Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
A murder by any other name…
“On a hot summer day a little over two years ago, Sycloria Williams was in the throes of an induced-labor abortion of 22-week-old Shanice when the baby delivered alive. A clinic worker, along with Williams, witnessed Gonzalez cut the cord and place the moving, breathing baby in a biohazard bag partially filled with chlorine bleach and zip it shut.”
That’s the true, and not uncommon, story of what happened at a Florida abortion clinic in July 2006. Now baby Shanice, burned and suffocated to death in a bag of bleach, will finally get a funeral. Her story, revisited by Jill Stanek at WorldNetDaily, is a grim look at what legal murder (aka abortion) in this country hath wrought.
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top140 Comments to “A murder by any other name…”
How could any voter with a shred of conscience even consider voting for a presidential candidate who supports such a heinous practice?
Report comment to moderator
Not only murder, but torture!
Report comment to moderator
I frankly doubt the truth of many of these stories, especially when written by the fiercest opponents of legal abortion.
But even if some of them are true and not grossly exaggerated, they say nothing about the morality of early-term abortions.
Report comment to moderator
Yup – that’s an icky story alright. How come you guys don’t oppose late-term abortions as a separate issue?
Report comment to moderator
Wow.
Every time I think nothing else can shock me, I read something like comment 3. How does one “grossly exaggerate” the account of the murder of a tiny child? Perhaps the biohaz bag only had a few drops of chlorine in it, making “partially filled” an exaggeration? And how in all the world does this “say nothing” about the morality of such a reprehensible act?
Apparently, our society has now descended to where witnesses to Molech worship can dismiss it out of hand as having nothing to do with morality.
The darkness overcomes you. Turn while it is yet day.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
It certainly does to people whose consciences are not yet seared by our selfishness and the callousness of this present evil age and to those of us who have held babies and have heard our childrens’ heartbeats via ultrasound during the “early term.”
Do you think these stories say anything about the morality of 22-week abortions? If so, why isn’t that applicable to earlier abortions?
Report comment to moderator
Obama is on the record in opposition of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (In Illinois it was titled the Induced Infant Liability Act). Opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act IS support of murdering babies born alive during an abortion. One cannot, I repeat cannot, “spin” that.
Report comment to moderator
With respect to the question posed in post 1, you’ve read subsequent posts. They just deny that these things happen, or they pretend we haven’t been fighting later-term abortions. Deny, deny, deny. They aren’t even horrified by the murder of a live child or the slow torture — yet they condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. At the least, it’s the usual double standard of the Godless. If they have a conscience, it’s suppressed.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
Are you voting for Obama?
Report comment to moderator
9 Yes – more to vote against mcpain, which would be a tragedy of unparalleled proportions
Report comment to moderator
7 CGIRL, does this act specify a fetal age, or would it also apply to a 1 month old embryo?
Report comment to moderator
8 I frankly don’t know what of these stories to believe. The crazy Christian right is so willing to hype ANYTHING related to this topic that they have no credibility whatsoever. Your posts, NJL, confirm this routinely.
Report comment to moderator
RR: Every time I think nothing else can shock me, I read something like comment 3. How does one “grossly exaggerate” the account of the murder of a tiny child? Perhaps the biohaz bag only had a few drops of chlorine in it, making “partially filled” an exaggeration? And how in all the world does this “say nothing” about the morality of such a reprehensible act?
Perhaps it never happened.
And re-read what I said … even if this story is 100 percent true and unembellished, it makes a good case against infanticide. This is a baby that was born alive and murdered, if the story is true.
It has very little relevance to the morality of a therapeutic abortion at eight weeks of pregnancy.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, I have a suggestion.
You should just believe the stories that confirm your current beliefs and dismiss any that might force you to take a good hard look at those beliefs.
Seriously, your skepticism is strangely convenient. I’ll bet you enthusiastically believe every story that comes out about American soldiers murdering Iraqis in their homes and raping their daughters at will. I’ll bet you willingly swallow every rumor of misbehavior by the left’s usual suspects.
I wonder how much skepticism you exercized during the Duke lacrosse rape case? Hmmm.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: They aren’t even horrified by the murder of a live child or the slow torture — yet they condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. At the least, it’s the usual double standard of the Godless. If they have a conscience, it’s suppressed.
Wrong again.
This story is horrifying. If true, those who did it should be prosecuted for murder.
However, it has NOTHING to do with early-term abortion.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Why don’t you answer the question I put to you? Or would you rather just repeat your unsupported assertions?
What’s the difference between a 22-week-old fetus and a 9-week-old one?
Does this story have any relevance to the morality of “therapeutic abortion” (there’s our Orwellian phrase of the day) at 22 weeks?
Report comment to moderator
“This story is horrifying. If true, those who did it should be prosecuted for murder.”
Wow. Obama wants to keep this legal. You say people who do this should be charged with murder, and yet (I assume) you’re voting for Obama anyway?
Talk about your cognitive dissonance.
Report comment to moderator
“If the story is true . . .” It’s true.
The Holocaust was true, but how come none of you ever talk about eliminating Jews in the first eight weeks of life?
Report comment to moderator
In Ohio, the abortionist would be facing a capital murder charge.
Report comment to moderator
A little info to help you, SteveG. A 22-week fetus has zero chance of survival outside the womb. In that respect, it is exactly like a 9-week fetus. So, even though nobody but you is talking about first trimester abortions, there is no way that this 22-weeker is any different.
Report comment to moderator
it makes a good case against infanticide. This is a baby that was born alive and murdered, if the story is true.
It has very little relevance to the morality of a therapeutic abortion at eight weeks of pregnancy.
