Years ago I remember reading the book "Hawaii" and the missionary's zeal in saving the souls of the island natives. At one point a severely malformed islander's baby is allowed to drown and the missionary pastor regrets that the baby was not allowed to live so he could have converted it. His wife turns to him and questions that he thought so little of the child's life. That these "candidates" are opportunistic to the highest degree caring nothing for the lives they will affect with their ambition goes without saying. The fact that they care so little about the lives that result from their ambition always brings me back to that scene. All their talk about "life" has little meaning except for their ambition.
38
You have to understand that the abortion issue is not about abortion at all and is not a fact-based issue. It is about garnering political support on a highly emotionally charged stance, based on an identification with 'unborn babies', which is an inherently oxymoronic and self-contradictory term and is at odds with religious history, science, ethics, and law, because the alleged concern for the well being of fetuses is used as a proxy to exert physical political power over women and their bodies, the place where the fetuses exists and are dependent on. Such fundamental facts are completely ignored and are never discussed, but rather, blame is put on the sexual behavior of women in getting pregnant, though this clearly requires another human being of the opposite gender, who is never held to account for the procreative activity. Any child can recognize the difference between a fetus and a baby, because the latter has been born and is an individual being. Beyond the epistemological aspects, there is also the practical aspect of collective human behavior and what actions or policies effectively result in fewer abortions, in which the pro-life movement also appears entirely disinterested, and actively opposes.
49
I am as pro-choice as they get. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that what a woman decides to do with HER OWN PRIVATE BODY is grounds for political hellfire, argued by privilged men who live in la-la land. Educate the public and leave Planned Parenthood alone to do their very important job-providing care for all women who need it. I stand by the simple, timeless old adage: Don't like abortion? Don't have one!
68
The neocons' fight against women's reproductive rights, along with their fights against immigration and minority voting rights and government social programs, feeds into their narcissistic beliefs that wealthy Christian older white men should go back to ruling the US while the rest of society is subserviant to them, i.e. return to the plantation days. And these same men have no qualms about getting a vasectomy or bringing their daughters in for abortions for unwanted pregnancies. Trump and the rest of the '16 GOP presidential field are just the latest examples of this self centered way of thinking. Then they wonder why they've lost 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
17
Don't get me wrong: That is one well written article.
I simply don't care.
I haven't cared since Hobby Lobby.
Hobby Lobby was a simple case.
A loosely-based group of a family (the Greens?) own a company named Hobby Lobby. This group of people (as opposed to their 'company') profess to be a specific branch of Christianity. Their specific branch of Christianity professes to know exactly when 'life' occurs.
In fact, this is a misnomer: They mean "ensoulment", not "life".
They insist that it is not just they who hold these closely-held beliefs, but that their corporation does. They are not arguing that they as "individuals' hold these beliefs, but that they 'as a group' hold these beliefs, and so, co-incidently, since they all own this business, that it is the business that 'holds' this belief.
It's like Romney said, "Corporations are people, too!"
So, when the Supreme Court ruled that a business, any business, has religious values that are superior to actual living human beings, then the Court was de facto making every American an adherent to whatever religion it is that the Green Group believes in. We are all HobbyLobbists. All Green family members are all Hobbylobbists. Not one of them can ever change their religion, become atheist, or Jewish or Catholic. Religion in this country is now fixed and immutable. HL will tell you what you believe.
"Life", in this matter does not equal "conception".
"Life" in this matter equals "ensoulment".
HL will define that.
Not you.
I simply don't care.
I haven't cared since Hobby Lobby.
Hobby Lobby was a simple case.
A loosely-based group of a family (the Greens?) own a company named Hobby Lobby. This group of people (as opposed to their 'company') profess to be a specific branch of Christianity. Their specific branch of Christianity professes to know exactly when 'life' occurs.
In fact, this is a misnomer: They mean "ensoulment", not "life".
They insist that it is not just they who hold these closely-held beliefs, but that their corporation does. They are not arguing that they as "individuals' hold these beliefs, but that they 'as a group' hold these beliefs, and so, co-incidently, since they all own this business, that it is the business that 'holds' this belief.
It's like Romney said, "Corporations are people, too!"
So, when the Supreme Court ruled that a business, any business, has religious values that are superior to actual living human beings, then the Court was de facto making every American an adherent to whatever religion it is that the Green Group believes in. We are all HobbyLobbists. All Green family members are all Hobbylobbists. Not one of them can ever change their religion, become atheist, or Jewish or Catholic. Religion in this country is now fixed and immutable. HL will tell you what you believe.
"Life", in this matter does not equal "conception".
"Life" in this matter equals "ensoulment".
HL will define that.
Not you.
25
I have six million women with IUDs in my practice. Your national number must be off by a factor of ten or a hundred.
6
I never discuss: religion, politics or women's rights to decide. I do constantly question the grounds of where many or our political candidates stand. The hypocrisy is stunning. Protect zygote at all costs then once born, throw baby and bath water out, you're on your own here, we're rugged individualists. I'm pretty sure all save one or two red states are pro death penalty. I guess once a fertilized attached egg becomes a rugged individual, he can then be executed proper, by the State. Better yet, they can join the military and kill or be killed for others financial gain, nothing wrong with that, right?
If you are truly pro life: you are against all abortion, against all state sanctioned killing, against all police killing, against all war and against all of the needless suffering and death that happens to the unfortunates of the world because they were born in the wrong place. What else would be rational?
If you are truly pro life: you are against all abortion, against all state sanctioned killing, against all police killing, against all war and against all of the needless suffering and death that happens to the unfortunates of the world because they were born in the wrong place. What else would be rational?
39
An appeal to Republican parents of girls:
Apply your "life begins at conception" mantra to your own flesh and blood.
Nature makes a girl an adult woman about age 13. Religious/Political fundamentalists also spout this stone age view. Rape, incest, foolishness, destroys a child-woman's life. Have you no shame?
I ask you: Would you love the child of a rapist or would you turn your daughter out on the street at 13 as an adult woman if she were pregnant after being raped? Do you arrange her marriage for her instead and force-keep (imprison) her at home until your will is done? Would you force her to hide herself from all contact with mixed company of her own age? Would you murder her if she wanted to marry outside you marriage plans? Does this sound like an ancient Christian/Judaic concept now seen in modern Muslim Fundamentalism? It SHOULD!
Modern civilization (post dark ages, reformation, etc.) makes a girl an adult woman about age 18 when she reaches maximum mental ability to care for a child she chooses to have. Ultra-conservative Fundamentalist religions (and their fundamentalist spouting leader "wanna bes") of all stripes (here and abroad) make a girl a woman before her time and de-humanize her into a incubator for the children of men.
Religions consider all children mature enough to dedicate themselves to the beliefs of the parents between 11 and 13. Would you make your son serve in warfare at age 13? Fundamentalists abroad do have "child soldiers".
Enough said!
Apply your "life begins at conception" mantra to your own flesh and blood.
Nature makes a girl an adult woman about age 13. Religious/Political fundamentalists also spout this stone age view. Rape, incest, foolishness, destroys a child-woman's life. Have you no shame?
I ask you: Would you love the child of a rapist or would you turn your daughter out on the street at 13 as an adult woman if she were pregnant after being raped? Do you arrange her marriage for her instead and force-keep (imprison) her at home until your will is done? Would you force her to hide herself from all contact with mixed company of her own age? Would you murder her if she wanted to marry outside you marriage plans? Does this sound like an ancient Christian/Judaic concept now seen in modern Muslim Fundamentalism? It SHOULD!
Modern civilization (post dark ages, reformation, etc.) makes a girl an adult woman about age 18 when she reaches maximum mental ability to care for a child she chooses to have. Ultra-conservative Fundamentalist religions (and their fundamentalist spouting leader "wanna bes") of all stripes (here and abroad) make a girl a woman before her time and de-humanize her into a incubator for the children of men.
Religions consider all children mature enough to dedicate themselves to the beliefs of the parents between 11 and 13. Would you make your son serve in warfare at age 13? Fundamentalists abroad do have "child soldiers".
Enough said!
16
Alas, this article is so chock full of confusion that it feeds the very people it wishes to criticize. The question when something is alive is completely separate from the question of when pregnancy begins. The question when something is alive is also distinct from the question of what it is that is alive. The question when human life begins is not separate from the question of what it is for something to be a human being. So the question when does life begin is distinct from the question when does human life begin, as one may question whether a zygote is a human life. One might have a complex view of what a human life is. And this is more a philosophical, social, and lexicographical question and not precisely a medical question. For example, does human life evolve in stages (kinetics, sensitivity, viability, etc.), or should we distinguish personhood from mere human life? So if abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, it does not follow that all pre-natal terminations of human life are terminations of a pregnancy. That is something to argue. The implausibility of identifying the two, like the implausibility of saying that the only distinction between a human being and a pre-human being is whether it is inside or outside the womb (as the anti-abortion philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe liked to point out) merely feeds those who want to say that the full human life begins at conception. It is very important to do much better. It is also more difficult.
3
A lot of assertions, not so much content.
4
Belief in reincarnation had many roots in early Christianity.
Perhaps a "new age" variation of reincarnation can be found in abstract quantum physics theories regarding the possibility of multiple, parallel dimensions of existence.
I hereby toss the following idea into the "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" arena.
I propose that if a "potential" human, for any reason, is not able to develop into a "full, actual", born-into-the world human being, then that potential human gets to try again in a different dimension of existence.
We may all be living alternative, parallel lives in other dimensions at this moment.
Perhaps a "new age" variation of reincarnation can be found in abstract quantum physics theories regarding the possibility of multiple, parallel dimensions of existence.
I hereby toss the following idea into the "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" arena.
I propose that if a "potential" human, for any reason, is not able to develop into a "full, actual", born-into-the world human being, then that potential human gets to try again in a different dimension of existence.
We may all be living alternative, parallel lives in other dimensions at this moment.
4
I reject the religious belief that personhood begins at conception. Personhood is synonymous with consciousness which emerges with the presence of a normal human brain wave near the end of the second trimester, which also coincides with viability.
"Life" begins before conception, aren't the egg and sperm alive? let's drop this, we don't make laws based on religious beliefs. Sure we are a predominately Christian culture but our government and laws are agnostic.
"Life" begins before conception, aren't the egg and sperm alive? let's drop this, we don't make laws based on religious beliefs. Sure we are a predominately Christian culture but our government and laws are agnostic.
23
Why is no one questioning these people about IVF and other fertility treatments? It is a certainty that fertilized eggs were destroyed and/or failed to implant during all of the early studies of fertility treatments. It is also a certainty that fertilized eggs fail to implant or are destroyed/frozen/flushed every day now that fertility treatments are so common. Make these candidates say whether or not they are opposed to fertility treatments and watch the furor erupt because they will not be able to wiggle out of that conundrum if they believe that life begins upon fertilization.
15
This is a very informative article. The complicated process of the initiation of pregnancy shows how there is a urgent need for education at all levels to avoid the current misrepresentations being put out in the run up to the 2016 election.
The general agreement shown by the national pols gives reason for hope that abortion can eventually be discussed logically and avoid the heated nonsense which accomplishes very little except divides us as a Nation.
The general agreement shown by the national pols gives reason for hope that abortion can eventually be discussed logically and avoid the heated nonsense which accomplishes very little except divides us as a Nation.
If a zygote is defined as a full-fledged person immediately after conception occurs, doesn't it follow that all persons conceived in the U.S. should be legally recognized as "conception-right" citizens, with all the appropriate rights appertaining? I welcome the candidates' views on the issue of anchor fetuses.
12
I am pro-choice, but I cannot sit by and watch our side chop up language to make a point. Political correctness is not the way to win the abortion debate. This article contains many skewed definitions, is unwilling to look at the topic objectively, and mixes up concepts of pregnancy and life. I am lost.
Let's try to define facts. Life starts at conception. Abortion does take the life of a viable human. Pregnancy starts with implantation and ends with delivery. As a woman gets further into the course of pregnancy, the concept of abortion becomes more difficult for many of us. The courts have more or less chosen a viability outside of the womb as the point on the slippery slope where abortion is wrong. But there is such a point.
Women faced with choosing to terminate a pregnancy must balance the willingness to take a real potential life against the effects on their own well-being and body. Please don't mince words to make the point.
To be honest, those of us who are pro-choice simply do not value life enough at these early stages and are willing to look away. Sounds brutal, but we place more value on a women's rights. I have no problem here. The Republican arguments do make some sense. It is taking of a life.
Our side would do better to take the stance that the government does not have a say. That does not dismiss us from the responsibility to define certain limits of when life does matter most. We should stop pretending otherwise.
Let's try to define facts. Life starts at conception. Abortion does take the life of a viable human. Pregnancy starts with implantation and ends with delivery. As a woman gets further into the course of pregnancy, the concept of abortion becomes more difficult for many of us. The courts have more or less chosen a viability outside of the womb as the point on the slippery slope where abortion is wrong. But there is such a point.
Women faced with choosing to terminate a pregnancy must balance the willingness to take a real potential life against the effects on their own well-being and body. Please don't mince words to make the point.
To be honest, those of us who are pro-choice simply do not value life enough at these early stages and are willing to look away. Sounds brutal, but we place more value on a women's rights. I have no problem here. The Republican arguments do make some sense. It is taking of a life.
Our side would do better to take the stance that the government does not have a say. That does not dismiss us from the responsibility to define certain limits of when life does matter most. We should stop pretending otherwise.
4
There is a lot of dogmatic assertion ("Life starts at conception") with very little argument and no data to justify them in this comment.
24
"Abortion does take the life of a viable human." - ummm, not if the abortion is prior to a set number of weeks, usually around 22. A fetus at 10 weeks generally cannot survive outside the womb. Another false argument put forth by Republicans, who clearly care more about a "child" prior to delivery than after delivery.
15
To be clear, a fetus that has implanted in the womb is "viable". It is likely to survive if pregnancy is continued. As I said above, "viability outside the womb" is something else and is the definition the court uses. Both Kim and Len here are playing the politically correct game of mincing words. Abortion is termination of life, but a woman's right to choose is more important. Words don't make the problem go away. Just get the Republicans out of our personal lives.
3
Why don't Republicans just end the shenanigans and call for women and their doctors to be prosecuted for abortions. At the end of the day - this is what making abortions illegal should be all about. The fetus is a person, abortion is murder - thus the doctor who performs and the woman who terminates should be charged with murder. If the husband/boyfriend is an accomplice - he should be charged as well. Perhaps even contraception falls into this category - then we should prosecute pharmacists as well. Quit hiding behind a facade of small steps - get to the real deal.
7
I believe that human kinds moral, spiritual, religious, ethical nature is a result of evolution. The supreme creator and another life after this one is a meaningful hoax thrown into the mix a few thousand years ago. This "eternal soul" is the problem for the religious cripples who fanatically oppose abortion. Abortion is very sad in any case. However, if there really is a Creator, it would be no problem for Him/Her to give the aborted soul a life through another womb.
3
And, just stepping back for a moment to look at actual abortion statistics in the U.S.: According to the Guttmacher Institute ('quick facts"), about 1.06 million abortions were performed in the U.S. (2011). And, "About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy (during their lifetime) and nearly 3 in 10 will have an abortion, by age 45." Let's assume that these facts are accurate. This suggests that maybe one-third of all women voters have actually had to go through the terrible experience of an abortion, and that they chose to do so for obviously very personal reasons in each case. [I add that a lot of men, the other partners in these situations, have also had to experience the same event.] Now, do the Republicans really think that anyone wants to vote for a party that would accuse this many Americans of "murder", or to somehow pass new laws that would make having an abortion a punishable crime? Sure, many otherwise Republican voters (women and men) will look the other way and just keep voting for Republicans because they like their politics more than that of the Democrats. But there is a limit to how much anyone can take. Morality and science debates aside, on political grounds pro-choice wins hands-down.
6
Life begins at conception. Any decent Embryology textbook will confirm this fact. When a sperm (tissue) and an egg (tissue) unite, a new genetically unique organism is created. That organism is a human, it's not an oak tree, it's not a dog, it's a human. A fertilized egg, or zygote is merely the first stage in the development of an adult human. Zygote>Blastocyst>Embryo>Fetus>Baby>Toddler>Child>Teenager>Adult. Which of these are not human organisms?
The author, and other pro-choice advocates prefer to change the discussion to saying when pregnancy begins. This is a typical example of reframing the question or moving the goalposts.
Did the author also email Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or any other Democrat to ask them "When does human life begin?". For a group that's always claiming their opponents are anti-science, they sure like to ignore science in this case.
The author, and other pro-choice advocates prefer to change the discussion to saying when pregnancy begins. This is a typical example of reframing the question or moving the goalposts.
Did the author also email Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or any other Democrat to ask them "When does human life begin?". For a group that's always claiming their opponents are anti-science, they sure like to ignore science in this case.
2
Life begins at conception. Any decent Embryology textbook will confirm this fact.
And yet another male liar.
And yet another male liar.
5
So everytime a fertilized egg fails to implant the women is guilty of murder.This happens in the Billions every day.
15
More nuttiness. "Life begins at conception". Potential life begins at conception. Fetal life begins at implantation. Human life begins at birth, and we protect potential human life by restricting abortion after the point when a fetus is thought to be viable outside the womb.
9
AACNY: "Perhaps reporters should also ask democrats at what point they believe abortion should be prohibited...Then they should ask the DNC chair to defend an abortion at 8 months, which is the position she is advocating."
---------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about Wasserman-Schultz, but Republicans have their own exceptions to prohibition, like when the US invades foreign nations that pose no threat and by which pregnant women are hurt or worse. There doesn't seem to be concern on the part of Republicans about those pregnancies ceasing.
Would be nice if Republicans would explain the difference between that reality and a woman and her doctor making a decision to cease a pregnancy.
Why is the former an acceptable termination of pregnancy but not the latter?
