?”
To which you quoted a few references, none of which actually said or implied that life starts at conception.
You used those passages to answer my question and then to substantiate your position with it. It was pretty much your last leg to stand on.
But thanks for playing.
LOL– techskepic, do you actually read what you say and my responses?
This is your quote from comment #27, this post. It is your inference that I used the Bible to date when a baby is alive.
Comment #23 on the Russia post (http://www.mandikaye.com/2007/08/17/russias-unusual-holiday/#comment-2393) stated the first time I referenced when life begins and why (before then, I had used the dictionary to state that a baby included the time when it is a fetus and the dictionary stated that a fetus was a child).
I then (believe it or not) take time to answer your direct question regarding Biblical passages off the top of my head and make this statement regarding them.
I made no statement that I believe that the Bible makes it clear that life begins at conception, nor do I rest any of the argument of when life begins in the Bible.
To add to it, I responded to this charge again in yesterday’s post (which I figured you wouldn’t check out http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/11/please-post-chapter-1/)
and said the same thing:
I then go on to make the case that a child in the womb is a baby by appealing to general knowledge (everyone knows it’s a baby - Comment #40), the definitions of the words (Fetus is a Latin word variously translated “offspring,” “young one,” or “little child.” - Comment #42), when a heartbeat is present vs. when abortion clinics do abortions (six weeks - Comment # 44), and now, a series of posts on my site to answer you questions.
How about this post? It took your comment in this post (comment 27) to mention the word Bible. I mention when heartbeats and brainwaves are present (comment 6), I practice replacement in comment 9, in comment 11 I talk about how there is no medical evidence presented to the contrary (in debate, that means that my position stands), in comment 12 Musicguy admits that his position may be murder, and in my last large comment on this topic (comment 19) I rehearse what I’ve said previously on the topic.
It’s a strawman that I’m resting my argument on the Bible. In fact, you could make a better case that I’m resting my argument on the dictionary than the Bible– since I reference the dictionary multiple times, and only address the Bible once– and that was in reference to your query. You believe that it’s my last leg, but my case has never been about the Bible– it’s been totally about “what is it that is inside the mother’s womb.”
I’ve consistently presented the proposition that:
1. Everyone knows it’s a baby
2. The dictionary says it’s a baby
3. Language says it’s a baby.
But all of this to say that you are missing the total point, and I had glossed over something that you had said early on as well.
Your comment that we’re both seeking to reduce abortions is interesting. However, I don’t find it acceptable to keep murdering fetuses/children/babies while we wait for unwanted pregnancies to go down.
I feel that the unwanted children argument is a mirage. In order to realistically consider your position, you would have to first prove that there is such a thing.
One and a half million American families want to adopt, some so badly that the scarcity of adoptable babies is the source of major depression. There is such a demand for babies that a black market has developed where babies have been sold for as much as $35,000. (D. James Kennedy, Abortion: Cry of Reality (Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1989),21.)
Not just “normal” babies are wanted– many people request babies with Down Syndrome, and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida. (The Michael Fund, 400 Penn Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15146)
The National Committee for Adoption (NCA) maintains that most women would choose to keep their babies, but 11 percent of the children that would have been aborted would instead be given up for adoption. The NCA’s president says, “If abortion were totally outlawed, we would guess the numbers to be 68,400 more white infants and 3,960 nonwhite infants needing adoptive homes” (”Adoption: The Forgotten Alternative,” New Dimensions, October 1990, 32.)
Those waiting to adopt would still have to wait in line, but the line would be shorter.
Perhaps I’ve said to much– I would think that we could best sum up Techskeptic’s position as such:
“Every unwanted child a dead child.”
Since that is the position of the pro-choice argument.
Whereas pro-life would seek to place unwanted children with those that want them.
MInTheGap: thanks for the response. Before I start on the (to me) interesting discussion about governmental responsibilities, my inner pedant wants to have a word with you about this bit:
Medical and Scientific research (testimony before the U.S. Congress) proves that life begins at conception.
That depends very strongly on your definition of “life”. Consider a pork sausage. Rather strongly dead, I’d say. But there are probably a few functioning cells in there and, given a few more years’ technological development, you could probably clone a full-blown adult pig from them.
Similarly, consider the various human waste products. Again, these are not alive by most people’s definitions. But again, they’re technically alive if we go by the very extreme definition of “possessing functioning cells”, which seems to be the one you’re trying to push. Should we be holding funerals over our latrines?
To me, “human” is a fuzzy set, rather than a black-and-white attribute. A flake of my skin isn’t itself a human. If a live cell was extracted from it, that cell still wouldn’t be a human. If that cell was restored to totipotency, it would be very slightly human. If it was encouraged to divide and become a blastula, it’d be a bit more human. If it was implanted into a surrogate mum it’d be even more human. And it would get more and more human as it grew into a baby.
So, to me, the question isn’t “is a foetus a baby”; the question is “should we treat a foetus as a baby from a legal perspective”. How do we translate fuzzy reality into black-and-white law?