Yes, because in a therapeutic abortion at eight weeks, all the butchering takes place out of view, apparently. You’ve just admitted that at 22 weeks, such a thing is a grisly murder; ergo, human. At what week does the soul appear?
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Steveg that the truth of this story is irrelevant to legal policy on abortion. It may be relevant, however, to existing enforcement of the law in abortion clinics.
DavidLYou should just believe the stories that confirm your current beliefs and dismiss any that might force you to take a good hard look at those beliefs.
You mean like most of the posters here? Nah.
As for Obama’s position –
“…I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.”
I can think of unmentioned exceptions to this that could have merit. If, as has happened, the fetus shows evidence of a condition which it *could not survive* outside of the womb, I see no reason to postpone the inevitable and thereby contribute to possible suffering.
But, whatever. Dialogue on this issue in our country has effectively been stymied by right-wing nutcases who insist that embryos should be a legal entity.
Report comment to moderator
At what week does the soul appear?
What is a soul?
Report comment to moderator
Nice try in 23. Let’s put it in other terms. How is killing a 22 week fetus a murder, while killing an 8 week fetus is merely an abortion?
Report comment to moderator
Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother.
It doesn’t matter what BHO thinks, or claims to think. The courts have ALWAYS held that “mental distress” qualifies, and he knows it.
Report comment to moderator
#20 Stubob, I take it then that you don’t consider “survivability outside the womb” as a good criterion for distinguishing between fetus and infant. Do you believe embryos should be protected as legal entities? Do you believe they have a “soul?” (whatever that is)
Report comment to moderator
The folks who work at these “clinics” float in the same moral cesspool as did the Auschwitz or Gulag guards. Talk about a sered conscience. How do they sleep at night? How do they go home to their families, play with the dog etc??
Remember when the word “clinic” implied a place you went to to get well? Talk about Orwellian word games!
Report comment to moderator
24 I asked you first? Clearly you have no answer, even though you brought it up as a central issue.
Report comment to moderator
“Fetus” and “infant” are real words with real definitions. While inside, it’s a fetus. After coming out, it’s an infant. If you’re interested in the technicalities, a 22-weeker would precisely be termed an “abortus” because it is pre-viable. Importantly, the word “human” applies to all of them.
I believe fetuses should be protected as legal entities. As to embryos, I’ll admit I’m conflicted.
Report comment to moderator
#11 – That is a rather inane question considering that we are discussing “The BORN ALIVE Infant Protection Act”, obviously referring to viable infants who could potentially survive outside the womb with proper medical treatment. Even more obvious is the fact that an aborted one month old baby/embryo cannot survive an abortion so your question is pointless. I notice you didn’t comment on Obama’s repeated opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act…
Report comment to moderator
#25 By the same token, I guess it doesn’t matter what McCain think either, but I was responding to Ree in #9
I think there is no “soul” that medically “appears” either at conception or sometime between 8 and 22 weeks or even at birth. So this religious belief is wrong-headed as a criterion.
Now if our culture wants to come up with a separating criterion other than birth for protecting the unborn, it will have to rest on some definable medical criteria. I have no clue what those criteria should be. But until the superstitious accept this, there can’t even be a reasonable conversation about it.
Report comment to moderator
#30 Thanks for answering my inane question. So I see it pertains only to survivable fetuses. In other words, the one in the story featured here wouldn’t qualify. From your account, I have no idea what Obama’s reasons for opposing the act are. I would have no comment on his opposition until I heard them. Even then, I might have no comment.
Report comment to moderator
28. And I guess the best you have is a diversion onto wordgames. For my purposes here, “soul” simply means “human.” According to SteveG’s logic (using the term loosely) the event described by the poster above is a murder while ending an abortion “therapeutically” at 8 weeks is not.
One must be human to be murdered. So when does humanity descend on the fetus, and how?
Report comment to moderator
No, Spinoza. Dialogue on this issue is stymied by the willingness of human beings to sacrifice the lives of others for their own convenience. It’s stymied by the way so many people close their ears to the plea of God to “choose life” and gnash their teeth against His Word. Make no mistake–this is not really a partisan political issue (although it’s utterly laughable for you to try to castigate people who believe in truth and want to save lives for causing all the problems). This is a spiritual issue at the root of which is a choice between self-worship and self-sacrifice. By advocating for the right to murder helpless babies, you show that you value your freedom from consequences over your responsibility to care for those around you. Males who support abortion are despicable and unmanly, because they merely want the right to indulge in their own sexual license without the obligation of taking care of the result of that indulgence.
Report comment to moderator
#29 Stubob, could you confirm this – is 8 weeks the typical demarcation between embryo and fetus?? Is there any other medical demarcation?
Report comment to moderator
“soul” simply means “human.”
That’s complete and utter nonsense. My skin cells are human but they don’t have what is typically meant by “soul.”
Report comment to moderator
#34 David L. – I haven’t “advocated” anything here. But your ridiculous irrational verbiage is precisely why this conversation isn’t going anywhere.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza – I see you did comment on Obama while I was typing my last post. That Obama quote is simply another example of Obama trying to rationalize his extreme abortion/infanticide views to the American people. And I’m not buying it.
Report comment to moderator
One must be human to be murdered. So when does humanity descend on the fetus, and how?
What is humanity? We don’t agree on this. “Human” as an adjective applies to all kinds of things, so simply saying that an embryo is “human” (as opposed to chimp or canine) isn’t really saying all that much. Like I said, my fingernails are “human” fingernails. I trim them regularly, but I don’t “murder” them. “Humanity” does not “descend” on a fetus. A “human life” traditionally refers not to something being simply “human” (like my skin cells) and “alive” (like my tonsils, which can be extracted without a “murder” taking place), but to the experience of a sapient being from birth to death. That is the common meaning of a “human life.”