---------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about Wasserman-Schultz, but Republicans have their own exceptions to prohibition, like when the US invades foreign nations that pose no threat and by which pregnant women are hurt or worse. There doesn't seem to be concern on the part of Republicans about those pregnancies ceasing.
Would be nice if Republicans would explain the difference between that reality and a woman and her doctor making a decision to cease a pregnancy.
Why is the former an acceptable termination of pregnancy but not the latter?
7
So if a fertilized egg = a human being, is an identical twin half a person? Is a chimera two people?
4
A physician performing an abortion . . . must . . . have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed,” and that abortion facilities must meet the “minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers”;
An early stage abortion is no more invasive than is oral surgery. Do any of these states propose similar requirements on dentists performing invasive dental procedures?
An early stage abortion is no more invasive than is oral surgery. Do any of these states propose similar requirements on dentists performing invasive dental procedures?
13
It's a trick, like Texas' voter fraud regs, which they can now implement on election week knowing that any and every court will overturn them after the "right to vote" has already been denied and damage done. Which they did, like last year. Take this: Texas is huge and has only a handful of abortion clinics, many of which are a hundred-plus miles apart. Patients sometimes have to travel huge distances to have the procedure. If there is no hospital out there in the badlands, if there is no doctor willing to make the trip (let's find out how many certifications Texas allots, while we're at it), if the patient can't make the journey, they have effectively been denied a legal medical procedure. Many clinics will have to close. The few remaining won't be able to service a fraction of the patients. States who are adopting these measures are in violation of federal law, and they know it.
Remember the Grandfather Clause? More of the same. They only need these laws to stand long enough to kill a Constitutional right by sheer attrition.
Remember the Grandfather Clause? More of the same. They only need these laws to stand long enough to kill a Constitutional right by sheer attrition.
7
Once again, Edsall shows he is the finest political analyst in Washington.
5
At least they're being honest with their views. And voters should judge them on these views and vote accordingly.
2
A silly discussion. Next we'll hear: I'm super anti-abortion. I believe that life begins when people think about having sexual intercourse. We can all have an opinion. The point is that what goes in or out of your body should be up to you.
14
If you carry the fundamentalist and Catholic views to their logical conclusion, then women should really be pregnant (and married, of course) all of the time. I always found this 'parsing' of language and sexual activity amusing- though it exposes the pure hypocrisy of those who hold these extreme beliefs while claiming to worship an 'all knowing' God. If it's a religious sin not to work at procreation, why would abstinence be OK for married couples? Isn't use of the rhythm method and abstinence just gaming the system? If there's a God, these folks don't give him much credit: "Hey honey, not tonight- I might get pregnant. " That's OK; but using contraception to prevent it isn't?? The difference is thought v deed- and you'd think they would believe that God is focused on intent.
Quite simply, these people make me sick. We fought these battles in the 70s- and this generation of young women need to become politically aware and VOTE to retain the rights we fought for.
Quite simply, these people make me sick. We fought these battles in the 70s- and this generation of young women need to become politically aware and VOTE to retain the rights we fought for.
15
Nobody likes abortion but the Republicans seem to think so.
3
Mr Edsall:
What next? Does this mean that masturbation would be considered a form of voluntary manslaughter? If this were to happen unmarried Republicans would be denied a sex life. Constitutional? No. Ridiculous, yes.
What next? Does this mean that masturbation would be considered a form of voluntary manslaughter? If this were to happen unmarried Republicans would be denied a sex life. Constitutional? No. Ridiculous, yes.
8
Is it time to start distinguishing "pro-birth" from "pro-life"? If my concept as an American is "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness", or as St. John as having "life more abundantly" (Jn 10:10), it might actually include the right to a good wage, the right to health care, to education according to ones talent and not ones tolerance for high debt -- do you sometimes see the "pro-lifers" as wanting to control by force of law what happens until birth -- then drop the force of law and let the law of might-makes-right take over?
7
Why bring up side issues?
Apparently Edsall thinks that if he argues with the main points of the abortion opponents, he will lose.
I agree.
Apparently Edsall thinks that if he argues with the main points of the abortion opponents, he will lose.
I agree.
2
The normal people of America had better wake up and see what the right-wing anti-abortion Religious Republicans end game really is. It is not enough that abortions must go, all birth control must be banned also. This is the part they don't want to talk about. They want to take away your right to plan your own family. They want to go back to the old days of 6 to 10 children per family. They the Republicans have no respect for working women. In their mind the best place for a women is at home, raising a bunch of children, subservient to the man of the house. Wake up America your rights are going to be taken away. Just as they are now in every Red State.
21
I find it very strange that the very same people who are against abortion are also against any kind of universal contraception. It is clear to the meanest intelligence that if there is not an unwanted pregnancy there will be no abortion. Ok, let's ban abortion, AFTER there is universal contraception, including the morning after pill available to anyone who wants it, anytime, anywhere.
There is clearly another agenda at work here, and it is vile and cynical.
There is clearly another agenda at work here, and it is vile and cynical.
19
Why does the author state that virtually every pro life group claims life begins at fertilization --- but his links show exactly the opposite? One of his references actually is an article entitled "Life begins at Conception. Another demonstrates that a professional group is attempt to deceptively "redefine" conception as equal to implantation (which any medical student should know is not true). Is this author just as erroneous about his other positions?
2
The conservatives are not really drawn to their position br reasoned evaluation of policies and facts. It's the God-like exercise of power over women and the male right to decide who lives and dies that motivates them. "Right to Life" means they get to impose their will over women's pregnancies, state prison death rows and overseas drone strikes. It's a guy thing, wrapped in religion and flags.
13
One way to explain the Republican clown car might be that the GOP has written off the presidency and is concentrating on shoring up local support for continued Republican control of national and local congresses and state governorships. The reactionary rhetoric on display will play very well, thank you, at the local level.
A Republican-controlled congress, a hog-tied Democratic president besieged in the White House, and Republican control of a majority of states is not working too bad for them now, is it?
For good measure, add in a reactionary majority in the Supreme Court that will probably survive eight more years of a Democratic president.
A Republican-controlled congress, a hog-tied Democratic president besieged in the White House, and Republican control of a majority of states is not working too bad for them now, is it?
For good measure, add in a reactionary majority in the Supreme Court that will probably survive eight more years of a Democratic president.
6
"The battle for the presidential nomination has produced an unexpectedly intense burst of attacks on women's reproductive rights."
What a silly one sided statement, of course a woman has a right to reproduce or to not reproduce that is not the question. One just has to look up the definition of reproduce. The question really is does a woman have the right to terminate a human life growing within her and when? Agenda, agenda, agenda leads good people to blindly follow political rhetoric. Rhetoric that has no relation to the truth.
What a silly one sided statement, of course a woman has a right to reproduce or to not reproduce that is not the question. One just has to look up the definition of reproduce. The question really is does a woman have the right to terminate a human life growing within her and when? Agenda, agenda, agenda leads good people to blindly follow political rhetoric. Rhetoric that has no relation to the truth.
3
The question really is does a woman have the right to terminate a human life growing within her and when?
Ok, I will bite. READ ROE. A woman has a constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy. The cutoff is viability with exceptions. Why do you not know that this is LONG settled?
Ok, I will bite. READ ROE. A woman has a constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy. The cutoff is viability with exceptions. Why do you not know that this is LONG settled?
A long time ago I wrote a novel based on the hypothesis that in some states a fetus in the womb has to be legally taken into account in the succession hierarchy for property inheritance. I posited a situation in which the mother could have a financial reason to terminate early, because the unborn (though perhaps having accrued some property rights already) had no right to life itself.
I suspect that those favoring an absolute, uncontested right to abortion on demand even up to (and past!) the time that a living, viable baby appears, have long since changed those embarrassing inheritance laws.
What I am amazed to learn, however, is that in socially progressive Europe there are prosperous Northern countries in which abortion-on-demand is really only first trimester. In many nations after 18 weeks a government committee must grant permission for an abortion to go forward. Now how is that different from Texas, on which all the furies of left wing scorn have descended because they have a 20-week standard for government oversight to intrude?
Another interesting thing is that NONE of the Europeans have birthright citizenship. The about-to-be-born have some rights that the unborn do not have in much of the USA, but to become an automatic Swedish citizen because the baby screams its hello to the world in the lobby of an airport is not one of them.
Funny, all these weird facts about Europe that do not make their way through the drive-by info screening curtains.
I suspect that those favoring an absolute, uncontested right to abortion on demand even up to (and past!) the time that a living, viable baby appears, have long since changed those embarrassing inheritance laws.
What I am amazed to learn, however, is that in socially progressive Europe there are prosperous Northern countries in which abortion-on-demand is really only first trimester. In many nations after 18 weeks a government committee must grant permission for an abortion to go forward. Now how is that different from Texas, on which all the furies of left wing scorn have descended because they have a 20-week standard for government oversight to intrude?
Another interesting thing is that NONE of the Europeans have birthright citizenship. The about-to-be-born have some rights that the unborn do not have in much of the USA, but to become an automatic Swedish citizen because the baby screams its hello to the world in the lobby of an airport is not one of them.
Funny, all these weird facts about Europe that do not make their way through the drive-by info screening curtains.
1
Go back on your meds.
1
No wonder eggs are $6/dozen. they are little chickens.
4
I think it is interesting that the men in Congress or running for high office see that it is their duty to tell women how to conduct their private lives. Keep government out of women's lives. Whether you are a Jew, Catholic, Muslim, or Christian these men think they should control women's bodies. It is all about religion and control and most religions ( Jews, Catholics,Muslim, Christian) do NOT respect women at all.
It all stems from the Old Testament laws and all laws were and are anti women.
It all stems from the Old Testament laws and all laws were and are anti women.
7
Will Mr. Edsall be writing an article detailing the Democratic candidates extreme pro-abortion positions by asking questions like...how do you justify laws that protect fetuses legally (homicide laws) and yet allow abortion, how do you justify that the American Disability Act protects kids with disabilities the second they are born, but allows abortion because they are disabled, how about the dismemberment of a fetus to optimize harvesting organs, and finally are there any protections for unborn life that they would deem permissible?
6
No one advocates abortion. Democratic candidate merely support choice, something any reasonable person does.
3
And pro-choice Republicans, Patricia?
Where do they fall into your neatly categorized world?
Where do they fall into your neatly categorized world?
Edsall, writing from the parlors and salons of the city, bases his "thinking" and editorializing on what should be profoundly moral questions with contemporary secular domestic political activities and polling and opinion data. Not exactly Saint Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, or at least a passing reference to natural law. And you wonder where American society is headed ...
1
Falcon78, check out Mr. Edsall's byline. He writes about "American politics, inequality, campaign strategy and demographics," not morality, religion or philosophy.
I assume it is illegal to cut down a redwood tree in the Redwood National Forest. Is it legal to pull out a little tiny 1" redwood seedling out of the ground just after it pops out of the dirt? How about when it is 8" tall? When does it become illegal?
Life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg and it divides into two. Just because some "scientist" with a 4 year degree disagrees with this doesn't change the fact.
Abortion is not going away. Women will always have a choice. Changing the language to tidy up the thought process that a woman has when "choosing" does change the facts.
Life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg and it divides into two. Just because some "scientist" with a 4 year degree disagrees with this doesn't change the fact.
Abortion is not going away. Women will always have a choice. Changing the language to tidy up the thought process that a woman has when "choosing" does change the facts.
1
Um, I have NO idea what you are "saying" here.
2
Bill, please get a hobby. Men have choices too.
They all believe that men can stick it wherever they want, with impunity, and women better shut up and stay home, taking care of the unwanted babies, and cookin' that bacon.
8
Thank you for rationally and factually explaining conception, contraception and pregnancy termination.
Unfortunately, the pro-forced birth movement are not interested in facts, women’s autonomy or their health. They’re simply interested in punishing women for their sexual behavior and making them pay for it by bearing a child against their will.
It’s near impossible to convince those with an obsessive need to control others that their behavior is irrational and harmful.
Unfortunately, the pro-forced birth movement are not interested in facts, women’s autonomy or their health. They’re simply interested in punishing women for their sexual behavior and making them pay for it by bearing a child against their will.
It’s near impossible to convince those with an obsessive need to control others that their behavior is irrational and harmful.
20
Small government to GOP seems to mean one just big enough to snoop into the personal lives of half the population of the country because they obviously are not able to make their own decisions.
And the TImes itself is not without prejudice. In their "picks" the majority of voices are male.
Time for a woman at the helm of the country, IMHO.
And the TImes itself is not without prejudice. In their "picks" the majority of voices are male.
Time for a woman at the helm of the country, IMHO.
7
Remember that not all women are pro-choice. Most Republican women candidates are not pro-choice.
Vote for Hillary Clinton who is pro-choice.
Vote for Hillary Clinton who is pro-choice.
1
This really isn't an "abortion" debate
. . . it is just one of many manifestations in an ongoing battle of a large number of religious conservatives who reject the 1st amendment prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.
No enlightened person too much cares, about the religious views and convictions of other people,
. . . until they try to force those views on other people.
The religious-right is properly aghast, when ISIS, or Muslim groups force people to convert to their religion, but have no problems at all doing essentially the same thing when it comes to their own beliefs
There is simply no point in debating with anyone who believes they have a right and duty to impose their religious beliefs on other people
. . . it is just one of many manifestations in an ongoing battle of a large number of religious conservatives who reject the 1st amendment prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.
No enlightened person too much cares, about the religious views and convictions of other people,
. . . until they try to force those views on other people.
The religious-right is properly aghast, when ISIS, or Muslim groups force people to convert to their religion, but have no problems at all doing essentially the same thing when it comes to their own beliefs
There is simply no point in debating with anyone who believes they have a right and duty to impose their religious beliefs on other people
21
Many of the folks who wouldn't know the difference between a fallopian tube and a tube top "believed" just a couple of weeks ago that the nano-second that sperm and egg met a full-fledged baby is on the way, outdoing even Mother Nature in their pronouncements. Many of these guys, and a lot of them are guys, are now gung-ho for Donald Trump, who was/is a Planned Parenthood supporter ( I guess he has adjusted his stance slightly for political reasons in the last week or so).
In a rational world this would be a problem to toss your "bedrock beliefs" over at the drop of a hat, but hey, it's the GOP. I guess the rest of them plan to shut down the US Govt. for PP funding, so who knew?
Maybe this whole argument has finally all gotten too esoteric for these "true believers" who are now OK with a totally different set of beliefs- and who like Mr. Trump now. I am glad to see them move on.
In a rational world this would be a problem to toss your "bedrock beliefs" over at the drop of a hat, but hey, it's the GOP. I guess the rest of them plan to shut down the US Govt. for PP funding, so who knew?
Maybe this whole argument has finally all gotten too esoteric for these "true believers" who are now OK with a totally different set of beliefs- and who like Mr. Trump now. I am glad to see them move on.
7
Really, fellows, the contents of a woman's uterus is no one's business but her own. And we don't care who's gay, or whether anyone is burning an American flag.
Now, stop with the distracting clown show topics, and explain how you Republican candidates will fix our economy and restore democracy and fairness.
Now, stop with the distracting clown show topics, and explain how you Republican candidates will fix our economy and restore democracy and fairness.
14
I still remember republicans screaming that their focus if elected would be on jobs, jobs, jobs.
Of course as soon as they were in power, the mantra changed to social issues like curtailing abortions, cutting back on education and health care, climate change denial, and restricting voting rights. Not a single jobs bill made it to the President's desk.
The only difference between then and now is that republicans have given up the pretense of jobs, jobs, jobs.
Of course as soon as they were in power, the mantra changed to social issues like curtailing abortions, cutting back on education and health care, climate change denial, and restricting voting rights. Not a single jobs bill made it to the President's desk.
The only difference between then and now is that republicans have given up the pretense of jobs, jobs, jobs.
2
I am sick to death of politicians using control of women's bodies as the centerpiece of their campaigns. As one protest sign read: "Where are the jobs? Hint: not in my uterus".
17
At what point do reproductive rights become murder?
NEVER.
Now that your silly non-question is answered will you go away?
Please?
Now that your silly non-question is answered will you go away?
Please?
I cannot believe the GOP expects to win back the White House with this extreme position which harms only one class of voters: women. Write women off at your peril, GOP.
2
Thank you Mr. Edsall for your detailed outline of the candidates positions so far and for your interest in staying on the topic as the race develops. This issue is of great importance to women, even though many may not even be aware of the stakes at this point.
1
Wow, republicans and the scientific community disagree on when a pregnancy begins. Didn't see that coming.
8
NYTimes readers couldn't care less, but they should at least be aware of the lack of theological underpinning for the Pro-Life movement at least as it relates to Evangelicals. What does the Bible say about abortion? Nothing. The closest it comes is the 'eye for an eye' passage. Read it. You'll be surprised at how lightly killing a fetus is treated. How about conception? It begins with breathing. Beginning with the creation stories and continuing throughout the Hebrew and New Testament, life begins when the person or thing start breathing and not before. It just goes to show what a contrived politicized farce this whole anti-abortion movement is.
21
Actually, the bible does say something about abortions.
A women that is suspected by her husband of cheating can be made to drink a liquid that will cause her to miscarry if the baby is not her husband's.
Apparently, as long a priest administers the potion as part of a ritual including sacrifices to god, abortion is a-ok for cheating wives. (See Numbers 5:18)
A women that is suspected by her husband of cheating can be made to drink a liquid that will cause her to miscarry if the baby is not her husband's.
Apparently, as long a priest administers the potion as part of a ritual including sacrifices to god, abortion is a-ok for cheating wives. (See Numbers 5:18)
1
I think it's important not to apply the words "absolutes" or "absolutism" only to those who adhere to a pro-life stance. I think of Laurence Tribe's book, "Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes." The idea of absolutism spans the ideological spectrum on this issue, as perhaps it must and ought to be.