Which brings me to:
Government’s duty is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s why we prosecute murderers– regardless of what age the victim is. Why should it be banned? Because the government is not to be sanctioning mass murder based on age or location discrimination.
That’s as solid an answer as I’ve seen on this. Kudos.
However, you’ve left the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” quote unqualified. LLPH for who? Me? My family? My pet cat? The mosquito I just swatted? Assuming that you’re not a member of the Digambara sect, I’m guessing that the mosquito at least is outside the scope of the right to LLPH.
Does the cat have this right? The law in the UK is (IMO) sensible about this. It basically attempts to loosely define each animal’s degree of “humanness” and provide it with protection accordingly. Their method is a bit sloppy - the halfway house consists of vertebrates plus octopi -
Does a human blastula - a little ball of 100-odd cells - have a stronger right to LLPH than my cat? My gut instinct here is no. Despite being extremely dappy, my cat is a living, thinking creature that can feel pain. It lets me hug it and scratches me when I get in its way, which makes it at least as human as my little sister
The ball of cells just sits there, occasionally mitosifying. Again, this sounds a lot like my sister when she’s sulking, but it’s not a patch on the cat.
So why is it that the government should protect the foetus more than the feline?
To me, the answer is simple: it shouldn’t. To the extent that human urges can be said to have goals, the goal of the near-universal taboo against murder is to ensure that humans don’t have to constantly watch their backs. It’s easier to achieve that goal if we define a “halo” of critters that are kinda human, if only because defining the term too narrowly leads to holocaust. So I’m in favour of animal protection laws as a general rule.
But that halo is only a default position. If there is any reason to ignore a species’ membership of the halo - for example, because they’re a disease-spreading rat that needs to be poisoned en masse - we are justified in ditching that default verdict. If part-human rights would get in the way of full-human health, wealth and happiness, the former must give way.
I would argue that unwanted pregnancies are such a situation. The embryo is not full-human - it can’t think, speak or emote - and to enforce its rights would harm the rights of its host. Thus, the government would be no more justified in protecting embryos from abortion than in protecting rats from poisoning.
…wow that was a long post. Sorry about that.
Kudos to you, Lifewish, for posting one of the most civil and logical comments in this thread.
“Every unwanted child a dead child.”
Since that is the position of the pro-choice argument.
well if you define “dead” simply as “not alive”, then sure. Are you dead before your parents conceived you? Again, if you weren’t alive then, then sure, I guess you were dead.
Buit instead of trying to construct inflammatory sentences you could actually try to help to problem instead of incessantly trying to scream and dance this hurtful perspective that life starts at conception. Stop trying to deny that the problem lies with unwanted pregnancy instead of abortion. Its so weak.
For you to continually fixate on calling a fetilized egg “alive” means you are simply not reading any counter post, or not understanding them, either way, you continue to pursue the suffering of people in a society.
Lifewish,
Did you read Bart Kosko’s Fuzzy Thinking? after a pretty good description on fuzzy set theory and how to use it (its how I learn to use it in embedded control projects), he goes into the societal and political ramifications of fuzzy thinking and discusses this exact premise you made about the start of life having a fuzzy nature. I think you are right, and it is in fact what the societal debate is about. It is not a scientific one and will never be.
Amanda,
Kudos to you, Lifewish, for posting one of the most civil and logical comments in this thread.
Still think it should be outright illegal?
Still think it should be outright illegal?
Considering the options? Yes. If it has to be all or nothing, then yes.
Lifewish– big difference between a skin cell and a fertilized egg:
Human Embryology (Dr. Bradley M. Patten) states: “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.
Dr. Keith L Moore’s text on embryology: “The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by sperm and is the beginning of a human being.
Doctors J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, in their work on biology and obstetrics, state, “The zygote this formed represents the beginning of new life“.
Dr. Louis Fridhandler, in the medical textbook Biology of Gestation, referts to fertilization as “that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.
Doctors E. I. Potter and J.M. Craig write in Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created with is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
Time and Rand McNally’s Atlas of the Body states, “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual”
Encyclopedia Britannica says, “A new individual is created when the exlements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”
The medical field and science are clear– conception results in life, a new individual. It’s a human– regardless of whether it’s minutes after conception or whether it’s 90 years old. The baby will not grow to possibly be a cat, dog, or elephant– it’s a human individual, a human life.
Being able to use technology to clone cellular content from a pork sausage, feces, etc. is different than allowing a current life to continue the natural process. These cells that you refer to are not a pig, they are not a human– they may contain cellular material from, but they are not the being.
Conception results in an alive, new individual. Until such time that someone kills it. Assigning degrees of humanness based on the age of the individual is a scary practice.
Is a two-year old more or less human than a 20-year old? How about a 90-year old?
Again, where does medicine and science back up your claim that a baby is not a “full human” simply because it is inside the mother. The logical application beyond the womb is scary.
[…] to see comments soar? Pick a controversial topic. Like When is it a Baby? This post got 44 comments– partly because yours truly was posting a lot about what it […]