Now if a majority have a sensibility that wants to protect the pre-born, maybe we can agree on this. I gave up eating mammals recently for just this kind of reason. Unfortunately for chickens, I don’t quite feel this way about birds. But if the point is to protect a religious idea that an eternal soul gets emplaced at the moment of conception (or some other fetal moment), no way. I don’t believe that for a second. A woman has – in my view – a perfect right to terminate the early potentiality of having a child when she does not want to. I see no difference between this and not having sex in the first place. Sperm, egg, fertilized egg, what’s the difference? Not much, and I don’t believe every sperm is “sacred.”
Report comment to moderator
#35: In common medical usage, we usually say “embryo” to mean “pre-implantation.” That’s how I mean it here. Dictionary-wise, the embryonic period extends to 8 menstrual weeks.
Report comment to moderator
#38 CGIRL – David L has a suggestion for you in #14
Report comment to moderator
#40 – oh yeah that rings a bell – thanks.
Hmmm … Is there a reason to comsider “implantation” a “soul” inducing moment (so to speak)?
Report comment to moderator
I knew Spinny would be the one. Deny, deny, deny. What will it take? What will it take for you to see what you have wrought? You condemn me for condemning you for condemning an newborn infant to a torturous death. Nomal people wouldn’t do that to a dog.
Report comment to moderator
Whenever the abortion mill’s chamber of horrors make it out to the light of day I recall “Inasmuch as you did it unto the least of these you did it unto me”.
Report comment to moderator
#22 – Spinoza – Those of us who value unborn human life (right wing nutcases, as you call us) believed in your “right to life” as a legal entity when you were an embryo as well.
#32 – With modern medical advances, 22 week babies can have the possibility of survival outside of the womb. At the very least, even if they cannot survive, they should be cared for as humanely as possible. Surely you do not disagree with that.
Report comment to moderator
#32 – With modern medical advances, 22 week babies can have the possibility of survival outside of the womb. At the very least, even if they cannot survive, they should be cared for as humanely as possible. Surely you do not disagree with that.
Yes I agree!
#43 You are hallucinating again.
Report comment to moderator
#44 So Sawgunner, you have much personal experience with abortion clinics?
I think you would fare much better with the issue of “humaneness” in abortion clinics if you wouldn’t conflate it with an embryo’s putative “right to life” (something no embryo ever asked for).
Report comment to moderator
#42: Hmmm … Is there a reason to comsider “implantation” a “soul” inducing moment (so to speak)?
There are some who believe that. I don’t find it compelling, but it would be convenient.
Report comment to moderator
The world’s youngest gestational-age baby, was born at 21 weeks and six days.
Report comment to moderator
Before there can be an abortion there must be a living human being, one that is genetically distinct from the mother , unlike her skin cells or fingernails, developing in her womb. All abortions kill living, genetically distinct human beings. Spinoza, in introducing the concept of “soul” into the conversation, attempts to distract from this central biological fact with metaphysics. It isn’t Christians pro-lifers who are imposing their theology here; it is their secularist critics who use vague and subjective words like “viabililty” and “conciousness” to hide from the simple evil of killing.
The intitial post describes the practice of allowing babies who have survived the abortion to expire without necessary medical intervention, or worse, deliberately killing the child, a practice, whether widespread or not, that has been documented and against which one presidential candidate refused to offer legal protection.
Report comment to moderator
#48 It does seem to me that any such criterion would have to pertain to neurological development.
I also think it will have to be, in some sense, an almost arbitrarily chosen value.
The pre-born develop gradually, and there is no escaping this fact. Birth is an easily identifiable event and therefore convenient for legal purposes. “Third trimester” has a ring of measurability to it and hints at survivability (with medical assistance).
So when do “humane” considerations for the pre-born outweigh imposition on the mother who is asked to make all the sacrifice?
I have no idea ….
Report comment to moderator
#50 Ken, I didn’t introduce “soul” into the conversation – RR did in #21.
Your argument and emphasis on “killing” is species. It is, of course, of the greatest ethical importance to identify what is being killed. I killed a fly with a swatter this morning. Was this “the simple evil of killing.” Admittedly yes from the fly’s point of view.
And “human being” is a much vaguer term (when speaking of the pre-born) than “viability” or “consciousness”. I do not believe (and nor do most) that a fertilized embryo is a “human being.”
Report comment to moderator
“is species” oops – I meant “is specious” … (yes Darwin is alive and well in my subconscious)
Report comment to moderator
The one simple incontrovertible biological fact is that abortion kills a living and genetically distinct human being. There is nothing vague about it, or there is no such thing as western science. Trying to qualify human life with terms such “viable” and “conciousness” is far more vague than an empirically verifiable instance of a developing human life. If you refuse to believe the undeniable fact that a fertilized embryo is a “human being” then you simply don’t understand the accepted meaning of “human” and “being.”
Report comment to moderator
David L. Wow. Obama wants to keep this legal. You say people who do this should be charged with murder, and yet (I assume) you’re voting for Obama anyway?
Talk about your cognitive dissonance.
as #22 points out, you are misrepresenting Obama’s position.
Aside from that, yes … I am not a single-issue voter. I actually have a more conservative position on abortion than Obama does (though mine is more liberal than McCain’s) but I do not base my voting decision on any one issue.
On balance, I think a McCain presidency would be a disaster and an Obama presidency would be a success, though not the panacea some of his supporters expect. Therefore, I will vote for Obama even though I do not agree with him on everything.