Of course, life begins at inception. That science is settled. Any argument against that is simply foolish and frankly, churlish.
While I agree with your criticisms of the Republican candidates, I realize that they are prisoners of their own right wing, and hence, indirectly, of Sarah Palin. So actually a woman who coined the term RINO, is running the "anti-woman" Republican party. All the white males running are Palin's prisoners politically and dare not say what they really think.
But I wish the "anti-Republicans" were to take the issue seriously and not ONLY in terms of how awful the Republicans are. We may not like the defense lawyer, but our emphasis should be on the accused, the fetus in this case, and not on the lawyer, the Republicans.
France and Germany restrict abortion to three months as does India. Cuba restricts abortion to ten weeks and according to Islam a fetus has a soul at four months.
So even the Sharia law is more rational about abortion than the current US law which permits abortion on demand for 24 weeks.
Why don't we discuss abortion in terms of a reasonable compromise rather than in terms of how awful the Republicans are?
But I wish the "anti-Republicans" were to take the issue seriously and not ONLY in terms of how awful the Republicans are. We may not like the defense lawyer, but our emphasis should be on the accused, the fetus in this case, and not on the lawyer, the Republicans.
France and Germany restrict abortion to three months as does India. Cuba restricts abortion to ten weeks and according to Islam a fetus has a soul at four months.
So even the Sharia law is more rational about abortion than the current US law which permits abortion on demand for 24 weeks.
Why don't we discuss abortion in terms of a reasonable compromise rather than in terms of how awful the Republicans are?
1
I just read that 89-92% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks.
I would guess that genetic anomalies account for some of the other percentage after that. Isn't the goal to reduce the need for abortion? IUDs do that. To argue that preventing implantation is abortion is just idiotic. These guys need something else to do to get themselves elected.
I would guess that genetic anomalies account for some of the other percentage after that. Isn't the goal to reduce the need for abortion? IUDs do that. To argue that preventing implantation is abortion is just idiotic. These guys need something else to do to get themselves elected.
2
The republicans are not interested in compromise. This was going on way before Palin showed up. I don't know where you get the idea that it's Palin's influence. That is just wrong.
2
So much for the Republican's oft-stated goal of "limited government." None of the GOP candidates should be allowed to avoid answering Mr. Edsall's pointed and valid questions. I certainly hope everyone on Hillary's team reads this column.
5
IUD's, oral contraceptives, morning after pills.......whatever. The point is - the woman's body belongs to the woman. What goes on in her body belongs to that woman.
This whole pro-live movement has gone too far. I vowed I would never step foot in a Hobby Lobby after the court decision and I haven't. Ask one Catholic priest about what he thinks about oral contraception and then ask another.......you think they all (in private) preach the same sermon about reproduction and the lack of and prevention? Hmmm, if you think yes.
You think none of those conservatives kids or family members use contraceptives, morning after pills, or have ever stepped foot in a Planned Parenthood or other clinic for reproductive needs? None have ever had abortions either, right? Hmmmm.
This world has many issues that need solutions. Women's reproduction is not one of them. Really, women can pretty much figure that out by themselves. Aren't we getting tired of paying our legislators for this ideological fight? Leave womens' bodies alone, mind your own business, legislators or those running for legislation, and move on.
When conception starts is really not the point although the nay sayers try to make that so. The point is, this is an individual woman's private life and it should be kept that way.
This whole pro-live movement has gone too far. I vowed I would never step foot in a Hobby Lobby after the court decision and I haven't. Ask one Catholic priest about what he thinks about oral contraception and then ask another.......you think they all (in private) preach the same sermon about reproduction and the lack of and prevention? Hmmm, if you think yes.
You think none of those conservatives kids or family members use contraceptives, morning after pills, or have ever stepped foot in a Planned Parenthood or other clinic for reproductive needs? None have ever had abortions either, right? Hmmmm.
This world has many issues that need solutions. Women's reproduction is not one of them. Really, women can pretty much figure that out by themselves. Aren't we getting tired of paying our legislators for this ideological fight? Leave womens' bodies alone, mind your own business, legislators or those running for legislation, and move on.
When conception starts is really not the point although the nay sayers try to make that so. The point is, this is an individual woman's private life and it should be kept that way.
10
If a fertilized, implanted egg is a human being, with all the associated rights and protections, how do conservatives rationalize abortion in the case of rape and incest? Isn't that hypocritical? Does the fetus bear responsibility for being conceived in violence?
5
Edsal should consider that the abortion/contraception/preemarital vierginity/LGBT issue is nothing more than a war by organized religion (ALL organized religtions) on sex. It is nothing more or less than one part of society imposing its anti-sex ideology on the overwhelming majority of people who don't share their views. Isn't it time somebody spoke out against religion and it's war on sex?
6
There is no "right" to an abortion. What there is is court case precedent and "zones of privacy". Your rights are defined by the Bill of Rights. Try reading it.
According to Gallup, the following regulations on abortion are favored by Democrat voters AND opposed by the DNC platform and all its major candidates: 24 hour waiting period, parental consent, post 20 week ban, ultrasound requirements. I wonder when Esdall will be writing an article about how out of step democrats are with their constituency with respect to abortion.
You may think this is a trite argument but I truly believe that if men got pregnant there would be no issue about someone's right to choose whether to have a child or not. Why should those who are anti-choice be able to force their beliefs on those who don't agree with their view of like. The anti-choice movement is anti-women.
8
Once a child is out of the womb, ask a Republican for tax revenue for schools or other programs benefiting children and see how 'pro-life' they aren't.
15
This long essay was about, "When does life begin?" The answer is, "3-odd billion years ago, and human life goes on through pregnancies from sexual intercourse." The real Republican issue is control and punishment of that sexual intercourse. Sex is a powerful force, it makes some people seriously uncomfortable and they are the ones driving the antiabortion crusade.
Let us never forget, abortion restrictions apply EXCLUSIVELY to poor women. A woman who has money, has control over her sex and reproduction and no authoritarian, no matter how dedicated, can mess with her.
The Frepublicans (They got that "F" for stealing the "ic" from the "Democrat" party.) ought to change their symbol from the elephant to the axe, they're so immensely destructive.
Let us never forget, abortion restrictions apply EXCLUSIVELY to poor women. A woman who has money, has control over her sex and reproduction and no authoritarian, no matter how dedicated, can mess with her.
The Frepublicans (They got that "F" for stealing the "ic" from the "Democrat" party.) ought to change their symbol from the elephant to the axe, they're so immensely destructive.
3
Perhaps someday there'll be a female majority in Congress, and they'll push to legislate that those little blue pills can be available only to men who are trying to procreate.
7
It's been said before, regarding the human condition: the religious right believes in life before birth, life after death and nothing much in between.
14
I'll wait for Thomas Edsall's next article discussing the abortion beliefs of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Mark O'Malley (and eventually Joe Biden). Will Edsall ask them when a "fetus" becomes a human being? Will Edsall ask them if they support ANY restrictions on abortion? Will Edsall ask them if an underage teen must get parental consent for an abortion? Will Edsall ask them if they support the sale of fetal tissue under any conditions even for profit? Will Edsall ask Hillary Clinton if, when her daughter Chelsea was 10 weeks, 15 weeks, 20 weeks pregnant, did she consider the "fetus" in her womb a live human being or was it just a ball of tissue? And NO, that's "above my pay grade" is NOT an acceptable answer.
2
You cannot support freedom and individual political power and at the same time curtail in any and all ways possible the health choices of fully half the population. Any woman who votes Republican on any political level needs to see a shrink for voting against her own freedom.
9
Guns and fetuses have rights, female human beings, not so much. Trying to find the difference between the Taliban and fanatic evangelicals. Not having much luck.
15
I believe it was Barney Frank who noted that Republicans "believe the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth."
They seem determined to prove the truth of that observation every single day. . .
They seem determined to prove the truth of that observation every single day. . .
4
In addition to the many comments regarding the inconsistencies between Republican rhetoric - keep government out of our lives - and the diametrically opposing action - I know better, and demand, that my opinions on birth control and abortion supersede personal privacy, I wonder how many running for office have adopted a child, to keep it alive and not to have been aborted? Please raise you hands lady and gentlemen.
4
Personally I'm against abortion, but understand there are instances when abortion should be a decision that must be considered rape, incest which is very infrequent and the endangering of the mother's life. I get all of those instances but beyond that I get a little nervous and find it hard to use abortion as birth control. The euphemism of the right to choose is just a nice way of saying I want or don't want to choose to have an abortion for birth control. It's legal but it's nothing to be proud of having that right.
As I don't believe in magic, I do not see how taking a breath magically transforms a "lump of tissue" into a person. Similarly, "viable" is a useless definition, as it's subject to the progress of science. I can't, without resorting to magic, identify a singular point after the a fertilized egg implants, that distinguishes a person from something we can casually kill.
If you look at the cold hard numbers of population growth, and think about sustainability issues and what happens to the unwanted, yet born children who grow up in poverty (they statistically become what the GOP harshly terms as "takers"), the obvious solution is birth control, abortion (which will happen anyway, legal, safe, or otherwise), and education. The Republicans are eager for every woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term, but by God (whom they are eager to espouse), they don't want to support the babies of the poor through any social program. Once they're born, they are treated like last week's leftover.
7
I'm sure that the issue of abortion will abate as soon as the primary season is over and candidates seek support from the general electorate. Note that the Christian right has been employing sophistic subterfuge that purports an ethical agenda while conspiring to accumulate political power for itself. The separation of religion and state is a constitutional imperative if our republic is to survive as a free society.
4
The republican party's attitudes are the result of promoting and condoning 50 years of public ignorance so corporations could take over.
4
Apparently comments that go against the party line aren't published (at least not in a timely manner as it's been a few hours), so I'll try again.
Life begins at conception. This is a scientific fact that any embryology textbook will confirm. A sperm is tissue and an egg is tissue. When combined they form a new organism. That organism will grow into an adult while tissue will never grow into anything else. The moment sperm and egg combine (conception) a new genetically unique organism is created. If it's human sperm and human egg combining, that is a human organism.
The author and many other pro-choice advocates try to reframe the question by saying that pregnancy starts at implantation while ignoring when life begins.
Life begins at conception. This is a scientific fact that any embryology textbook will confirm. A sperm is tissue and an egg is tissue. When combined they form a new organism. That organism will grow into an adult while tissue will never grow into anything else. The moment sperm and egg combine (conception) a new genetically unique organism is created. If it's human sperm and human egg combining, that is a human organism.
The author and many other pro-choice advocates try to reframe the question by saying that pregnancy starts at implantation while ignoring when life begins.
1
How do you explain stem cell tissue to yourself??
I have read that up to 40 percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant even in the absence of IUDs. An exact percentage is hard to calculate because most women are unaware when this happens.
Also 8 to 20 percent of women who know they are pregnant (i.e., the fertilized egg has implanted and they sense it) experience spontaneous miscarriage, 80 percent of which happens in the first 12 weeks.
Are these women guilty of negligent homicide for failing to support a life that begins at conception?
Also 8 to 20 percent of women who know they are pregnant (i.e., the fertilized egg has implanted and they sense it) experience spontaneous miscarriage, 80 percent of which happens in the first 12 weeks.
Are these women guilty of negligent homicide for failing to support a life that begins at conception?
8
How anyone can simultaneously oppose contraception, sex education and abortion is a cognitive disconnect which I will never be able to comprehend. The one thing which it obviously is name is patriarchy, men enforcing their will upon women without remorse.
To call yourself pro-life then refuse to fund prenatal care, attack organizations which enable family health and planning, provide no support for indigent mothers or their children then restrict sex education to abstinence only which has been repeatedly proven ineffective is only pro-free range sperm.
To call yourself pro-life then refuse to fund prenatal care, attack organizations which enable family health and planning, provide no support for indigent mothers or their children then restrict sex education to abstinence only which has been repeatedly proven ineffective is only pro-free range sperm.
10
Is it possible that the 4 methods described are at the fore front of republican objections because they believe they interfere with the right of the (male) sperm to unite with the (female) egg?
One more indication of their belief that the rights of men supersede the rights of women?
I seem to remember that W. did better with the white male vote than Romney, which would mean they are slowly losing the white male vote, as well. Alienating the Asian, Hispanic, LGBT, and women does not bode well for their continuing dominance of American government.
But that bodes well for the well being of America itself.
One more indication of their belief that the rights of men supersede the rights of women?
I seem to remember that W. did better with the white male vote than Romney, which would mean they are slowly losing the white male vote, as well. Alienating the Asian, Hispanic, LGBT, and women does not bode well for their continuing dominance of American government.
But that bodes well for the well being of America itself.
5
By using fertilization rather than implementation as the starting point, the woman is taken out of the picture.
3
I heard Rick Santorum in a speech recently say there is documented evidence that proves contraception does not reduce abortions. I wish he would reveal that study. It seems incredibly counterintuitive. Does anyone know where that came from or is just ideological nonsense?
3
What angers me most is the phrase I've heard them repeat so many times recently, "science says that life begins at conception."
We'll leave aside the fact that they've had little respect for the findings of science in areas of climate or sexual orientation.
But that statement is just false. If you're speaking in terms of science, life doesn't being at conception. Life began millions of years ago, and it hasn't stopped yet. Yes, an embryo is alive, but sperm and eggs are alive. For that matter, cows, trees, and bacteria are all alive.
If by life, you mean a person, then science doesn't answer this question, because person is not well-defined, scientifically speaking.
We'll leave aside the fact that they've had little respect for the findings of science in areas of climate or sexual orientation.
But that statement is just false. If you're speaking in terms of science, life doesn't being at conception. Life began millions of years ago, and it hasn't stopped yet. Yes, an embryo is alive, but sperm and eggs are alive. For that matter, cows, trees, and bacteria are all alive.
If by life, you mean a person, then science doesn't answer this question, because person is not well-defined, scientifically speaking.
15
It is important to acknowledge what science says: regardless of when "life" begins, the contraceptive methods at issue DO NOT affect the process of implantation.
Quoting from the same ACOG document that Mr. Edsall only read selectively ("Emergency Contraception and Intrauterine Devices are not Abortifacients"):
"[Plan B] and [Ella] DO NOT AFFECT IMPLANTATION of a fertilized egg or harm or end an established pregnancy.... There is no scientific evidence that [Ella] affects implantation. Plan B has been widely studied, and current scientific evidence shows that it works by preventing or disrupting ovulation, but is not effective after ovulation has already occurred." (emphasis is mine)
There are similar statements quoting scientific studies about both IUDs as well. It is important to acknowledge the scientific consensus of the main professional organization of Ob/Gyns, that regardless of when life begins, these methods of contraception simply do not work by interfering with a fertilized egg.
Quoting from the same ACOG document that Mr. Edsall only read selectively ("Emergency Contraception and Intrauterine Devices are not Abortifacients"):
"[Plan B] and [Ella] DO NOT AFFECT IMPLANTATION of a fertilized egg or harm or end an established pregnancy.... There is no scientific evidence that [Ella] affects implantation. Plan B has been widely studied, and current scientific evidence shows that it works by preventing or disrupting ovulation, but is not effective after ovulation has already occurred." (emphasis is mine)
There are similar statements quoting scientific studies about both IUDs as well. It is important to acknowledge the scientific consensus of the main professional organization of Ob/Gyns, that regardless of when life begins, these methods of contraception simply do not work by interfering with a fertilized egg.
4
What no one seems to talk about is that the assumptions that even this article makes are based on a very materialistic view of life. How do we know that the fertilized egg is a " human life?" Many Eastern religions and other spiritual teachings have the view that the human soul inhabits the body, but exists independently of it and goes on after its death. If so then the question becomes not when the egg is fertilized or implanted but when does the soul ENTER the fetus? There are theories that it does not enter until late stages of fetal development and there are even theories that it enters AFTER birth! Of course there is no way to know any of this - but that is the point. A woman has to be able to choose for herself. No politician has the knowledge to define when life begins - no one really knows The most obvious compromise is to say that it begins at birth!!
9
The rape/incest exception embraced by otherwise anti-choice GOP lawmakers exposes their ugly, underlying motivation: misogyny and fear of female sexuality. The only difference between an embryo conceived through rape and an embryo conceived through voluntary sex is the behavior of the woman. If she has fought back long and hard and didn’t enjoy sex, well then, they will allow her to have an abortion. If, however, she had sex voluntarily and presumably enjoyed it, their attitude then becomes: well, missy, you’ve made your bed, now lie in it. The debate about abortion will end when we finally acknowledge that it isn’t about abortion at all.
21
Here's a thought...if 'religious freedom' laws allow people of good conscience to opt out of serving certain individuals, for instance, based on religious belief, then surely some can opt out of abortion legislation if they do not believe that life begins at conception. Or are only beliefs of one particular religion to be respected?
13
What one should notice, regardless of which position or party one supports, that Republicans stand for something (or at least will claim to stand for something in order to gain votes), while Democrats mostly stand for nothing.
Thus, the phony absolutism of the GOP, a façade for massive corruption and government power, and whose biggest bullies claim that the late 18th century was America's golden Tea Party age to which the country must return, has no one most of the time who will argue for western democratic values.
Most GOP members are "pro-life" because they realize that economic exploitation of the masses retires the masses to reproduce mindlessly like rabbits.
The actual believing members of the pro-life remind me that the Good Shepherd, who teaching His flock, held up the lowly sheep as His model for all righteous HUMAN behavior. Jesus knew us well.
Thus, the phony absolutism of the GOP, a façade for massive corruption and government power, and whose biggest bullies claim that the late 18th century was America's golden Tea Party age to which the country must return, has no one most of the time who will argue for western democratic values.
Most GOP members are "pro-life" because they realize that economic exploitation of the masses retires the masses to reproduce mindlessly like rabbits.
The actual believing members of the pro-life remind me that the Good Shepherd, who teaching His flock, held up the lowly sheep as His model for all righteous HUMAN behavior. Jesus knew us well.