Report comment to moderator
I have been following this thread from the beginning and have, with both sadness and a chuckle or two, watched the perverbial cats chasing each other’s tails. When there is no concensus on terminology, or foundation for values, debate is useless. I have participated in numerous debates concerning both social and biblical principles. I have found that unless there is a shared foundation for comparison, a set of absolutes for measurement, we are left with personal accusations and name calling.
Based on the facts of medical research, that life begins at conception (all data and material for life is present at that moment) and the truths of Scripture (see Ps. 139 and other such passages) I have no other choice but to value the pre-born (at any stage) and guard his/her right to life, period. Unfortunately, Spinoza, you don’t share those convictions, and have made it plainly clear that they are not even negotiable. So the debate is useless. It is similar to a discussion I got into with a ministry peer in town. The characters of Adam and Daniel came up in comparison. His response? Yes, but let’s compare two real people. End of discussion as far as I was concerned.
For someone to respond to this article at the level of outrage which I assume the author intended, one must have a value of life that reaches back beyond 22 weeks, to the very point of origin, conception. To compromise on that, is the beginning of the rationalistic process.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
So this is the gist of your position: “Obama wants to keep the murder of infants legal, but I sure do like his tax policies.”
It’s not narrow-minded to be a single-issue voter when that single issue is a life-or-death one.
“Yeah, I don’t agree with Hitler’s Jew-murdering policy, but I sure do like his economic plan.”
Report comment to moderator
In #37 Spinoza claims that talk of spirituality is “ridiculous, irrational verbiage.”
Is there any reason to take this kind of person seriously any more? There’s a certain disturbingly dystopian inflection to Spinoza’s comments. They try so hard to make lies sound believable and murder respectable, but they give absolutely no indication that an entity with a spiritual dimension is writing them. They read like the repetitive, mechanical dronings of a post-human automaton.
Report comment to moderator
There’s nothing to see here, folks. People are playing on your feelings to make you think that abortion is like childbirth. But it’s not. The only thing about abortion that’s analogous to childbirth is expulsion from the womb. The purpose of abortion is to destroy the fetus. The purpose of childbirth is to introduce the newborn into human society. The fetus expelled in the process of abortion is a dead duck — not even that.
Let not your hearts be troubled. Nothing requires you to determine the fetus to be a person. You may make that determination if you wish, but the choice is arbitrary and by no means universal, neither today nor in Bible times.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG -
It has very little relevance to the morality of a therapeutic abortion at eight weeks of pregnancy.
Very little relevance – so the killing of a 22-week old immediately after birth does have some relevance on the morality of the abortion of an 8-week old?
Please elaborate.
Report comment to moderator
You forgot to mention, Scroop Moth, that may admirable and respectable people believe that abortion isn’t really murder. That clinches the case, doesn’t it?
Because after all, if it were really wrong–like, say, the German murder of 6 million Jews–no respectable or admirable person would support it.
Report comment to moderator
#56 Pastor David – Concisely put … so there is an impasse, then? Since your view requires belief in the inspiration of scripture, does an at-conception “pro-life” position then require some kind of evangelical conversion? If so, isn’t the request to overturn Roe v. Wade for all abortions tantamount to enforcing a particular religious view on the entire citizenry?
Not very American, I’d say.
Report comment to moderator
55, So in essence, the humanity of the fetus is determined by whatever the parent wants for an outcome?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza 62 – did you not read the pastor’s comment? He did not base it wholly on scripture.
When does life begin, if not at conception, and why? And what is that thing in the womb before?
Scroop 59 – I ask you the same question.
It’s not good enough for you to simply deny that life begins at conception. Your position begs certain questions concerning the beginning of life and the mass in the womb that must either be not human or not alive.
Report comment to moderator
#58 David L. – I don’t think that “talk of spirituality” is wrong, generally, just your mangled and hyped version of it.
Report comment to moderator
As often happens, Spinoza you passed right over the statement obout the depth of supportable data from medical and biological science. Several years ago, Time magazine (I believe it was Time) did a spread on the medical evidence being revealed about the support for conception being the basis and beginning of life. I believe it covered about 5 pages. It then went on with it’s liberal agenda in support of abortion. The contrast was striking. 5 pages supporting conception followed by a support for killing (my words) the very life they discussed. Banishing abortion is not simply a “religious” arguement, it has many supporters who acknowledge the “reasonableness” of a pro-life agenda based on good and consistent science.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza 62 – did you not read the pastor’s comment? He did not base it wholly on scripture.
No not “wholly” – but “human being” at conception part inevitably rests on a religious view from one’s interpretation of scripture.
No?
When does life begin, if not at conception, and why?
A “human life” begins at birth.
And what is that thing in the womb before?
A fetus. It has much less neurological complexity than an adult dog. Hence, as NJL would say, “Normal people wouldn’t do that [abortion] to a dog.”
Rightly so, perhaps, except that they do do it to dogs all the time. And cows and pigs and rabbits and elk and moose and deer, etc., etc.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza -
Are you trying to say that a fetus is not human, or is not alive? Please elaborate. I’m missing it.
A fetus is a young human being, Spinoza. Just like an infant is a young human being, and an octogenarian is an old one.
It has much less neurological complexity than an adult dog.\
Relevance? Does neurological complexity make one human? Would not an infant fail the test? At what point does this arbitrary measure make one a human being?
Report comment to moderator
#47 Personal experience? Nope. But then again do I have to plunge my hand into a bucket of hot tar in order to know its hot and gooey?
Report comment to moderator
Several years ago, Time magazine (I believe it was Time) did a spread on the medical evidence being revealed about the support for conception being the basis and beginning of life. I believe it covered about 5 pages.
Again I think there is a fundamental confusion of terms here which you all do not want to acknowledge. Is a sperm “alive”? Yes. Is it a “life”? Not by the standard usage of the term. You are confusing multiple uses of the terms living and life. And you absolutely refuse to define what you mean by a “life,” unless you’re honest like RR and say “soul.”
Ken has added “genetically distinct” from the mother as a criterion, but I see no ethical justification for this criterion.
A casual visit to dictionary.com reveals 36 definitions for “life.” Which one are you using? The medical aspects of an embryo from which you deduce there is a “life” are not qualitatively different from that of a fly and do not support the usage of a “human life” as it is traditionally used. The “human” aspects of the embryo are no different from those of a skin cell.
It is conservatives that have blurred and misused words here when they simply assert that a fertilized embryo is a “human life.”
Not yet it ain’t!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza -
Why birth?
Consider the before and after – before and after conception, and before and after birth. Which would best indicate the presence of a new human life?
Report comment to moderator
#63 Yes, that’s the beauty of it. The essence of “humanity” doesn’t inhere in the biological being of the fetus, neither human nor non-human. As with a cake mix, you add an egg and a cup of milk and bake until brown. Unlike other species, homo sapiens emerges “pre-human” in order to have a large enough brain to become human.
DAVIDL — thanks for the addendum. I’d say admirable and rational.
This is the point where I have to drop out, because further arguments will all boil down to the fact that Moth is the most unpopular insect on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza -
Just about any of them will do. If a separate human life begins, it begins at conception. There is no other benchmark that makes more sense.
This is only logical.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, I find it intriquing that you enter a “Christian” news site, engage in dialogue, only to demand that the spiritual be removed from the discussion. What you consider things of myth and quickly religate them to the margins, others of us consider things of absolute fact and realize the concrete foundation for life. To us these “religious ideas” and principles are tangible realities that give us reason, purpose, basis for ethic and morality, etc. To us, all life is precious and human life particularly (since we are created in the image of God). But without that understanding, we have no value until we are viable (or worth valuing because of some utilitarian quality) and therefore carry no particular value over the dogs, cows, pigs, rabbits, etc.
Report comment to moderator
The “human” aspects of the embryo are no different from those of a skin cell.
A skin cell is not a complete (albeit young) human life. I think that is a significant difference. Try again.
Report comment to moderator
#68 Amphipolis – repeating the word “human being” over and over again is not an argument. If you want to compel women to have babies when they 1) do not want to and/or 2) are ill-equipped to be parents, then it is incumbent on YOU to establish that an embryo is – at that stage – a legal entity worth all that sacrifice. Simply naming it with a new usage of the word human being will not do. I do not for a minute believe an embryo is a “human being” in any metaphysical sense worthy of legal protection. I’m quite certain the embryo doesn’t think so either. Mainly because it doesn’t think at all.
It is not more “human” than a skin cell
It is not more of a “being” than an amoeba.
Report comment to moderator
A skin cell is not a complete (albeit young) human life.
What makes an embryo a “complete” “human life” – it is not one.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza -
When does human life begin, and why is a fetus not simply a young human life?
Answer the question.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza -
Why is an embryo not a complete human life?
Report comment to moderator
#74 So I was right – religious considerations (not medical) are the basis of your view.
While I respect your right to believe this, I strongly oppose your endeavor to impose it on the whole country! Is that so hard to understand?
Report comment to moderator
79 Why is it?
How is it “complete”? It’s just a single cell. It has no brain and, therefore, no “mind”. It has no “will”. How is that a “complete human being?”
How is it a “life” – in the sense of living in a period of “animate existence,” traditionally interpreted as from birth to death.
Report comment to moderator
#78 No you answer the question!
Report comment to moderator
72: so a full-sized brain = humanity. Best infanticide rationale I’ve ever heard.
Report comment to moderator
#78 You have finally convinced me that – the sense in which you use “human life” refers to post-birth.
The bigger question to me is whether or not pre-human life should be protected at some point.
Report comment to moderator
#83 – How so – infants have brains…
Report comment to moderator
I have answered the question that you flee from.
Human life does begin, and therefore it must begin at conception. Because there is no other time that makes more sense.
You need to show a better benchmark, or you have no position on this issue. Youth does not make one less human, or less alive.
Report comment to moderator
Not hard to understand at all. But please tell me, at what point did the minority win the right to dominate the majority? And since when did the courts of our land recieve from the vote of the people, the right to make laws based on their particular point of view. And I think I plainly explained that my reasoning was based on valid reason and God’s Word. Contrary to what you obviously think of us Christians, I choose not to “check my brains at the door.” But it is clear that you are evaluating the data from a different perspective than I.
Report comment to moderator
PASTORDAVID – “But without that understanding, we have no value until we are viable (or worth valuing because of some utilitarian quality) and therefore carry no particular value over the dogs, cows, pigs, rabbits, etc.”
With all due respect, I think you vastly undervalue dogs, cows, pigs, and rabbits.
Report comment to moderator
You need to show a better benchmark, or you have no position on this issue.
I’ve already said I don’t have a well-defined position on this issue. The only firm conclusion I hold is that embryos are not legal human-life entities. There’s no merit in adopting a wrong idea simply for the purpose of “having a position.”
#87 These political questions are beside the point I’m considering, which is to formulate a personal view on the ethics of abortion. Until I do, I see no reason to discuss the politics of advocacy one way or another. I don’t think it is incumbent on me to legally defend or oppose Roe V Wade.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza -
You have no basis for your conclusion if you can’t say when human life begins. Your conclusion is no better than Pastor David’s, even if his was totally based on scripture.
It is not reasonable. Conception is reasonable, and you have not been able to dispute this.