10% of the country believes people should have completely unfettered access to guns, as well. The rest want some sort of gun control.
We can all see how that one is working out.
We can all see how that one is working out.
4
What about the Billions of fertilized eggs that fail to implant on their own? Can we indict God for Billions of murders?
11
Pro-lifers want women to be punished for having sex, it's that simple.
Otherwise, they would be outside fertility clinics, screaming about the frozen embryos that are discarded every day. Be consistent, people, because if you're not, you're hypocrites. Not that you aren't anyway.
Otherwise, they would be outside fertility clinics, screaming about the frozen embryos that are discarded every day. Be consistent, people, because if you're not, you're hypocrites. Not that you aren't anyway.
22
So the party that denies the validity of Climate Change with, "I'm no scientist but..." also has their own belief system when it comes to Obstetrics. One can hear the Frank Luntz crafted response, "I'm no obstetrician but....".
Conception is a moment for which physicians have no test. A moment that is forever hidden from science. As such, any sexually active woman of child-bearing age, may carry an unimplanted fertilized egg. Are the Republican candidates ready to classify them as "pregnant"?
Conception is a moment for which physicians have no test. A moment that is forever hidden from science. As such, any sexually active woman of child-bearing age, may carry an unimplanted fertilized egg. Are the Republican candidates ready to classify them as "pregnant"?
8
Calling a young embryo or a fetus an "un-born child" is as absurd as calling
ourselves "un-dead corpses".
ourselves "un-dead corpses".
33
I hope that prominent conservatives look nervously over their shoulders, wondering when Planned Parenthood's records will be hacked to reveal who among them, their wives, daughters, ex-wives, and girlfriends has used Planned Parenthood's services.
22
Before Roe V. Wade politicians who voted against legalizing abortion sent their wives, daughters and mistresses to physicians to perform a safe termination. Should abortion rights go away, we will see a return to this for the rich and back alleys for everyone else.
1
I think it is important to keep in mind that an abortion does not kill a Republican, it kills a fetus which belongs to no party. So the various attacks on Republicans from readers amount to attacking Mr. Putin by criticizing Iran.
The issue really should not be when life begins. Even plants and cockroaches are alive. The real issue is when rights begin. A sensible view is that rights begin well after conception and well before delivery.
" In Islam, the fetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation" And WE (even feminist friends of pregnant women) start referring to it as "baby".
The position of the Republican candidates is irrational and also self-defeating. Handing the election to Hillary is hardly a way of protecting the unborn.
On the other hand, the US allows abortions more than twice as long as COMMUNIST Cuba so maybe our policy is too permissive?
Our abortion policy has followed the principles behind our gun policy. We put far too much emphasis on the rights of an individual and neglect the rights of the other parties. When a woman has an abortion she is intruding on the rights of the fetus, and quite often on the rights of the father. But they too have (some) rights, and who will defend these rights if not the law?
I wish that the various readers attacking Republicans were to say something serious and constructive. "They are wrong" is not enough. Please say what is right.
The issue really should not be when life begins. Even plants and cockroaches are alive. The real issue is when rights begin. A sensible view is that rights begin well after conception and well before delivery.
" In Islam, the fetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation" And WE (even feminist friends of pregnant women) start referring to it as "baby".
The position of the Republican candidates is irrational and also self-defeating. Handing the election to Hillary is hardly a way of protecting the unborn.
On the other hand, the US allows abortions more than twice as long as COMMUNIST Cuba so maybe our policy is too permissive?
Our abortion policy has followed the principles behind our gun policy. We put far too much emphasis on the rights of an individual and neglect the rights of the other parties. When a woman has an abortion she is intruding on the rights of the fetus, and quite often on the rights of the father. But they too have (some) rights, and who will defend these rights if not the law?
I wish that the various readers attacking Republicans were to say something serious and constructive. "They are wrong" is not enough. Please say what is right.
3
This should not be about attacking Republicans. It should be about attacking the enemies of women's freedom, who want to force the overpopulation the Earth. These may be good people in other regards; in this they are evil. As it's often the same people who favor the destruction of life on Earth through induced climate collapse, and wars against all nations who offend them, there can be little doubt about their lack of moral character.
4
What is right, in my opinion, is letting the pregnant woman, her signifiuother, if involved, and her physician and others she may consult (family, friends) make the decision in private. Not my call, not your call, not Ted or Marco or jack or Jill's call. Private matter. Period.
1
Well there are many children up for adoption in this country. If would be "right" if the pro life folks put their beliefs into action and took these children into their homes and raised them. That way they would show that they believe life after birth is valuable too.
Doesn't the bible claim that seed should never be spilled on infertile soil? Doesn't that mean that male masturbation or withdrawal is also a measure that prevents conception? Why don't staunch conservatives go after men for the millions and millions of lives they end?
21
Even better, since women are only fertile for a limited number of years, and only for a few days a month, is it not then true, that any activity which may result in a spilling of seed where their is no possibility of pregnancy, must be banned?
1
Probably be a run on potting soil if this occurs.
2
Using a combination of their logic, religious beliefs, and science understanding the greatest provider of abortions worldwide is God. 50% of all fertilized eggs are lost before implantation.
12
For the real truth and understanding of the conservative Christian opinion of women look no farther than Josh Duggar, a paid champion of "family values," who has admitted to molesting young girls (including his own sisters) and signing up on the Ashley Madison official cheating network because he wants to have a little fun outside of his marriage. His answer, when caught with his proverbial pants down, is to ask everyone to pray for him and his wife. He is one of many Christian "family values" men caught in their naughty hypocrisy.
That's what the GOP thinks of women. Property. Something to be owned and controlled. Nameless chattel.
And for more hypocrisy, Scott Walker denies global warming because he is "not a scientist," and yet he readily "acknowledges what science says" when it comes to women's gynecology.
These are the crazies who want to run this country.
That's what the GOP thinks of women. Property. Something to be owned and controlled. Nameless chattel.
And for more hypocrisy, Scott Walker denies global warming because he is "not a scientist," and yet he readily "acknowledges what science says" when it comes to women's gynecology.
These are the crazies who want to run this country.
34
For the most part, it seems as if middle aged white men in suits are leading the fight against abortion and of late, contraception in this country.
I can't help but wonder if this has anything to do with the certain decline of 'white' majority rule.
I can't help but wonder if this has anything to do with the certain decline of 'white' majority rule.
21
Men used to have hobbies after they retired.
Let's bring back Popular Mechanics magazine and get them busy on bird houses and gardening projects. Everyone will be happier, including them.
Let's bring back Popular Mechanics magazine and get them busy on bird houses and gardening projects. Everyone will be happier, including them.
2
Here's the real problem which all the GOP candidates face on the question of abortion and life beginning at conception:
If the zygote or the fetus is a 'baby' or a 'human being' or a 'person,' then killing it because it was the product of a rape or incest is just murder; it is not less of a person because of its parentage.
So let's hear about the plans for indicting all the women who have had abortions (and their medical accessories in the crime) for murder.
Sounds like a winning platform to me.
If the zygote or the fetus is a 'baby' or a 'human being' or a 'person,' then killing it because it was the product of a rape or incest is just murder; it is not less of a person because of its parentage.
So let's hear about the plans for indicting all the women who have had abortions (and their medical accessories in the crime) for murder.
Sounds like a winning platform to me.
8
Those who have been conditioned to believe that abortion = murder will make sure that the flame will never go out - even if it means the inevitable weakening of the Republican Party.
6
We've been "conditioned" by science. Ever heard of it? Science teaches us that a fetus is not just a glob of nothing as you deniers love to say. Rather it is a baby with its own distinct DNA. But maybe you and other leftists don't know what DNA is. So when you kill the baby inside the mother, you've murdered that baby. Your "science" conditions you to believe that just because the baby is inside the mother that it's not a human being. But, magically, some of you leftists believe that the baby is only a baby because it travels through a birth canal.
I would love to read a leftists' "scientific" explanation for how that science works, that a baby is only a baby because of C-section birth or moves a few inches through a birth canal.
I would love to read a leftists' "scientific" explanation for how that science works, that a baby is only a baby because of C-section birth or moves a few inches through a birth canal.
There is no issue so polluted with persistently muddy thinking as is the abortion issue.
Both sides insist on mixing the social issues of the rape/incest exception and the beginning of 'personhood' into the purely biological issues of when pregnancy, as opposed to personhood, starts.
I'm pro-choice but for the sake of logic I'll say this again:
If the foetus is a 'baby', then you cannot ethically have a rape/incest exception. That would be punishing - in fact, killing - the baby for the crime of its father. It would be ironic for the NYT to oppose capital punishment for murderers while allowing, indeed endorsing, it for innocent victims of a crime, i.e., the infant a rapist begat. And if it is just to allow the mother to kill a baby because its conception traumatised her before birth, why not allow her to smother it in the cradle, or kill it at age 2, or 10, or 25?
If the 'baby' is a foetus - not a person - then the issue is moot, as abortion is simply a medical procedure.
Either it is a 'baby,' an individual human being, or it is a 'foetus', a work in progress. And whichever it is, 59% approval - or 100% approval - won't make it otherwise, anymore than the earth would become flat if you could get a majority to vote it so.
Nor can it be a 'foetus' in cases of rape or incest, when you pity the pregnant woman, and a 'baby' when you disapprove of her reasons for an abortion. The rape/incest exception implicitly acknowledges even pro-lifers don't really think it's a baby.
Both sides insist on mixing the social issues of the rape/incest exception and the beginning of 'personhood' into the purely biological issues of when pregnancy, as opposed to personhood, starts.
I'm pro-choice but for the sake of logic I'll say this again:
If the foetus is a 'baby', then you cannot ethically have a rape/incest exception. That would be punishing - in fact, killing - the baby for the crime of its father. It would be ironic for the NYT to oppose capital punishment for murderers while allowing, indeed endorsing, it for innocent victims of a crime, i.e., the infant a rapist begat. And if it is just to allow the mother to kill a baby because its conception traumatised her before birth, why not allow her to smother it in the cradle, or kill it at age 2, or 10, or 25?
If the 'baby' is a foetus - not a person - then the issue is moot, as abortion is simply a medical procedure.
Either it is a 'baby,' an individual human being, or it is a 'foetus', a work in progress. And whichever it is, 59% approval - or 100% approval - won't make it otherwise, anymore than the earth would become flat if you could get a majority to vote it so.
Nor can it be a 'foetus' in cases of rape or incest, when you pity the pregnant woman, and a 'baby' when you disapprove of her reasons for an abortion. The rape/incest exception implicitly acknowledges even pro-lifers don't really think it's a baby.
4
All those words and you got nowhere.
Seeing the Republican candidates fall all over themselves to pander to the extreme right wing on abortion issues, reminds of the joke's punch-line that's the answer to the question, "When does life begin?"
"Life begins when the dog dies and the kids go off to college" --- to which I'd add, "And a Democrat is elected president.
"Life begins when the dog dies and the kids go off to college" --- to which I'd add, "And a Democrat is elected president.
13
I must say I'm not interested in the "beliefs" of any of the candidates concerning life on Mars, or in or out of the uterus.
What's the matter with us women ?
There were 6.6 million un-intended pregnancies in the U.S. in 2008 according to the Guttmacher Institute.
What happened to our own autonomy & agency ?
What's the matter with us women ?
There were 6.6 million un-intended pregnancies in the U.S. in 2008 according to the Guttmacher Institute.
What happened to our own autonomy & agency ?
10
Life does begin at conception - that is a scientific fact. Why are Democrats so anti-science?
Mr. Edsall states that only 10% of the nation favors abortion without any limitations. And yet this is the Democrat parties platform. They even support the gruesome and horrific actions of planned parenthood harvesting and profiting from the pieces of unborn babies.
Who are the extremists here?
Mr. Edsall states that only 10% of the nation favors abortion without any limitations. And yet this is the Democrat parties platform. They even support the gruesome and horrific actions of planned parenthood harvesting and profiting from the pieces of unborn babies.
Who are the extremists here?
3
I'll believe you mean that when you start standing up to the NRA and the saber rattling members of the Republican party.
1
What science? Is your egg breakfast an aborted chicken? If there is no implantation, there is no life. You are missing a few steps in your scientific query.
2
Scientists do not agree on what defines life. Fire satisfies all the common criteria for life, except that it has no cellular composition. It is not considered to be alive. A virus satisfies all the common criteria for life, except that it does not carry DNA. It is generally considered to be alive; if it weren't, it would not be an illness but a condition--like black lung, which is contracted by exposure to the lifeless remains of once-living things. Isn't that interesting?
Invoking "scientific fact" is sometimes rather unscientific. Please adopt the phrase "leading theory." The question of the immortal soul is best left to the brahmin, and the question of defining "life"--a term we loosely use--may be best left to the lexicographers.
Invoking "scientific fact" is sometimes rather unscientific. Please adopt the phrase "leading theory." The question of the immortal soul is best left to the brahmin, and the question of defining "life"--a term we loosely use--may be best left to the lexicographers.
2
When does an organism acquire legal personhood? Clearly in the United States personhood attaches when the Supreme court says it does , as it does to corporations. If Corporations are human then any organic matter is human, complex molecules, plants, insects, etc. Given the properties that distinguish humans from other organic entities, I recommend that legal human status attach when the organism, or organization , demonstrates the ability to reason. I can see why many politicians would object to that criterion.
7
At 7-8 weeks gestation, when most abortions are preformed, a human embryo is smaller than a kidney bean. It no more resembles a human baby than Mike Huckabee resembles a Brontosaurus. The only argument for treating this embryo as a person under the law is a religious argument, i. e., that the embryo has a human "soul" and that somehow God has a legal stake in its existence. However (and this is a very big however) God is absolutely irrelevant in the U.S. legal process. Absent the God involvement, a first trimester human embryo is not a person. And that's why first term abortion should remain legal.
19
According to Scripture, God formed Adam completely, body, brain, intellect. however Adam was not declared alive until God breathed in him the breath of life. I don't know when life begins but I am hesitant to accept that it begins with conception.
7
How can anyone credibly claim to be "pro life" and still be opposed to universal publicly funded medical care? These candidates are bald faced liars. They are pro birth -- not pro life. That so many people believe these lies, is truly alarming. I guess Orwell was right all along.
11
But even if every single pro-life proponent agreed to promote universal medical coverage exactly as you say, you'd never give up your desire to kill babies in the womb would you? You can't because desire for abortion is the defining element of a leftist. Every other political desire starts with that key first step, doesn't it?
The crowd that call themselves pro-life should understand that in curtailing the freedom of women - or couples - to terminate pregnancy also curtails other people's freedom.
You live in a jurisdiction that has legislated all kinds of restrictions to abortion short of an outright ban, but plan to carry your pregnancy to term and give birth. You suffer a miscarriage, but an ambitious pro-life DA decides to intrude on your grief, just in case there was some intent. Even if he (and it would almost certainly be a he) found absolutely no shred of evidence to back up his suspicions to the point of a prosecution, he would have subjected you to intolerable abuse. Unlikely? Perhaps, but not impossible in this age of conservative IMmoral rectitude. Of course, he wouldn't dream of taking action if you were a fellow conservative.
In another scenario the DA's mistress might be pregnant, in which case he would move heaven and earth to have the pregnancy terminated on the quiet.
Here's a mental exercise I've heard of for pro-lifers. There's a fire at a clinic that handles frozen embryos. What should firefighters attempt to do first - rescue the embryos or the real people who work there?
You live in a jurisdiction that has legislated all kinds of restrictions to abortion short of an outright ban, but plan to carry your pregnancy to term and give birth. You suffer a miscarriage, but an ambitious pro-life DA decides to intrude on your grief, just in case there was some intent. Even if he (and it would almost certainly be a he) found absolutely no shred of evidence to back up his suspicions to the point of a prosecution, he would have subjected you to intolerable abuse. Unlikely? Perhaps, but not impossible in this age of conservative IMmoral rectitude. Of course, he wouldn't dream of taking action if you were a fellow conservative.
In another scenario the DA's mistress might be pregnant, in which case he would move heaven and earth to have the pregnancy terminated on the quiet.
Here's a mental exercise I've heard of for pro-lifers. There's a fire at a clinic that handles frozen embryos. What should firefighters attempt to do first - rescue the embryos or the real people who work there?
9
The opposition to contraception shows that the true concern of anti abortionists is to keep the punishment for sex ( pregnancy) intact as to keep women in kitchen, church and children. Men must be punished also as bound breadwinners. If people truly wanted to reduce un wanted abortions contraception has to be vital.
9
Each header now says about the candidates. Of course this is an important event for America. We see that each candidate has chosen tactics, they adhere to it. But this is not always successful. Because words and actions have differences!
1
I guess we'll see in the next election whether the idea that women are equal and have as much right to control their lives and bodies as men actually means something and is not merely something to which we only pay lip service.
3
Still waiting for the GOP plan to adopt and/or absorb into society the one million unwanted fetuses brought to term should abortion in the U.S. be made illegal. The party that flaunts frugality and hands-off government and personal responsibility once again defines hypocrisy.
11
The popular conservative concept that killing an unborn child is immoral unless that child was created in a crime is laughable. Either the unborn child has a right to live or it does not. The child has commited no crime but conservatives all too often promote killing a child because of the crime of another. Incest and rape are unforgivable crimes but to punish the innocent child is an idea directly opposed by the premise that an unborn child has a right to live. Go figure.
2
Another attempt to duck the question of when life begins. By switching "pregnancy " for "life" the argument attempts to deny that human life begins at conception. Clever pseudo- scientific sophistry.
1
By switching "pregnancy " for "life" the argument attempts to deny that human life begins at conception.
A citation for your assertion? This is NOT fact nor science. It is your silly opinion.
A citation for your assertion? This is NOT fact nor science. It is your silly opinion.