Report comment to moderator
On the contrary, I have great respect and value for dogs. I have had many as pets for years. And as for cows, pigs, and rabbits; they are of great value, especially with a little bar-b-que sauce. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Report comment to moderator
Well I’m happy for your dogs …
#90 I did say that, human life, as you use the term, begins at birth.
Report comment to moderator
And as for cows, pigs, and rabbits; they are of great value, especially with a little bar-b-que sauce.
Yes, I imagine a fetus would do as well. I suppose they taste just like chicken.
Report comment to moderator
85: read 72. Brain at 8 months fetal development weighs, say 4 oz, and, say, 5 oz a couple weeks after birth. But continues to grow in mass along with the skull until adolescence.
How, then, is a newborn’s brain full sized? Is there some magic humanity line between 4 and 5 oz? What about preemies – are they fully conscious and learning un-humans until that day when their brains are large enough?
In short, why are you defending Scroop’s ridiculous argument?
Report comment to moderator
#94 You are the one who raised the issue of “size” not me – perhaps this is part of some discussion I’m not familiar with?
Is there an objective line in neurological complexity (not size) that could be drawn pre-birth for the purpose of granting legal entity status to a fetus? Probably not! I’m sure you could arbitrarily choose one, though. Where should it be drawn? I don’t know.
After this discussion, I lean toward the importance of humane termination of pregnancy with no clear principle in sight for the justification of preserving the unborn over the mother’s choice to not have a child.
Report comment to moderator
#94 – sorry – just read “72″
I don’t see how Scroop’s point translates to a size criterion for abortion, except that he rightly points out that humans are born with less capacity to function independently and more need for a long period of nurture than any other mammal. In that sense, human infants are more “pre-human” than puppies are, say, “pre-dog”.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza -
Why is a fetus not a younger human life? What changed at birth that made it human or alive – any more than the numerous other changes that happen as a person ages?
Or, how can you say that a fetus is not as much a living human life as an infant is?
See post 71.
Report comment to moderator
One more time, read 72. Size appears to be SM’s crazy idea, not mine.
As for the rest, if there is no objective line in neurological complexity between a more-developed and a less-developed fetus, then that is all the more reason to be inclusive (to the least developed) in granting legal protection.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting discussion all, got to go…
Report comment to moderator
And I hadn’t had the chance to read 96 when I wrote 98. I am going by this sentence: “Unlike other species, homo sapiens emerges ‘pre-human’ in order to have a large enough brain to become human.” If “emerges” refers to birth not conception, then babies are not human until they cease to grow in size, apparently. If the referent is conception, then it becomes human sometime during fetal development.
Report comment to moderator
#98 Yes perhaps, but what is missing from the right is *any* acknowledgment of the burden on the mother. There is only castigation for someone unwilling to “sacrifice” as if either 1) all such women are just scum or 2) any fertilized egg cell has the right to derail a woman’s life.
There are too many people in the world. Forced child-bearing on the unwilling is fraught with all kinds of evil.
Ergo, the standard for protection of a fetus should be very high.
Report comment to moderator
101. Yes, it’s more than a fertilized egg cell, and that tiny babe does have rights that can intrude on its mother’s. But this is hardly news. Nor is the fact of churches like mine that are only too willing to help.
Report comment to moderator
“Yes, I imagine a fetus would do as well. I suppose they taste just like chicken.”
You should be ashamed.
Report comment to moderator
I am not ashamed of giving up eating mammals altogether, even though PASTORDAVID thinks it cutesy to brag about his barbecue. I think it no more cutesy than eating a fetus. Is my point!
Report comment to moderator
Maybe stubob can help here, but as an RN, I don’t know of any medical condition that would require an abortion. They do surgery in cases where a mother’s life would be jeopardized, and the child is taken to a NICU, which were just getting started in the 70’s. We take care of babies that are 23 weeks and older. 22 weeks is not viable, but that doesn’t mean it should be tortured, burned or hacked to death, or that society should have that option. Abortions for the life of the mother is smoke and mirrors.
Report comment to moderator
22 weeks is not viable, but that doesn’t mean it should be tortured, burned or hacked to death, or that society should have that option.
Unless I’m gravely mistaken, nobody here thinks that.
Report comment to moderator
David L. writes: So this is the gist of your position: “Obama wants to keep the murder of infants legal, but I sure do like his tax policies.”
Oh, snap!
Report comment to moderator
Well most likely the 22-week old topic of the article felt nothing, so “torture” is probably an inappropriate accusation:
A review by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in JAMA concluded that data from dozens of medical reports and studies indicate that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy. There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.
Report comment to moderator
More from wikipedia on the debate on “personhood” (you won’t like Peter Singer, I’m afraid):
Establishing the point in time when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a “person” is open to debate since the definition of “personhood” is not universally agreed upon.
Peter Singer argued that something can only be a person if it is self-aware and has temporal awareness. Therefore, abortion is morally acceptable, because a fetus does not meet this definition of personhood. Singer also concluded that infanticide would be permissible until the 3rd month after birth, because, at that point, self-awareness has still not been acquired.
A religious individual, on the other hand, might argue that one becomes a person at the moment of ensoulment. The precise point at which this event occurs, however, varies depending upon the religion, sect, or theologians.
Paul Ramsey and Charles Curran asserted that abortion, before 14th day of pregnancy, was acceptable, because after this point the division of the zygote through the process of monozygotic twinning becomes impossible. Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried in the first two to three weeks after pregnancy can be detected. Curran also suggested that the developing embryo should not be considered a person until its chance of survival to live birth was greater than one half.