1
If the GOP looks successful in winning the presidential election, it might be a good time to buy stock in companies that make coat hangers..... just saying that they will not stop abortions from taking place. As the conservatives like to say, the Supreme Court spoke some years ago and it is settled law. Their efforts to circumvent the law and impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us hopefully will lead to the independents making an effort to vote in the next election.
3
I cannot believe that we are having a conversation about a woman's right to choose to have a baby or not, well into the over-populated 21st century. That dragon was slayed with Roe v Wade a long time ago. Rest assured, the hardline anti-abortion types are also anti-contraception, and they will do whatever it takes to make both expensive and unavailable. Folks, this dialog is the start of a very slippery slope and the Dems better grow a spine and speak out for women's rights before it is too late.
8
No, it's an argument about publicly funding abortion and contraception, which, if you want to receive, you should consider moving to France.
These fools, liars, hypocrites, and bigots are not "pro-life", because they oppose every advance and initiative to improve life, from universal health care, to gun control, and to addressing climate change. The problem is that we don't call them what they are, a dangerous and radical minority, and treat them accordingly by opposing them vigorously at every turn.
14
I agree we must oppose the far-right lunacy.
Scott Walker was quoted as opposing abortion even to save the life of the mother. I recall in a college history text a sketch of the medieval view of a sperm called a "humunculus."
The one male cell contained the entire soon to be embryo. That seems to be the GOP world view, reducing the woman to status of a container. Then there is the right wing stance toward sex.....that good girls never do it and married women might have to but should never enjoy it. These Republicans are an American form of ISIS when it come to womankind.
Scott Walker was quoted as opposing abortion even to save the life of the mother. I recall in a college history text a sketch of the medieval view of a sperm called a "humunculus."
The one male cell contained the entire soon to be embryo. That seems to be the GOP world view, reducing the woman to status of a container. Then there is the right wing stance toward sex.....that good girls never do it and married women might have to but should never enjoy it. These Republicans are an American form of ISIS when it come to womankind.
Last Saturday there were pro-life rallies in front of Planned Parenthood clinics around the country. There were 70,000 people taking part in these demonstrations and not one single TV news station reported this except for EWTN. This is the largest pro-life rally in the history of our country.
They showed a young woman with her infant and she said she had attended these before the birth of her child. People are catching on to this horrible atrocity called abortion and are speaking out against the taking of innocent human life. I was not able to attend in Manhattan due to a previous commitment but I will in the future.
The democrats are silent on this issue and do not feel it is important. Republicans are speaking out against the murder of these vulnerable babies and are showing some backbone. They are not cowards.
They showed a young woman with her infant and she said she had attended these before the birth of her child. People are catching on to this horrible atrocity called abortion and are speaking out against the taking of innocent human life. I was not able to attend in Manhattan due to a previous commitment but I will in the future.
The democrats are silent on this issue and do not feel it is important. Republicans are speaking out against the murder of these vulnerable babies and are showing some backbone. They are not cowards.
2
@KMW
I doubt that "70,000 people" would constitute the largest anti-abortion rally in U.S. history. Parochial schools have often bused their students to the Capitol Mall in D.C. making it look almost as full as it did during the protests of the Vietnam War era. Of course, those anti-war protests were larger than the anti-abortion protests and were, in fact, pro-life.
I doubt that "70,000 people" would constitute the largest anti-abortion rally in U.S. history. Parochial schools have often bused their students to the Capitol Mall in D.C. making it look almost as full as it did during the protests of the Vietnam War era. Of course, those anti-war protests were larger than the anti-abortion protests and were, in fact, pro-life.
1
You must be under 25- this has been at a stalemate in the general US population since the 70s despite all the demonstrations and ever more extreme politicians.
> I was not able to attend in Manhattan due to a previous commitment but I will in the future.
That's nice.
Meanwhile, you don't have the legal authority to force your religious beliefs onto others.
Two, another female's pregnancy is none of your business. Women and their doctors are fully capable of making those decisions, thanks.
That's why Democrats are silent on this issue.
It's none of their business, and it's none of yours.
That's nice.
Meanwhile, you don't have the legal authority to force your religious beliefs onto others.
Two, another female's pregnancy is none of your business. Women and their doctors are fully capable of making those decisions, thanks.
That's why Democrats are silent on this issue.
It's none of their business, and it's none of yours.
4
Just who is infringing on whose free exercise of religion and civil rights to free expression without interference from state or corporations deriving their authority from the state? It all depends on who's sitting on the high bench. Vote common sense.
2
The sect of Fundamentalism in which I was raised believes that the fertilized egg has personhood. I was taught that, because conception happens during an act of lust, if a new-born is not baptized, he/she is condemned to an eternity in hell. So, the logical extension is that a fertilized egg that does not implant into the uterine wall is also condemned to an eternity in hell. This is part of the reason that there is such passion from Fundamentalists about abortion. I see this in my siblings, who still attend that church.
This belief is one of the reason that I am now an atheist. How cruel is a god that condemns a fetus to an eternity in hell?
This belief is one of the reason that I am now an atheist. How cruel is a god that condemns a fetus to an eternity in hell?
7
Most of the Republican candidates seem to feel it necessary to reject science, wrongly redefine English words, or simply engage foolishness in pursuit of the vote. To start simply and near the beginning, by no measure is a zygote a "person". Unless or until that is understood and clearly noted, further discussion is bound to flounder in nonsense. It's much like trying to discuss the antiquity of the earth with a young-earth creationist who insists it's about 6000 years old.
3
I'd like someone to ask these mainly male candidates if they have ever in their lives had sex when they did not plan or expect it to result in conception. If so, did they use contraception or did they just keep their fingers crossed? Or, like so many other Republican hypocrites, did they pay for an abortion and hush it up?
I realize that these are personal questions. But since I suspect that most, if not all, of these guys have had sex without wanting a baby, one wonders what they think future men will do in their same situations.
I believe the only surefire way to secure a woman's right to an abortion is to make the man, the father, financially and physically responsible for the upbringing of the child. If they knew they had skin in the game every single time they "score", their feelings on abortion would surely change.
I realize that these are personal questions. But since I suspect that most, if not all, of these guys have had sex without wanting a baby, one wonders what they think future men will do in their same situations.
I believe the only surefire way to secure a woman's right to an abortion is to make the man, the father, financially and physically responsible for the upbringing of the child. If they knew they had skin in the game every single time they "score", their feelings on abortion would surely change.
2
Who is going to take care of all these unwanted children is the real question?At least the Catholic church provided low coast child care an orphanages. I've never herd of Evangelicals providing social services for children.
1
I'm glad to see the Republican candidates take these extreme positions on abortion and contraception. It gives Democrats a much better chance of winning the Presidency and taking back the Senate in 2016. As to the beginning of life issue, it's really simple. Life begins when a child is born and survives.
5
The pro-choice banner is being carried by the religious, and mostly men. Until we are hearing justifications for "personhood" that *at least equally* come from those who (A) don't get their morals from superstitions and B) actually run the risk of becoming pregnant, well I just don't see the point.
The GOP has no solutions to any of this country's real problems, tax cuts do not repair infrastructure, do not further research in energy, materials, or medicine, their 'solution' to the A.C.A. is to throw tens of thousands of the currently insured back into emergency room medicine, and of course the disemboweling of Social Security in order to 'save' it.
Whats left but the culture wars, designed to hold the single issue voter within the party.
Basically it amounts to a strategy of 'when all you have is a hammer, then all the problems look like a nail'.
Whats left but the culture wars, designed to hold the single issue voter within the party.
Basically it amounts to a strategy of 'when all you have is a hammer, then all the problems look like a nail'.
4
Death occurs when brain activity ceases and/or the heart stops beating. It seems the corollary should be used to establish the beginning of life. A baby's heartbeat begins pumping within a closed system at twenty-one days after conception and brain waves are detected at six weeks.
When both are detected the unborn child should be considered as a living individual.
When both are detected the unborn child should be considered as a living individual.
The difference is that with death, we have someone who has undeniably been a human being for a whole lifetime. The "brain waves" thing is a giveaway, since that isn't a medical term. "Electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."
http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and...
http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and...
I'm assuming you, like the author of your linked blog "have a fair amount of biology" to substantiate credibility. The blogger cites another blogger from about.com who actually has no medical background beyond a passionate pro-choice position. In actuality Margaret Sykes (the about.com authority) states, "So I have no objection to saying that 'a human life' or 'human personhood' begins when brain waves are measured on an EEG" (bold added). She apparently objects when pro-lifers use the term "brain waves," but she has no problem using the exact same words herself when it comes to making her own case.
Her distinction is based on readings by technique, not the existence of brain activity/waves/viability. An EEG is a reading taken from electrodes placed on the head and body, a difficult proposition for an in-utero child, don't you think.
I am simply offering a corollary defining the beginning of life as the same standards used to determine the end of life. Your argument about a an "undeniable" human being is weak. It is rhetoric employed simply to obfuscate. I might as well state that everyone who ever lived or who has died was, at one time, a potential human being. It would be undeniable but not a valid argument.
Her distinction is based on readings by technique, not the existence of brain activity/waves/viability. An EEG is a reading taken from electrodes placed on the head and body, a difficult proposition for an in-utero child, don't you think.
I am simply offering a corollary defining the beginning of life as the same standards used to determine the end of life. Your argument about a an "undeniable" human being is weak. It is rhetoric employed simply to obfuscate. I might as well state that everyone who ever lived or who has died was, at one time, a potential human being. It would be undeniable but not a valid argument.
These Republican candidates are truly embarrassing for all of us. When asked about global warming, they hide their ignorance behind "I'm not a scientist." Yet when it comes to life and contraception and abortifacients, they all have expert knowledge, especially about "human" life. Now a cancer cell found in a human person is a human life form. Should we abort it? Just how does one define "human life"? And when does it begin? After all, the egg and the sperm are both live before conception. We could go on and on and on. What I would like to know is: Do American men want their wives and daughters and sons and themselves subjected to such curtailment of reproductive freedom invented by such illogical people?
2
Sometimes seeking simple answers only complicates things. When it comes to nature, almost nothing is black or white… including life itself. There’s no off-on switch. Even when we die, many of our organs are still alive and viable under the right circumstances. Even when we’re alive, we may not be fully viable.
Rather than an off-on switch, life becomes viable gradually. A fertilized egg is human tissue, which is only slightly more viable than sperm or an unfertilized egg. Even at birth, an infant is not a fully viable human. It takes several years and much nurturing from others before a child has any hope of surviving on his or her own as a fully viable human. Life’s milestones are only societal constructs because life itself is gradual.
Trying to impose a rigid legislated timeline on a gradual phenomenon is an over simplification that shouldn't be a political issue. Life is complicated to be legislated by politicians.
Rather than an off-on switch, life becomes viable gradually. A fertilized egg is human tissue, which is only slightly more viable than sperm or an unfertilized egg. Even at birth, an infant is not a fully viable human. It takes several years and much nurturing from others before a child has any hope of surviving on his or her own as a fully viable human. Life’s milestones are only societal constructs because life itself is gradual.
Trying to impose a rigid legislated timeline on a gradual phenomenon is an over simplification that shouldn't be a political issue. Life is complicated to be legislated by politicians.
1
I was disappointed Edsal didn't address the fertilized eggs created for in vitro fertilization. I think it is telling that the GOP and pro life movement is rabidly against contraceptives and planned parenthood but make nary a peep about fertility treatments. I will venture a guess and suggest that at the end of the day the pro life movement is just another weapon used to render working and marginalized people more desperate and poor. Class warfare exists. Workers and the poor are losing. The GOP is in for a rude awakening-women will not give up control of their bodies for a bunch of absolutist, moralistic ideologues.
3
You have to appreciate, in a sad kind of way, the embrace by so-called libertarians of the usage of government power to impose religious beliefs on others. It's made especially worse by the embrace of Big Oil and other Big Money interests, all saying they are against government over-regulation. But for peoples' private reproductive choices, hey - that the deal for this coalition without compasssion or even natural or Biblical rationale where abortion is never mentioned, but the breath of life is. Finally, looking at God's Creation, one can observe in all forms of life's creation and reproduction, a lot of experimentation and lot of loss along the way - at every stage. These are THE most private choices and all of these guys going along with this religious extremism are anti-liberty and anti-freedom and anti-compassion as well.
2
Jeb (!) Bush certainly did not do "everything possible to promote adoption." As governor, he signed into law a bill requiring women -at their own expense- to publish a complete accounting of their sexual history in state newspapers if they were inclined to put a child up for adoption. Other than shaming someone utterly deserving for making an incredibly difficult decision, it's hard to find the point in such a law. It was soon rescinded and even Jeb (!) thought it might not have been such a great idea.
3
The steady march of the so-called "pro-life" crowd from anti-abortion to anti-contraceptive over the past 15 years or so is simply horrifying. Not at all expected by most people who do not share the same point of view or philosophy. Except that the rest of the world needs to remember: when it comes to women, a woman who can control her life is still, always was, a huge threat. And this applies to how other women (who identify as conservative) will act or react to those firebrands who think they are free to do as they please. So, in their world: no abortion and good god no conception control. It is very hard to put the Freedom Genie back in the bottle, even though this group thinks it is possible and are doing their best to get it done.
1
The current Republican take on women's right to control their own bodies seems both barbaric and primitive--as though we're living on some far flung archipelago! These are the guys who want to take apart and dissemble government, yet illogically want government to control women's reproductive activities.
They are determined to take down Planned Parenthood, which offers advice on contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and other services related to women's health. These men are acting like seriously crazy individuals who utter self-contradicting statements in 1, 2 sequence.
These ultra chauvinists don't deserve a platform upon which to speak, and if money weren't the major factor in American politics, they'd be booed off the stage.
They are determined to take down Planned Parenthood, which offers advice on contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and other services related to women's health. These men are acting like seriously crazy individuals who utter self-contradicting statements in 1, 2 sequence.
These ultra chauvinists don't deserve a platform upon which to speak, and if money weren't the major factor in American politics, they'd be booed off the stage.
2
I've only read one comment thus far that addresses the real issue. The strictest anti-abortionists believe their God implants a soul, an eternal being, at the moment of conception. Such believers want to force the rest of us to comply, even if our beliefs and consciences are in conflict. Are we going to allow that?
I did a little reading and find that Islam's position on unwanted pregnancy or threats to the life of the mother is actually closer to existing laws in the USA than is the Catholic faith. Pregnant Bosnian women raped by Serbs were allowed by Islamic decree to abort without limitations.
I regard this issue as a challenge to the separation of Church and State established by the Constitution. The "soul begins at fertilization" concept is pushed relentlessly in social media, available to impressionable young girls of different religious traditions. What politicians say is of less concern to me than this relentless, targeted religious propaganda. Once that belief takes hold, a pregnant woman might choose to die rather than abort, even though the pregnancy will end also, because she perceives it as the will of God. How is this different from brainwashing people into other forms of religious extremism in other parts of the world?
I did a little reading and find that Islam's position on unwanted pregnancy or threats to the life of the mother is actually closer to existing laws in the USA than is the Catholic faith. Pregnant Bosnian women raped by Serbs were allowed by Islamic decree to abort without limitations.
I regard this issue as a challenge to the separation of Church and State established by the Constitution. The "soul begins at fertilization" concept is pushed relentlessly in social media, available to impressionable young girls of different religious traditions. What politicians say is of less concern to me than this relentless, targeted religious propaganda. Once that belief takes hold, a pregnant woman might choose to die rather than abort, even though the pregnancy will end also, because she perceives it as the will of God. How is this different from brainwashing people into other forms of religious extremism in other parts of the world?
3
This debate is not about valuing or protecting life.
Republicans, purported "Christians," and other zealots of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception movement routinely support wars and executions while voting against providing housing, clothing, health care and even food for the poor.
It is almost impossible to imagine any group more anti-life than Republicans who oppose environmental protections to the now obvious counter global climate change that is threatening functional extinction of our species.
But it is not quite impossible to imagine - because the "Christians" who seek the quick arrival of Armageddon are literally death-worshipers.
The entire "pro-life" movement is nothing more or less than an extension of religious doctrines and practices designed and maintained to subject females, and especially female sexuality, to male dominance.
The very existence of the Orwellian-named "pro-life movement" is a testament to the dishonesty, hypocrisy and sheer depravity of organized religion. If the "pro-life" death worshipers obtain control over America, we really are a damned society.
Republicans, purported "Christians," and other zealots of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception movement routinely support wars and executions while voting against providing housing, clothing, health care and even food for the poor.
It is almost impossible to imagine any group more anti-life than Republicans who oppose environmental protections to the now obvious counter global climate change that is threatening functional extinction of our species.
But it is not quite impossible to imagine - because the "Christians" who seek the quick arrival of Armageddon are literally death-worshipers.
The entire "pro-life" movement is nothing more or less than an extension of religious doctrines and practices designed and maintained to subject females, and especially female sexuality, to male dominance.
The very existence of the Orwellian-named "pro-life movement" is a testament to the dishonesty, hypocrisy and sheer depravity of organized religion. If the "pro-life" death worshipers obtain control over America, we really are a damned society.
1
Simple solution: Require all men who oppose use of contraception or abortion based on the belief that life begins at the moment of fertilization to sign a legally binding attestation, prior to each act of their own that could result in such fertilization, asserting their willingness and intention to provide financial and emotional support to any life created subsequent to such act.
1
At the risk of repeating comments made by other people, I'd emphasize that the "no exceptions" rule of the Catholic Church and of many politicians is at least consistent: they view every abortion as the "murder" of an innocent "person" (so obviously it makes no difference how that "person" got conceived or what damage it might unintentionally do to the mother). Well, not quite consistent: no priest will celebrate a funeral mass for an embryo that has been aborted spontaneously (miscarriage) or deliberately. But consistency of the theological sort is ugly in practice since it refuses to recognize a woman's right to make her own decisions about carrying an unwanted or unplanned fetus to term. The wiser path for the anti-abortion people would obviously be to provide the most effective methods of contraception, paid for by tax money (the same way nuclear weapons and other tools of war are paid for).