In 1988, the Anglican Archbishop of York, John Habgood, argued that personhood begins with cellular differentiation.
Report comment to moderator
#107 An elegant contribution to the discussion, nearly as erudite as the original post!
Report comment to moderator
#107 And did I mention “brilliant” “astute”? Up there with a vigilante mob yelling “Drill Baby Drill”? Kinda like:
See 1:30 minutes into http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=187569&title=6-degrees-of-desperation
Report comment to moderator
Actually – go straight to 3:40 on that video … tee hee
Report comment to moderator
“Oh, snap” What does this mean? I see this all the time, but I can’t quite get a handle on what it’s supposed to express.
Report comment to moderator
The central argument for or against in any abortion discussion centers around the meaning of human, person, and rights. The wikipedia quote is pertinent. To be a person includes communication, emotive, viability and awareness. I think Singer stretches the time line but pro-life and the Catholic church also stretch the time lines the other way. In trying to establish a moderate position and one that can be logically defended beyond religious pronouncements, I would suggest the evidence points to a compromise with greater access to abortions in the early stages of pregnancy with restrictions once past the 22 week mark.
The born alive acts seem to be redundant and duplicating current infanticide laws. If incidents such as the post above occur then apply the infanticide act.
Report comment to moderator
This isn’t a facetious question just an honest inquiry: Does a fetus feel pain and react to stimuli? What is the level of brain development in such a fetus? These are key questions regarding whether the fetus should have human rights. What do you think the cognitive development of a fetus is?
Report comment to moderator
Why don’t you characters just come out and say you’d drown the baby like an unwanted dog. That’s all the baby is to you. You people are not human.
When you start defining who is a citizen and who is not, you disgrace us all. Whose next on your list? Fricasee old person.
You people are sick.
Report comment to moderator
Anne (#105): The only thing I can think of would be a situation where a woman required, say, chemotherapy urgently. I had a patient once who had a recurrent, aggressive malignant melanoma diagnosed at about 30 weeks. The oncologist was pretty sure she wouldn’t live to term without chemo, so I delivered her then. The same patient, diagnosed at 16 weeks, likely would have aborted.
The favorite examples of the pro-aborts, though, revolve around cardiac disease. Though they swear it happens, I’ve never seen a pregnant woman whose cardiac status justified abortion to preserve her life.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe (115): Does a fetus feel pain and react to stimuli? What is the level of brain development in such a fetus? These are key questions regarding whether the fetus should have human rights
Why are these questions key? Do you really want to assign human rights based on cognition?
Report comment to moderator
A fertilized egg is not a baby. Are there ANY conservative Christians who will support such a proposition?
Report comment to moderator
RR: so a full-sized brain = humanity. Best infanticide rationale I’ve ever heard.
Yes, brain development would be part of a rationale for infanticide, if there were no other reasons against infanticide. The remarkable thing about the brain is that it is as big as it can be at birth, yet pitifully undeveloped and inadequate for survival. The brain continues on a path of physical development which is structured by socialization. As pointed out above, your pet puppy has more intelligence and “personality” than a human newborn.
Infanticide can injure the social bonds that humans rely on to nurture personhood. Other species habitually destroy their own newborns, but ours represent too great an investment of energy and too strategic an asset. Treating a newborn as a person is one of the things that makes personhood. Further, the infant is physically present in the public realm of law, unlike the fetus which exists in a private space. If I thought abortion compromised human capacity to welcome and nurture newborns, I might re-estimate the ethics, but people who have abortions can later be good parents, maybe better.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: To be a person includes communication, emotive, viability and awareness.
And also a personal history of the same. The fetus has no personal history.
“Born alive” acts are strategic efforts to undermine abortion rights by creating precedents that construct the fetus as a person based on emotional analogies to the newborn and making a semantic confusion between abortion and birth.
Report comment to moderator
#104-
I had decided to leave this thread but came back to check the direction it had taken. Spinoza, if I had known that you held a conviction against eating mammals, I would not have made such a comment. Though I disagree with your perspective, I am not in the practice of purposefully pushing peoples hot-buttons or insulting their convictions. I am sorry for the off-handed comment. It was not intended to offend. I do, however, find it interesting to see your level of angst at my comment, when you don’t seem to have a problem with the killing (I know you don’t consider it killing) of a 22 month pre-born baby. I’m gone. Again, sorry for the unintentional offense Spinoza.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, that should have read, 22week, pre-born baby.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, according to the Wikipedia quote, my son has only recently become a person, even though he’s 8 years old. It may suit the views of eugenicists, but it isn’t true.
Infanticide laws usually specifically exempt the children of mothers who want them dead, and hire a licensed abortionist to ‘off’ the baby.
You seem to me to be a deeply caring person HRW, and I do hope that you will come to include even the littlest babies in that.
Report comment to moderator
Does a fetus feel pain and react to stimuli?
Yes, studies have shown that fetuses react to pain. I’m surprised you didn’t already know this, as most pro-abortion people dismiss that fact as irrelevant.
Report comment to moderator
Well I for one don’t believe a fertilized egg is a human being but if you convince me with enough scientific evidence that the fetus feels pain and reacts to stimuli I will morally and legally oppose the act.
Report comment to moderator
In the past I’ve worked with severe autistic teens, looking into their blank non-communicative and non-emotive faces often left me wondering what is it to be human, far more and more in-depth than any philosophy class I’ve taken. I’ve also cared for 4-5 year olds who had very little in the way of communicative skills but emotively they demonstrated to me far more than many adults what it meant to be human.
I disagree with Singer’s extremism but I believe a discussion can take place so that a reasonable consensus can take place on the ideas of human, person and rights. To suggest fertilization is the only answer simplifies the process of human creation and limits the voice of the mother. The medieval idea of “quickening” and the modern concept of viability suggests good starting points.