Most Christians will proclaim that life begins the moment of conception. However, I am really puzzled over one glaring point. The sperm is alive with motor skills and something other than mere instinctual direction before conception. Does life begin at ejaculation and carried over into conception? What about the thousands of other sperm cells that are shut out of the process at conception and doomed to die a slow death over a three day period? Should we care that billions of lives (living, moving, thinking sperm cells) are lost every day when men have sexual relations?
I don't know when human life begins but this should not be decided by religion.
I don't know when human life begins but this should not be decided by religion.
Many friends of mine believe that the abortion issue was settled with Roe vs. Wade more than 40 years ago, but they are wrong.
One need look no further than the hundreds of pieces of legislation against a woman's choice that have been introduced in Congress and many more that have recently been enacted by the GOP-controlled State Governments.
Many of these same advocates oppose gay rights, voting rights for minorities, and equal pay for equal work.
Hopefully, the 2016 election is one in which the Democrats make women and minority rights one of the central issues. Light is needed on precisely where the candidates stand on these issues. Then, voters can decide intelligently.
One need look no further than the hundreds of pieces of legislation against a woman's choice that have been introduced in Congress and many more that have recently been enacted by the GOP-controlled State Governments.
Many of these same advocates oppose gay rights, voting rights for minorities, and equal pay for equal work.
Hopefully, the 2016 election is one in which the Democrats make women and minority rights one of the central issues. Light is needed on precisely where the candidates stand on these issues. Then, voters can decide intelligently.
2
The default target of almost all Republican politicians seems to be women's rights. Even Kasich has already signed 16 anti-abortion bills and is due to sign another obnoxious one. Jeb Bush didn't only interfere egregiously in the Terry Schiavo case but also tried to force a 13-year-old victim to have a baby.
Science and medical facts mean zero to conservative Republicans. The Hobby Lobby decision was in fact based on junk science, but the Supreme Court Jusice Alito stated that it didn't matter that it was erroneous. What mattered was the sincerely held (scientifically false) belief.
Hopefully in the next election, women will vote strongly against any Republican who treats them as subhuman incubation machine who have no rights over their own bodies and who must yield to male politicians on decisions that will impact their financial and personal future for the rest of their lives. Women and girls will die without access to contraception and abortion as needed.
If Republicans care more about the fetal vote than that of women, then so be it. Their ideas about creation are as erroneous as the 6000 year old world (which is not flat, by the way, for any obsolete GOP thinkers).
Science and medical facts mean zero to conservative Republicans. The Hobby Lobby decision was in fact based on junk science, but the Supreme Court Jusice Alito stated that it didn't matter that it was erroneous. What mattered was the sincerely held (scientifically false) belief.
Hopefully in the next election, women will vote strongly against any Republican who treats them as subhuman incubation machine who have no rights over their own bodies and who must yield to male politicians on decisions that will impact their financial and personal future for the rest of their lives. Women and girls will die without access to contraception and abortion as needed.
If Republicans care more about the fetal vote than that of women, then so be it. Their ideas about creation are as erroneous as the 6000 year old world (which is not flat, by the way, for any obsolete GOP thinkers).
2
These attacks on contraception have really gotten out of hand. There's a reason the medical definition of pregnancy begins at implantation, because a fertilized egg cannot grow to even become a fetus (or eventually a baby) unless it implants in the uterus. Therefore, no implantation = no pregnancy. Women's bodies do this on their own frequently - often dispelling a fertilized egg before it can implant in the womb, it's an event that happens in nature all the time. Contraception methods that prevent implantation therefore prevent a pregnancy, not destroy one. The belief that a fertilized egg is somehow a person (without ever having implanted in a uterus to become one) - is irrational, ridiculous, and without any scientific merit. Shame on anyone who promotes such nonsense.
1
All these metaphysical arguments about when life begins, whether at fertilization or at implantation, just begs the abortion question, because when pregnancy occurs, there's just no way around the fact that two lives are involved. The only question is which life takes precedence, the life of the fetus, or the life of the living, breathing woman bearing it. Republicans are now unanimous that in every pregnancy, no matter how brutal the rape or how brutal the pregnancy, the life of the fetus always matters more, up to and including the time before implantation. They have become so ridiculously pro-life of a fetus that they have become, toward women, anti-life.
The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade had it right when it ruled that there must be a balancing act between these two lives. It ruled that in the first few weeks of a fetus's life the pregnant woman's life is paramount, and as the pregnancy progresses and becomes more viable in the second and third trimesters, the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus increases.
The more extremist the pro-life movement gets in putting the life of the fetus first, at every point in pregnancy, even before it arguably even begins, the more reasonable and sensible Roe v. Wade appears. It will stand the test of time.
The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade had it right when it ruled that there must be a balancing act between these two lives. It ruled that in the first few weeks of a fetus's life the pregnant woman's life is paramount, and as the pregnancy progresses and becomes more viable in the second and third trimesters, the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus increases.
The more extremist the pro-life movement gets in putting the life of the fetus first, at every point in pregnancy, even before it arguably even begins, the more reasonable and sensible Roe v. Wade appears. It will stand the test of time.
I am a women of 74 years and a clinical social worker of over 40 years of experience. Our society which remains patriarchal dictates to women how to live their lives. It does not value women as fully fledged human beings, they are enslaved by others' religious values. This societal control is destructive to children. The very minimum we owe our children is to be welcomed into the world. Without this they begin life without the full nurturing family nest of acceptance and protection that ensures their emotional and physical well being. Parents want their children to grow up as happy functional human beings, We need to allow women the freedom to decide how best to manage the size and timing of their families.
It has been my clinical experience that women (it is primarily women) come to therapy for symptoms of often chronic depression, of being overwhelmed by their roles as women in a society that is complacent about about their welfare and that of their children. Women are often left to cope in their role as mothers by themselves without adequate resources. Many ordinary women struggle with the challenges of of having children that they in good conscience know that they can only insufficiently care care for. In my work I've only come across an occasional women who after much consideration and distress had decided they needed an abortion. If we truly care for strong families let us not insinuate our selves into their most. private parts of their beings.
It has been my clinical experience that women (it is primarily women) come to therapy for symptoms of often chronic depression, of being overwhelmed by their roles as women in a society that is complacent about about their welfare and that of their children. Women are often left to cope in their role as mothers by themselves without adequate resources. Many ordinary women struggle with the challenges of of having children that they in good conscience know that they can only insufficiently care care for. In my work I've only come across an occasional women who after much consideration and distress had decided they needed an abortion. If we truly care for strong families let us not insinuate our selves into their most. private parts of their beings.
3
I keep waiting for an intelligent Republican candidate. Sadly, none seems to be waiting in the wings.
Can't resist, warning, you will need a sense of humor, requires PG, though it features a bunch of youngsters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
"The Meaning of Life" by Monty Python
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
"The Meaning of Life" by Monty Python
5
Can't help thinking the Republican conception of conception is that concern for the baby's welfare ends at birth.
18
I have had three miscarriages (and a past abortion 10yrs ago).
It is funny how the doctors are saying pregnancy starts at implantation but yet when you tell a doctor you are pregnant, the first thing they ask you is when was your last period (this is called LMP). Only if you are doing IVF or other ART, would you know the exact date of implantation. Otherwise, your pregnancy starts from LMP. Then they may use words like gestational age etc to further define but your due date is calculated from the LMP. Most doctors can only guess when implantation happens. Some women (including me) feel when it is tugging. It is quite an amazing feeling.
Now I am very pro-choice but I just want to point out a lie when I see one.
Another thing that irks me is if you lose a pregnancy between conception and implantation, it is called chemical pregnancy (still pregnancy). Most doctors do not acknowledge even though when you have successful pregnancy, ooh yeah that LMP date is so important.
When there is a pregnancy is up to the woman in question. I am trying to have a baby bad, every pregnancy from conception is pregnancy TO ME.
When I had abortion at 5 weeks 10yrs ago, I did not ask for heart beat or anything, I did not call it pregnancy. I just wanted it done.
It is biology BUT it has a lot of psychological aspects that no one is talking about. At the end, it is up to the woman in question to decide what is at stake and what to do about it.
It is funny how the doctors are saying pregnancy starts at implantation but yet when you tell a doctor you are pregnant, the first thing they ask you is when was your last period (this is called LMP). Only if you are doing IVF or other ART, would you know the exact date of implantation. Otherwise, your pregnancy starts from LMP. Then they may use words like gestational age etc to further define but your due date is calculated from the LMP. Most doctors can only guess when implantation happens. Some women (including me) feel when it is tugging. It is quite an amazing feeling.
Now I am very pro-choice but I just want to point out a lie when I see one.
Another thing that irks me is if you lose a pregnancy between conception and implantation, it is called chemical pregnancy (still pregnancy). Most doctors do not acknowledge even though when you have successful pregnancy, ooh yeah that LMP date is so important.
When there is a pregnancy is up to the woman in question. I am trying to have a baby bad, every pregnancy from conception is pregnancy TO ME.
When I had abortion at 5 weeks 10yrs ago, I did not ask for heart beat or anything, I did not call it pregnancy. I just wanted it done.
It is biology BUT it has a lot of psychological aspects that no one is talking about. At the end, it is up to the woman in question to decide what is at stake and what to do about it.
5
We desperately need to the technology for men to carry pregnancies to term themselves.
12
Let's talk about the birth control pill: the primary way this works is by inhibiting ovulation. Occasionally a woman will ovulate on the birth control pill and if fertilized the secondary method of the pill is to disrupt the implantation of the fertilized egg by making the endometrial lining inhospitable to implantation.
This begs the question: are these candidates ready to tell the American public that we should also ban the pill?
This begs the question: are these candidates ready to tell the American public that we should also ban the pill?
13
The answer? YES. Many of them would be delighted to do so, in order to reach and hold onto the margins of their fan base. And I'm pretty sure that at least a few of them don't like science and so have convinced themselves that if sperm has connected with egg that constitutes "a baby." Implantation doesn't even register in their minds as necessary for a fetus (!) to develop, much less a full-formed at-term infant.
some of them say yes, ban the pill. Hopefully they and their party can win both the executive and legislature and bring such a law to pass. Think of how much sexually transmitted diseases would decline!
Why do liberals not understand the health benefits?
Why do liberals not understand the health benefits?
Yes. They are.
1
When did we stop discussing this issue from the women's perspective? I feel like the war has already been lost and we are just deciding the terms of our surrender.
6
The Republican fight against the rights of women is long standing and most likely never going away. Any form of civil rights is another long term battle.
Unless you are an elderly Caucasian American-born male there is absolutely no valid reason to vote Republican.
Republicans do not want our government to aid you in any manner unless you fall into the very limited classification mentioned above.
Citizens should not be fooled by Republican campaign rhetoric.
Wise citizens will vote for Democrats.
Unless you are an elderly Caucasian American-born male there is absolutely no valid reason to vote Republican.
Republicans do not want our government to aid you in any manner unless you fall into the very limited classification mentioned above.
Citizens should not be fooled by Republican campaign rhetoric.
Wise citizens will vote for Democrats.
8
How can a person be "pro-life" and support capital punishment and war? Let's take the money we spend on war and invest it in education, research and job creation, than watch the "unwanted" pregnancy rate plummet.
21
The same is often asked about abortion advocates. How can they be against events that kill while supporting millions of terminations? Of course, they can all justify their positions.
2
The argument is that murderers are guilty, so they deserve to be executed. However babies are innocent, so they deserve to live.
Personally I am against capital punishment, btw.
Personally I am against capital punishment, btw.
Well, because abortion advocates generally don't consider it a "human" if it is terminated in the 1st trimester. Abortion opponents generally consider a fertilized egg being the same "human" as a soldier in war or aged criminal.
Therefore, if "death" is the issue on the table-- the former position is consistent, and the latter is inconsistent, at least on their formulations of "human". Whether you agree or disagree with their assumptions is something you can settle in church. In fact, this "conception" was the whole topic of this op-ed.
Therefore, if "death" is the issue on the table-- the former position is consistent, and the latter is inconsistent, at least on their formulations of "human". Whether you agree or disagree with their assumptions is something you can settle in church. In fact, this "conception" was the whole topic of this op-ed.
What about the rights of sperm, which are unarguably alive prior to fertilization? If you are going to draw bright lines, it's hard not to be arbitrary as to where they are drawn....
7
Yes. Every sperm & every egg have the right to become people. Duh
Yes let's make masturbation illegal too.
I often compare the debate Americans are having now on abortion to the debate Americans had on slavery from the conception of America to and through The American Civil War. Our Civil War is still smoldering as I write. Add just enough fuel, and it could ignite again. Abortion may be that fuel. There are many millions of Americans who believe Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and, yes, even Donald Trump. These people have proven themselves capable of outright terrorism. When this happens, America doesn't matter to them anymore, unless it is an America where they get their way, even if they are in the extreme minority. That isn't democracy.
9
Let's start asking all male candidates intimate questions about their sperm, and the health of their sperm, and ask them to submit to regular ultrasounds of their sperm if they want to have sex, and the motility of their sperm. Just to be fair, you know. And when they call for Congressional hearings, make CERTAIN that all of the "experts" called to testify are women. Just to be fair.
30
I condemn your sexist views.
I cringed when I saw the display featuring models of fetal development at an anti-abortion event. I wish the republicans would put up a display of American soldiers wounded, maimed, or killed in battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Show the missing limbs and bloody stumps. Show the red and blue intestines bulging out of abdominal cavities. Show half a skull with brain matter spilling out onto the floor. And have an audio section where people can hear gunshots and bombs exploding, the the screams of these wounded soldiers begging for help, growing hoarse, then nothing.
If they had such a display, it might dissuade some republicans and republican supporters from going to war.
As far as the debate on abortion, the republicans might not like it but a woman has a right to getting an abortion because IT IS THE LAW. Roe vs. Wade - remember? Until the law changes they really have nothing to say.
If they had such a display, it might dissuade some republicans and republican supporters from going to war.
As far as the debate on abortion, the republicans might not like it but a woman has a right to getting an abortion because IT IS THE LAW. Roe vs. Wade - remember? Until the law changes they really have nothing to say.
23
Sorry, you have it very wrong. The rights of the unborn trump any argument the choice group can invent. Roe vs Wade will eventually be overturned and I can't wait for that to happen. It's easy for you to blame all the casualties of war on the republicans. Try Obama's drone war for starters as so many innocent civilians r being killed. For dessert try the Viet nam war started by u libs. Finally, for the black lives matter crowd try rationalizing the killing of 10 million black babies since 1973. Future doctors lawyers, teachers, moms and dads. Legalized genocide.
Why shouldn't they have anything to say about a law they don't like? Laws can be changed; the constitution can be amended.
The GOP has destroyed themselves by way of fostering and fomenting their Tea Party Frankenstein's monster, so nowadays they are in a catch 22: play to the base to get any sort of backing or support, but be less popular in the general election. Lee Atwater and Karl Rove couldn't have done it any better. The GOP has been pushed very far to the right and have all but sealed their defeat. Should they want to win any future presidential elections, they must come up with a strategy to destroy the monster they created.
5
The problem is that the GOP evidently hasn't damaged itself, unfortunately. The party controls the vast majority of state legislatures and governorships (and these have coughed up the most restrictive anti-choice and anti-woman legislation in years) as well as control of the US House and Senate. That they have gained such power can be attributed to the lazy citizenship that is characteristic of too many Americans who can't be bothered to vote, particularly in off-years.
My college roommate years ago was a teetotaler based on his religion. He however liked apple cider, especially as it got fizzy. I asked him at what point he had to stop drinking it because of the alcohol content. Initially perplexed, he soon decided that an absolute alcohol prohibition made no sense for him.
One cannot be half pregnant. Deciding when life begins is like determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Rowe v. Wade had it right -- viability.
One cannot be half pregnant. Deciding when life begins is like determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Rowe v. Wade had it right -- viability.
15
Looking for some unifying theory that explains the Republican position on abortion and contraception? It is really simple: its a need to boss other people around. Having authority is no fun unless you use it. Nuances like what about the right of the unborn to be born if conceived by rape or incest are irrelevant in the face of this overriding need.
22
Basic issue... if you're against abortion, don't have one.
The decision to or not to have an abortion is the decision of the woman & her God. Neither you nor I have a vote.
The decision to or not to have an abortion is the decision of the woman & her God. Neither you nor I have a vote.
21
Leave god out of it. That's what causes the problem in the first place.
The decision is between a woman and her doctor.
The decision is between a woman and her doctor.
While I happen to support the right to choose, it's not actually that simple unless the issue is viewed ENTIRELY from our perspective. Having no real definitive answer, we've collectively decided to make viability the cutoff point. That's fine with me, but I understand why someone on the other side of this issue would be horrified if they believe life effectively begins earlier. Does that mean I would accommodate their belief in terms of new laws? No. But as long as they do so peacefully, I can understand why they would advocate a change themselves. Granted, for some people, "pro-life" is a thinly veiled excuse to control women. Their personal attacks on women themselves is distinct from the misgivings of people who just aren't sold on our nation's policy decision. On the other hand, I think there are some people who do not hate women, but believe every abortion is murderous. Thus, when they try to prevent abortions, they believe they are stopping murders. Viewed in that context, simply telling them to keep their opinions to themselves is counterproductive.
Mr. Edsall, Consider applying your scholarly approach to the issue from the perspective of the First Amendment establishment clause. A definition of human life that is derived from religious doctrine cannot be imposed on citizens, can it?
That "life" begins at conception is scientifically peculiar. "Approximately one in 3-4 known pregnancies are lost within the first trimester to miscarriage." "In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses." (http://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception_how_it_works/
"John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is “enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.” Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences." (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover)
How important is it that Americans understand the First Amendment implications and the science of gestation before we disenfranchise all women?
That "life" begins at conception is scientifically peculiar. "Approximately one in 3-4 known pregnancies are lost within the first trimester to miscarriage." "In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses." (http://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception_how_it_works/
"John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is “enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.” Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences." (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover)
How important is it that Americans understand the First Amendment implications and the science of gestation before we disenfranchise all women?
12
You want to prevent abortions? Promote birth control.
Really, if a two-hour-old fertilized egg is a human being, then piles of acorns are a forest -- and a plan to "grow the economy by 4% a year" is the same as actually achieving it, and a statement "mission accomplished" actually brings peace to Iraq.
Really, if a two-hour-old fertilized egg is a human being, then piles of acorns are a forest -- and a plan to "grow the economy by 4% a year" is the same as actually achieving it, and a statement "mission accomplished" actually brings peace to Iraq.
85
Correction: Promote the actual use of birth control. Possessing it is not enough.
4
Coming from an environment where pols obsessively demand abstinance only sex-ed (remember Bush?), simply promoting birth control is certainly a step in the right direction!
but does not birth control lead to the impedement of the creation of a fetus? This sounds like a subtle form of birth control.
Why are people not content to manage their own reproductive affairs? What business of theirs are the reproductive affairs of others?
Why does a woman past child-bearing age, or her husband, need an opinion on contraception or abortion? Aren’t declining sexual desire, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence more proper concerns for them?
What code of morality deems bearing an unwanted child preferable to preventing or terminating an unwanted pregnancy? Do sensible citizens want an additional 6 million unwanted American children born each year?
Human life begins at birth, not conception, for "every man born of woman"; that's Biblical! US citizenship begins at birth, not conception; that's Constitutional! All the rest is politics, not morality!
Why does a woman past child-bearing age, or her husband, need an opinion on contraception or abortion? Aren’t declining sexual desire, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence more proper concerns for them?
What code of morality deems bearing an unwanted child preferable to preventing or terminating an unwanted pregnancy? Do sensible citizens want an additional 6 million unwanted American children born each year?
Human life begins at birth, not conception, for "every man born of woman"; that's Biblical! US citizenship begins at birth, not conception; that's Constitutional! All the rest is politics, not morality!
19
Some men's horror of not only abortion but also birth control of any sort probably has to do with a religious, megalomaniacal conviction that their sperm is sacred and, once released, must find its way to a convenient egg.
Men playing God are very scary creatures.
Men playing God are very scary creatures.
22
Access to good family planning and contraception means fewer abortions. And science-based sex education can also help. The GOP wants a wedge issue for its high-faith followers. The religionization of politics is bad for effective governance and bad for churches, who continue to lose the interest of young people.
11
Several months ago Frank Bruni wrote a brilliant column in which he analysed the statistics regarding Christian Conservatives within the Republican Party and reached the conclusion that vis a vis their percentage numbers, they have an outsized control of party policies. That explains why so many leading Republican Candidates are tilting toward more and more restriction of abortion. In the last 2 election cycles, the most moderate candidate won the primaries and nomination, much to the chagrin of party leaders and the talk radio toadies. If it happens again the electorate will have spoken loudly and clearly against extremest social policies.
6
Less than half of fertilized eggs implant, and are eliminated. Of the remainder, perhaps 10% encounter problems in the uterus, and are eliminated.
All of these are "souls," humans, people, and on the way to heaven according to those who believe that life begins at conception. People who have never been born, people without names, people who have never been held in a mother's arms, have never seen sunlight. Sounds like more than half of the "people" in Republican heaven are nameless zombies.
I hope they don't have to register to vote in that Republican heaven.
All of these are "souls," humans, people, and on the way to heaven according to those who believe that life begins at conception. People who have never been born, people without names, people who have never been held in a mother's arms, have never seen sunlight. Sounds like more than half of the "people" in Republican heaven are nameless zombies.
I hope they don't have to register to vote in that Republican heaven.
15
The truth is that Republicans aren't going to prevent abortion, they are going to prevent safe abortion for poor people. The well off women will just jet of to a place that they can get an abortion. Those who cannot afford it? Well, there are the old stories of back alleys.
I find it interesting that the conservatives constantly rail against "Welfare" women who have babies so they can get rich on the public dole but then turn around and want to not only prevent abortion, but contraception which very cheaply prevents the problem. Terminating a pregnancy is a decision for the mother of the child and her alone. Don't like abortion? Don't get one and keep your big government nose out of the lives of women.
I find it interesting that the conservatives constantly rail against "Welfare" women who have babies so they can get rich on the public dole but then turn around and want to not only prevent abortion, but contraception which very cheaply prevents the problem. Terminating a pregnancy is a decision for the mother of the child and her alone. Don't like abortion? Don't get one and keep your big government nose out of the lives of women.
41
It is also interesting that it is the men, who are against abortion at any time whatsoever and who wouldn't consider for a moment having a vasectomy, are also the ones who are most likely to be against paying women enough of a living wage so that they can support their children, and who are most likely to be dead-beat dads, and who are the most likely to accuse "those gold-digging b******" of "trapping men into marriage by getting pregnant."
Let's see, GOP. You want the right to have sex with women, you want the right to get them pregnant, you want the right to deny them access to birth control, you want the right to deny them access to a safe abortion, you want the right to force these women and children to live in abject poverty without Welfare, child support or a living wage, and you want them to accept full responsibility and all of the blame for all of the decisions that you have made for them because the "poor dears are too stupid to think for themselves." Got it. And there is no War on Women?
Let's see, GOP. You want the right to have sex with women, you want the right to get them pregnant, you want the right to deny them access to birth control, you want the right to deny them access to a safe abortion, you want the right to force these women and children to live in abject poverty without Welfare, child support or a living wage, and you want them to accept full responsibility and all of the blame for all of the decisions that you have made for them because the "poor dears are too stupid to think for themselves." Got it. And there is no War on Women?
Life is a continuum. Gametes (sperm cells and egg cells) are living things. Pro-life ideologues and politicians must hate the facts that not every sperm cell and not every egg gets to become a bouncing baby. Will they eventually extend their legislation of sacrality to protect gametes? This would require making menstruation illegal and requiring men to account for the fate of each of their millions of swimmers.
Efforts by politicians to infuse biology with their notions of sacredness are absurd and counter to our basic constitutional right of freedom from religion.
Efforts by politicians to infuse biology with their notions of sacredness are absurd and counter to our basic constitutional right of freedom from religion.
4
They'd have to take up the normal, natural and high-volume "failure" of egg/sperm to implant in a womb with God.
And I don't know if they really can or would want to do that. It might not work out so well.
And I don't know if they really can or would want to do that. It might not work out so well.
If you believe that a fetus is a human being then abortion, even for rape and incest, would be considered the taking of a life. Even though the arguments for aborting a pregnancy due to rape or incest are deeply heart-felt and understandable, when a person truly believes that the fetus is a real, genuine human, abortion can never be an option.
2
Well, we've heard a number of GOP candidates opine now that there'd be no abortion for women who are victims of either under their Imperial Rule!
This is ultimately a First Amendment issue affecting freedom of religion and the implicit freedom of conscience.
Proponents of the "human life begins at conception" position are, without saying so, arguing for the existence of a soul. Pre-viability, there is no other argument to make besides easily refuted tropes about "potential."
Proponents of the "human life begins at conception" position are, without saying so, arguing for the existence of a soul. Pre-viability, there is no other argument to make besides easily refuted tropes about "potential."
7
With props to Legally Blonde, life begins at ejaculation given that such sperm are alive and kicking. Therefore all men who engage in any such emission without possibility of conception are committing murder. Let's have every doctor ask every man if he engages in such and then fine each man $100 for each emission. The money could be used to support all of the Down Syndrome individuals in Ohio.
Now let's get a panel of women in a congressional hearing to talk about it. The heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL can co-chair.
Now let's get a panel of women in a congressional hearing to talk about it. The heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL can co-chair.
31
Every sperm is sacred!
There is a difference between pregnancy and conception. They are not the same thing. Human life does begin at conception, but some die quite naturally without implantation without drugs. I disagree with calling the morning after pill a abortifant, but that does not mean it does not end some human lives. Mr. Edsall is talking about technicalities, but not the immorality of ending human lives, implanted or not.
2
Mr. Edsall is talking about political platforms & campaign strategy, actually. Don't make the mistake of moralizing the piece. What Mr. Edsall shows is that while these candidates are confident in what defines life--that being conception--many are either unwilling or unable to explain what they believe defines conception.
Pro-choice and pro-life people all deserve these answers from the people whose decisions affect countless lives. There's willful inorance, and there's pragmatic ignorance--I further fear the latter by leagues.
Pro-choice and pro-life people all deserve these answers from the people whose decisions affect countless lives. There's willful inorance, and there's pragmatic ignorance--I further fear the latter by leagues.
The statement that life begins at conception reflects only ignorance. The oocytes and spermatocytes that join in "conception" are very much alive. In turn, they originate from precursor cells that
7
Life is a continuum. Gametes (sperm cells and egg cells) are living things. Pro-life ideologues and politicians must hate the facts that not every sperm cell and not every egg gets to become a bouncing baby. Will they eventually extend their legislation of sacrality to protect gametes? This would require making menstruation illegal and requiring men to account for the fate of each of their millions of swimmers.
Efforts by politicians to infuse biology with their notions of sacredness are absurd and counter to our basic constitutional right of freedom from religion.
Efforts by politicians to infuse biology with their notions of sacredness are absurd and counter to our basic constitutional right of freedom from religion.
32
unfortunately the GOP tries to go after abortion on the overall issue. it is legal, and it should stay that way. However, the "harvesting" and selling of aborted fetuses by Planned Parenthood should be outlawed along with late term abortions. Americans are decidedly against both practices. It's too bad we cannot have a mature discussion on the real issues by both sides.
Fetal tissue donations are an important part of medical research and are a noble gift from the women involved. Planned Parenthood absolutely does not sell tissue but like any medical organization (hospitals, the Red Cross and others) has costs of storage, etc. These are true for any organ or tissue donation.
The lies and smears of the anti-abortion crowd are actually much like the murders, harassment and bombs at women's health clinics -- despicable actions of zealots who have no boundaries of decency or honesty.
And many late term abortions are only due to terrible fetal abnormalities, dangers to the life or health of the woman, or other circumstances. Only the woman and her doctor should make such a decision. No one else in the world should make such a personal decision, or force their religious views on a woman whom they know nothing about.
The lies and smears of the anti-abortion crowd are actually much like the murders, harassment and bombs at women's health clinics -- despicable actions of zealots who have no boundaries of decency or honesty.
And many late term abortions are only due to terrible fetal abnormalities, dangers to the life or health of the woman, or other circumstances. Only the woman and her doctor should make such a decision. No one else in the world should make such a personal decision, or force their religious views on a woman whom they know nothing about.
1
Sorry, JJS, but neither you nor the majority (nor your God) get to tell me (or my daughters or granddaughters) what to believe. "Mature discussion" must begin with both sides giving respect to the other side's right to decide for him/herself.
Would you be willing to include in your medical directive, the refusal of all medical care deveoped by the study of fetal material or models derived from the use of fetal material , and apply that policy consistently to your family members?
Nice job of redirecting attention away from the Planned Parenthood videos. One's beliefs rarely translate directly to law, even as President. The candidates have staked out a consistent moral position wherein life is preferred over someone's physical or mental comfort. If the vast majority of people, though, want vague laws, we'll have vague laws.
3
Do you mean the heavily edited fake videos?
10
Byron Schlomach: Wrong. The doctored Planned Parenthood videos are meant to redirect attention from the real Republican agenda, retaking control of all aspects of women's lives (AKA The Good Old Days).
Republicans have yet to prove that the women, daughters, and mistresses in their lives do not get abortions.
Republicans have yet to express remorse at the pregnant women who died in Iraq when the US first invaded that nation back in 2003.
Republicans have yet to value life once it is out of the womb.
As such, they are not opposed to abortion. Their collective protest is simply red meat to ensure votes from religious zealots over a single issue.
The situation really is just that straightforward.
Republicans have yet to express remorse at the pregnant women who died in Iraq when the US first invaded that nation back in 2003.
Republicans have yet to value life once it is out of the womb.
As such, they are not opposed to abortion. Their collective protest is simply red meat to ensure votes from religious zealots over a single issue.
The situation really is just that straightforward.
63
You spilled a little of your KoolAid there, madam. And guess what? Republican voters hardly care at all about abortion. It's a figment of your imagination. The most recent survey of voters I saw had abortion listed almost last in terms of priority for Repub voters. Myself, I'm where most Americans are; abortion should be legal up to 20 weeks. And I will never again vote for a Democrat. But the issue itself is almost meaningless in importance. You demonstrate a spectacular lack of understanding the range of Repub ideology. Your concept of a Repub voter is that of a Bible-thumping, abortion-clinic-bombing, homophobe sexist for Jesus. To borrow a Carville phrase - "It's the economy, stupid." Most progressive Dems are closer to a socialist ideal than capitalist. So think context. The larger, existential questions of government involvement in citizen's lives, and a free market economy. THAT is where you will find the lion's share of Republican voters.
Is the real goal of the GOP candidates (and the already elected politicians who continue to attack women's reproductive rights) a return to the patriarchal social construct of fifty or so years ago? My mother told this story. Having had two children and being in her mid-30s (which was thought old in the 1960s for having babies), she told her doctor that she wanted a tubal ligation. His response - state law required (1) that she have had a minimum of three children and (2) that her husband gave written permission.
(I hope that the GOP candidates don't see this comment.)
(I hope that the GOP candidates don't see this comment.)
115
There are federal court rulings against spousal consent laws, but the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. Despite these court rulings some hospitals still have policies against performing the procedure without the signed consent of both spouses. Publicly owned hospitals are not legally allowed to maintain such a policy, but private hospitals are. Despite the illegality of spousal consent policies at public hospitals, doctors may still refuse to perform the procedure, especially if the woman requesting it is young or has not yet had children.
1
with any luck such a law would come to pass. The American Association of Restaurants is complaining of a shortage of restaurant workers. This law mitigates this problem.
I am saddened by how the pro-abortion camp has framed the issue as the the unborn baby is a mere mass of cells, kind of like a tumor, and so it (and its father) deserve no rights. If you are a women this viewpoint is convenient and seems fair.
Back in the good old days (which weren't so good) men denied women their rights with convenient arguments as why this was fair, proper, advantageous, and natural.
In the real world, the fairest society is an imperfect place where the rights of all parties are recognized and balanced.
It is hard for me to imagine wanting to outlaw contraceptives; however it is equally hard for me to accept the position that unborn babies are simply a mass of cells having no rights other than what the mother believes they should be.
I do not know what the proper balance of rights should be; but it should not be all and nothing.
Back in the good old days (which weren't so good) men denied women their rights with convenient arguments as why this was fair, proper, advantageous, and natural.
In the real world, the fairest society is an imperfect place where the rights of all parties are recognized and balanced.
It is hard for me to imagine wanting to outlaw contraceptives; however it is equally hard for me to accept the position that unborn babies are simply a mass of cells having no rights other than what the mother believes they should be.
I do not know what the proper balance of rights should be; but it should not be all and nothing.
1
The argument over when "life" begins is unsolvable. Does it begin at the beginning, a few days or months later? Who can say? The safest assumption is we have no idea and, therefore, we should ban all abortions. By such neat Aquinian logic the Roman church would also ban contraceptives.
Humans, however, take life all the time when convenient. Not just in wars, executions, criminal acts but to avoid the cost of countering global warming, a high electrical bill, or an efficient car. Why is abortion, a choice made by humans throughout history, now such an exception? The simple answer is a minority of the Republican Party has a large say in the outcome of its primaries.
Humans, however, take life all the time when convenient. Not just in wars, executions, criminal acts but to avoid the cost of countering global warming, a high electrical bill, or an efficient car. Why is abortion, a choice made by humans throughout history, now such an exception? The simple answer is a minority of the Republican Party has a large say in the outcome of its primaries.
1
The talktalktalk about what is and isn't "ok" regarding abortion is irrelevant. The only way to end abortion is to end unintended pregnancies. The rest is hot air.
I know that many people have deeply held beliefs that abortion is wrong, either always or mostly. If you are truly committed to somehow ending abortion, then the most effective approach you can take is to refocus your energy, compassion and money on helping to prevent unintended pregnancies.
Legislation will never end abortions. It will only make tough lives tougher. It will only lead women to attempt to induce an abortion themselves, knowing that they will likely die or be permanently injured. If you have never experienced an unintended or unwanted pregnancy, then search out a woman who has. Listen to her. Listen to the stories of women who have had abortions. Listen, love and learn.
I know that many people have deeply held beliefs that abortion is wrong, either always or mostly. If you are truly committed to somehow ending abortion, then the most effective approach you can take is to refocus your energy, compassion and money on helping to prevent unintended pregnancies.
Legislation will never end abortions. It will only make tough lives tougher. It will only lead women to attempt to induce an abortion themselves, knowing that they will likely die or be permanently injured. If you have never experienced an unintended or unwanted pregnancy, then search out a woman who has. Listen to her. Listen to the stories of women who have had abortions. Listen, love and learn.
3
My (very smart) wife has pointed out that life is certainly present well before conception. What, do these Republicans think that the ovum (and the little swimmy sperm) are both dead before they meet? Life is there long, long before these two join.
So the question is not "Does life begin at conception?" but "Does human life begin at conception?"
Now we face the question as to whether a single cell is a HUMAN life? This surely does not pass the 'quacks like a duck' test. It has no brain, no feelings, no organs, and there is nothing particularly human about it any more than there is about an ovum waiting in the Graffian follicles or the stem cells in your body. (Note that somatic stem cells can be used to create a human being, too.)