As Scroop Moth points out the Born Alive legislation seeks to poison the issue and threatens to derail any attempt at consensus.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast is correct (mark this occasion in your calendar, hell just froze over) in that a fetus will feel pain. However, a recently fertilized egg prior to implantation will not nor is there anything to suggest that the first few weeks after implantation that nerve receptors are functioning enough for pain reception. Once you establish that pain is felt you need to establish at what level. I have no doubt that the lowliest insect, small mammals and other animals also feel pain yet this does not make them human nor a person. Pain is a relevant issue but its not the defining issue.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll pull this one back out, since it still rings true, and was spoken by someone much wiser than I am: A fetus does not look or act very much like we do, but looks and acts much like we did at that at that age. Good luck with delineating a distinction that most of us fellow former fetuses will find convincing.
And to those that reckon an at-some-point uwanted pregnancy an unalterable and catastrophic derailment of a woman’s life, please consider expanding your ikmagination. Consider redemption, hope and change. It’s what you contend to be about if your current spokesman is any indication. An unwanted pregnancy doesn’t have to be, and there are plenty of Christians, despite your lame characterizations, who will step in, and have done so, to turn death and desolation into something better.
Regards,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Or, they can remain our Resident Ghouls.
Report comment to moderator
abortion in ALL its forms……..is murder.
end of story
Report comment to moderator
What I don’t understand is why the pro-choice people always fall back to the embryo stage (8 weeks or younger), and consistently ignore the rest the pregnancy.
I imagine it is because aborting an embryo is more easily morally defensible in their minds.
I DO believe the embryo is human, but — if the pro-choice people insist on defending abortion with embryos (which they do about 95% of the time) — then why can’t we all agree at least on no abortions after 8 weeks when the heart starts beating?
Spinoza, how is the baby different five minute before it is born and five minutes after? It’s brain is the SAME at that point, so your arguments fall flat.
Report comment to moderator
Does a fetus feel pain and react to stimuli? What is the level of brain development in such a fetus? These are key questions regarding whether the fetus should have human rights.
OUTKAST’s nonsense (and pro-life propaganda) aside, the medical answer on wikipedia seems well referenced and says:
Fetal pain, its existence, and its implications are part of a larger debate about abortion. Though many researchers in the area of fetal development agree a fetus is unlikely to feel pain until after the seventh month of pregnancy,[1][2][3] legislation has been proposed by pro-life advocates requiring abortion providers to tell a woman that the fetus may feel pain during an abortion procedure.[4]
A review by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in JAMA concluded that data from dozens of medical reports and studies indicate that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.[5][6] There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[7] Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it may be “impossible to know” when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[8]
Clearly, an aborted pre-23-week fetus feels much less pain than, say, a slaughtered cow.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, how is the baby different five minute before it is born and five minutes after? It’s brain is the SAME at that point, so your arguments fall flat.
The brain changes rapidly with sensory stimulus. Birth is the beginning of in-the-world stimulus that marks a human lifetime. Since y’all have been so unwilling to define what you mean by a “human life,” I have inferred form your usage that what you mean is what begins at birth. This is not to say that the third-trimester pre-born human is unworthy of any consideration. Were I a gravida with a third-term fetus, I would have it! But in the face of all this ambiguity, I don’t think I should impose my view on another woman. At this point (and I’m still thinking about it), I am more decided (on the basis of the discussion here) that the woman having the kid should get to decide.
Report comment to moderator
SG – An unwanted pregnancy doesn’t have to be, and there are plenty of Christians, despite your lame characterizations, who will step in, and have done so, to turn death and desolation into something better.
Well good for you – but until you’re prepared to do so for every case, you have no right to pressure all women to bring embryos to term.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. This reminds me of the poverty issue. Christians are more focused on their own self-righteous contributions than on the magnitude of the problem. It is apparently ok to vote against government assistance of the poor because Christians do a little charity work here and there. So what if it doesn’t even begin to address the problem? Christians don’t care about anything but their own self-righteous acts!
Report comment to moderator
You misread, Spinoza. Forget it. I was looking for ways to temper absolutism on one hand and fatalism on the other. Seems you would just rather rather bash Christians with caricatures and bumperstickerisms. Just forget it.
Take care,
SG
Report comment to moderator
You misread, Spinoza.
ok then sorry – but the point you made is awfully like one made more frequently here and to which I therefore kneejerkedly replied.
I think today’s pro-choice view is already more nuanced along the lines you suggest. There is a real wish to decrease the number of abortions and aid women in their choice – either way – than there was, say, 10 years ago. Conservatives could encourage this, but they tend not to, because they’re so busy issuing ultimatums about embryos.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Spinoza. I appreciate your comment. There’s something deeply, and on more than one level, broken when a woman aborts her baby with the complicity of others. Broken in the relationship that resulted in any unwanted child, broken in the family that can’t find a way to redeem a difficult situation, broken in a system of supports that can’t summon enough help for those who are most likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy, and yes, broken in a culture that is willing in its laws to trade the right to life for the right to pursuing happiness. On most of these fronts, the problems are moral, not political, and I suspect so are the solutions. But I’m still waiting for leaders from either political party to stand up and take this on in a serious-minded way, and in a way that rigorously measures the effects of their policies tangibly, by their ability to reduce the number of deaths. We need less people who use the brokennness of abortion as a rung to step up on on their way to power, and more folks like C. Everett Koop who see it as symptomatic of an illness that should be prevented and treated whether or not he gains something from it or makes friends by it.
Regards,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Agreed!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!