Will they outlaw hysterectomies, and surgery which removes stem cells along with regular somatic cells?
The Supreme Court got it right. And old Jewish law permits abortion until 'the quickening', when the fetus becomes something with independent action. That seems about right to us.
So the question is not "Does life begin at conception?" but "Does human life begin at conception?"
Now we face the question as to whether a single cell is a HUMAN life? This surely does not pass the 'quacks like a duck' test. It has no brain, no feelings, no organs, and there is nothing particularly human about it any more than there is about an ovum waiting in the Graffian follicles or the stem cells in your body. (Note that somatic stem cells can be used to create a human being, too.)
Will they outlaw hysterectomies, and surgery which removes stem cells along with regular somatic cells?
The Supreme Court got it right. And old Jewish law permits abortion until 'the quickening', when the fetus becomes something with independent action. That seems about right to us.
4
The whole discussion contrasting spermicide with uterine implantation should be moot, given a woman's constitutional right to control her own reproductive functions -- at least up to a point.
All the rest would all be pointless prattle were it not for the fact that cynical panderers to religious zealotry are perfectly content to enshrine second-class citizenry for 53% of the US population by restricting its members in ways that men never need to concern themselves with.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
All the rest would all be pointless prattle were it not for the fact that cynical panderers to religious zealotry are perfectly content to enshrine second-class citizenry for 53% of the US population by restricting its members in ways that men never need to concern themselves with.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
4
The republican party , in trade for the votes of religious lunatics , wishes to turn all American citizens of a female persuasion into brood sows, incapable of rational thought and subservient to their male counterparts who play a very small part in the business of reproduction.
Women alone are tasked with the burdens of child bearing and , in general the job of rearing those children.
The pseudo-scientists that claim life begins at conception are at great odds with the fact that life does not begin until birth , have no knowledge of which they speak and certainly have no business forcing their nonsense on those who disagree.
We are seeking a president , not a spineless evangelical without the fortitude to make the simplest of decisions without the approval of a non-existent supernatural being of which there is not one iota of evidence.
This madness must stop. The day the government obtains dominion over private family matters is the same day that Democracy is finished.
Women alone are tasked with the burdens of child bearing and , in general the job of rearing those children.
The pseudo-scientists that claim life begins at conception are at great odds with the fact that life does not begin until birth , have no knowledge of which they speak and certainly have no business forcing their nonsense on those who disagree.
We are seeking a president , not a spineless evangelical without the fortitude to make the simplest of decisions without the approval of a non-existent supernatural being of which there is not one iota of evidence.
This madness must stop. The day the government obtains dominion over private family matters is the same day that Democracy is finished.
7
Sad. The GOP is on the losing side of opinion, demographics and history, as well as of logic and decency. But the war, which Pat Buchanan correctly defined as a kulturkampf, is not over.
I find an analogy in the Pacific War in 1942, after the Battle of Midway. At that point, Japan had lost, but was willing to fight to the death. Recent events, including the ACA, the acceptance of gay marriage, and the continued public aversion to stupid military adventures demonstrate that the game is lost for the right wing. But they will fight on, in a desperate, destructive, and even self-destructive fashion for a long time. And those groups with legitimate concerns about abortion and other issues, who are being co-opted by a party leadership that has no real concern for any of those issues, will go down with them. Sad.
I find an analogy in the Pacific War in 1942, after the Battle of Midway. At that point, Japan had lost, but was willing to fight to the death. Recent events, including the ACA, the acceptance of gay marriage, and the continued public aversion to stupid military adventures demonstrate that the game is lost for the right wing. But they will fight on, in a desperate, destructive, and even self-destructive fashion for a long time. And those groups with legitimate concerns about abortion and other issues, who are being co-opted by a party leadership that has no real concern for any of those issues, will go down with them. Sad.
2
These patriarchal fools don't want women in the workplace on an equal footing with men. They want a theocracy that takes us back to the Iron Age and keeps women "barefoot and pregnant" and inside the home. They oppose all forms of sex education, except for "abstinence only", which only results in ignorance and more unwanted pregnancies. They don't care about a child after it is born, advocating the defunding of government programs that help the living. They are not advocates of small government; they want the government to intrude into all of our personal lives, inserting itself into the relationship between us and our doctors. Any woman--any thinking person-- who votes for these paternalistic despots is even more foolish than they are.
10
The result of such logic is that there are evidently three types of American citizenship:
1. Citizens in full control of their own bodies.
2. Citizens for whom the course of biological events taking place inside their own bodies is subject to state control, irregardless of the individual's own wishes.
3. Citizens that reside inside the body of another Citizen.
Now let us turn to the question of the number of angels that the Constitution allows on the head of a pin.
1. Citizens in full control of their own bodies.
2. Citizens for whom the course of biological events taking place inside their own bodies is subject to state control, irregardless of the individual's own wishes.
3. Citizens that reside inside the body of another Citizen.
Now let us turn to the question of the number of angels that the Constitution allows on the head of a pin.
9
The G.O.P. is living a fantasy by its rigid ideology, counter to reality as is. Its anti-abortion stance is only worsened by not allowing measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And when republican politicians attain higher office, they promptly disengage from the electorate, doing sometimes the opposite that people want and need, many times for religious dogmatic 'reasons' (hence, not liable for discussion nor deviation). Seeking an abortion is never easy, ideally preventable by education and preventive measures. We men ought to get out of this decision-making, the need of which we are at least partly responsible in causing, while washing our hands and claiming the high ground. Sounds hypocritical? It sure does to some of us.
1
I'm pro life, but acknowledge that there is some ambiguity in the early phases. I am a realist and would accept some form of compromise in order to reduce abortions. The problem is that the pro choice side is absolutist and will not grant protection of the unborn, even in the cases where there is no ambiguity. Advancing science is removing the ambiguity and making it more difficult for the pro choice side to defend their stance.
1
"The problem is that the pro choice side is absolutist and will not grant protection of the unborn, even in the cases where there is no ambiguity."
Really? The fact that you can't get an abortion after 24 weeks in this country strikes you as absolutist. If you'll note, the battle being fought isn't at that end of the timeline.
Really? The fact that you can't get an abortion after 24 weeks in this country strikes you as absolutist. If you'll note, the battle being fought isn't at that end of the timeline.
Are you pro-life after birth? If you truly are then you will be an adoption crusader and fund-giver.
You say you are willing to "accept some form of compromise in order to reduce abortions". Does that mean insurance coverage for 'the pill', better sex education for teenagers, etc. or pure abstinence.
You say you are willing to "accept some form of compromise in order to reduce abortions". Does that mean insurance coverage for 'the pill', better sex education for teenagers, etc. or pure abstinence.
What are you talking about?
No one has an abortion at 9 months or 8 months or 7 months when the baby and the mother and the circumstances are all healthy.
People have abortions early in the pregnancy. The protection question you raised here is interesting:
Who gets protection the person talking to you or the unborn in HER belly that is using her blood supplies?
Do you even know a woman who had an abortion at late age like 8 months?
You do not because they do not exist. If they do, I would be interested what are the circumstances first?
No one has an abortion at 9 months or 8 months or 7 months when the baby and the mother and the circumstances are all healthy.
People have abortions early in the pregnancy. The protection question you raised here is interesting:
Who gets protection the person talking to you or the unborn in HER belly that is using her blood supplies?
Do you even know a woman who had an abortion at late age like 8 months?
You do not because they do not exist. If they do, I would be interested what are the circumstances first?
The next step in this lunacy is the concept the same candidates are pushing, ie. the personhood of the fertilized egg, with all the rights of born people. Whose to speak for the fertilized egg? The government of course! Pregnancy Police is the logical outcome. Imagine a country where women are criminalized for a miscarriage. Imagine a place where women would have to submit a PG test monthly to make sure every PG is identified and remains intact. Imagine a place where woman are jailed for PG supervision for any reason. Imagine a place where any death in utero is prima fascia considered murder. And this horror from the party that hates any governmental intrusion in our lives. Our society will then be truly exceptional in a worse possible way than any of us could imagine and be a pariah in the world.
10
In your next survey of the candidates, try exchanging the word "believe" for the word "think". It is my general sense that, in a word of angels and miracles, the word "believe" lets them off the hook regarding the facts of the world. All of the questions posed have specific answers - even if we debate what that answer is. At least by using "think", we can try to start a discussion of the specifics, like the potential percentage of pregnancies (by either definition) that are terminated as a result of an IUD. Putting "believe" in the question pretty much shuts that debate down because they can believe whatever they want including things like all forms of birth control should be illegal because only God should determine when children are conceived.
3
I fear that political arguments about abortion are couched in false terms. Women have been trying to prevent or end unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of recorded time, and that is not likely to end. Our question today is whether these efforts are going to be legal and safe or illegal and dangerous. I favor legal and safe, but that does not imply I do not feel moral qualms. Serious people would work to make unwanted pregnancies and abortion less common.
6
The life begins at conception slogan is spin not conviction. Those who use it think that the discovery of DNA and the role it plays in determining how an orgasm becomes fully formed reflects a divine intention which is indicative of God's will in action. The actual belief is that God decides the fates of all and any who act to thwart God's will are inviting God's wrath. That is the entirety of that position and if one fails to understand that, one does not understand the issues that are in contention.
4
The anti-abortion supporters look at pregnancy as a punishment for women having sex. If a women is unmarried, has sex, and finds herself pregnant, she deserves to be punished for her transgression. And, what better punishment than to be stuck with a child to raise. That'll teach her.
The same belief infuses anti-contraception supporters. The only women having sex should be married ones. And, even for them, it is wrong to use contraception and they should be welcoming as many pregnancies as possible. No matter that their families cannot afford another child, or they simply do not want another child. If that is the case, then separate bedrooms and abstinence are the answer. Because, a couple must be willing to have a child every time they have sex, or they shouldn't have sex.
The "no exception for rape or incest" crowd also follows this pattern. If a woman is raped, it is her fault, and again, she must be punished for that. If her father or brother is the rapist, no matter--the same holds true.
And, because women are valued so little in this crowd, they should be willing to sacrifice their lives in order to have a baby born. So, no exception to save the life of the woman. Her life means nothing, the baby's life is all that matters.
Even though Republicans would love for me to believe that there is no "war on women", I don't know what else you can possibly call it when the fetus always reigns supreme, and women's lives matter not at all.
The same belief infuses anti-contraception supporters. The only women having sex should be married ones. And, even for them, it is wrong to use contraception and they should be welcoming as many pregnancies as possible. No matter that their families cannot afford another child, or they simply do not want another child. If that is the case, then separate bedrooms and abstinence are the answer. Because, a couple must be willing to have a child every time they have sex, or they shouldn't have sex.
The "no exception for rape or incest" crowd also follows this pattern. If a woman is raped, it is her fault, and again, she must be punished for that. If her father or brother is the rapist, no matter--the same holds true.
And, because women are valued so little in this crowd, they should be willing to sacrifice their lives in order to have a baby born. So, no exception to save the life of the woman. Her life means nothing, the baby's life is all that matters.
Even though Republicans would love for me to believe that there is no "war on women", I don't know what else you can possibly call it when the fetus always reigns supreme, and women's lives matter not at all.
52
I agree that part of the anti-abortion crowd's stance is partly about punishing women for sex, but more and more, I see it as primarily about control. Making abortion a crime ensures that men have the right to "plant their seed" in any woman they choose, and the woman gets no further say. Once he's done his business, the decision is made, and she must undergo pregnancy, childbirth, and a few decades of hard work rearing his child. It's not her place to say anything at all once she's already said "yes" (or an insufficiently strong "no") to a man. And if the father decides the woman he impregnated isn't worth supporting during all of this - why would we do anything to feed or house this woman or her child? If they deserved to eat or live indoors, a man would be taking care of them. She must be worthless or have done something bad.
I genuinely think conservative men hate abortion because they hate the idea of women's wombs being unavailable for their use. They hate welfare and equal rights because both allow women to support themselves instead of having to go begging to a man to survive.
Conservative women, meanwhile? I think they see other women's reproductive choices as somehow putting pressure on *them* to choose differently - the same way conservative men freak out at the idea of two men marrying because they feel like *they* are somehow being pushed to be gay. They see other people's choices as a personal violation, even when there is no objective impact on them at all.
I genuinely think conservative men hate abortion because they hate the idea of women's wombs being unavailable for their use. They hate welfare and equal rights because both allow women to support themselves instead of having to go begging to a man to survive.
Conservative women, meanwhile? I think they see other women's reproductive choices as somehow putting pressure on *them* to choose differently - the same way conservative men freak out at the idea of two men marrying because they feel like *they* are somehow being pushed to be gay. They see other people's choices as a personal violation, even when there is no objective impact on them at all.
It doesn't matter what they believe.
What matters is the right of adults with capacity for decision making to be in full control of their health and healthcare decisions. What matters is the ability of licensed healthcare professionals to practice based on their respective professions' body of knowledge, expertise and professional autonomy unfettered by political interference.
That is all.
What matters is the right of adults with capacity for decision making to be in full control of their health and healthcare decisions. What matters is the ability of licensed healthcare professionals to practice based on their respective professions' body of knowledge, expertise and professional autonomy unfettered by political interference.
That is all.
32
When Santorum's wife experienced a pregnancy that threatened her life and was unviable, she sensibly underwent an abortion. However, she and her husband renamed the procedure as something, in their minds, more benign. This semantics helps to explain why these men's wives and teenage daughters magically never have unintended pregnancies or unwanted children. When confronted with such, they simply redefine the situation to make it not-an-abortion or a-different-kind-of-decision. Ask any small-town GYN-OBN and s/he will report sending a steady stream of more affluent patients out of town for terminations. And a lot of these folks are Republicans.
168
Before she married Rick, she was a nurse in a large OB/GYN practice in Pittsburgh that preformed a substantial amount of abortions.
Thomas Edsall is warping the debate by using deceptive language. Instead of considering abortion a "woman's right," he should address the other thing that it is: Eugenics. After all, a tremendous number of minority pregnancies in the cities are terminated, which was the desired goal of the founders of the "birth control" movement and Planned Parenthood:
"[Margaret] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit... Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Keep in mind that many people who oppose abortion (like me) also advocate for improvement government services, improved health care, education, and safety for impoverished communities.
So the real question is when will "pro-choice" supporters recognize, let alone defend, the true horror of their actions?
"[Margaret] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit... Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Keep in mind that many people who oppose abortion (like me) also advocate for improvement government services, improved health care, education, and safety for impoverished communities.
So the real question is when will "pro-choice" supporters recognize, let alone defend, the true horror of their actions?
2
One way to build solidarity and support is to have or create enemies around whom unite in their fear and hatred. And boy can the Republicans manufacture enemies in order to gain votes. Pathetically, it had become their primary strategy for winning. People of color, immigrants/aliens, women/feminists, gays, Muslims, foreigners, scientists (esp. climate change scientists), & more besides.
Edsall's point is interesting that the current anti-abortion hype espoused by a number of GOP candidates goes even further to the extreme in a number of areas Edsall mentions, and runs contrary to public opinion. Never mind that the abortion rate is declining and is nearly half what it was in 1981.
The all-out assault against Planned Parenthood is a clue who the latest new GOP enemy is. I am infuriated because in teaching college for nearly 4 decades, I heard from female students a number of times how grateful they were for Planned Parenthood, since they couldn't afford to go to a doctor to get care for all kinds of problems. So why in the world would the Republicans want to deny women health care (including their moderate candidate Jeb!)?
I think this battle over reproduction is really a surrogate battle to make poor people a #1 enemy--the Takers. Rich women will always get their abortions and contraception as they please, but poor women are the ones relying on PP services, so let's punish them. Why? So the greedy rich won't need to pay taxes to support social programs & poor people.
Edsall's point is interesting that the current anti-abortion hype espoused by a number of GOP candidates goes even further to the extreme in a number of areas Edsall mentions, and runs contrary to public opinion. Never mind that the abortion rate is declining and is nearly half what it was in 1981.
The all-out assault against Planned Parenthood is a clue who the latest new GOP enemy is. I am infuriated because in teaching college for nearly 4 decades, I heard from female students a number of times how grateful they were for Planned Parenthood, since they couldn't afford to go to a doctor to get care for all kinds of problems. So why in the world would the Republicans want to deny women health care (including their moderate candidate Jeb!)?
I think this battle over reproduction is really a surrogate battle to make poor people a #1 enemy--the Takers. Rich women will always get their abortions and contraception as they please, but poor women are the ones relying on PP services, so let's punish them. Why? So the greedy rich won't need to pay taxes to support social programs & poor people.
6
Whenever politicians in this "pro-life" group talk about "womens healthcare," it's got NOTHING to do with contraception or annual exams. They don't even want to think about that "icky womens stuff." Abortion is a zillion miles away from the issue and the term.
The term "womens healthcare" would to them, ideally, mean "Obstetric Care for Married Ladies Who are Having Babies." That the only kind of "womens healthcare" they can even dare to think about on a personal basis and to keep their miserable political careers alive. And they would be thrilled if men could still huddle in the waiting room and proudly pass out cigars after the newborn is cleaned up and put in the married lady's arms.
The term "womens healthcare" would to them, ideally, mean "Obstetric Care for Married Ladies Who are Having Babies." That the only kind of "womens healthcare" they can even dare to think about on a personal basis and to keep their miserable political careers alive. And they would be thrilled if men could still huddle in the waiting room and proudly pass out cigars after the newborn is cleaned up and put in the married lady's arms.
I have always wondered why no one points out that the "human life begins at fertilization" definition would potentially make every menstrual period a crime. Anywhere from 30-50% of fertilized eggs never implant, for various reasons. This is a natural occurrence that happens even in the absence of contraceptives. How does the GOP propose to make sure that no fertilized eggs are passed out of the body in the menstrual cycle? Will having a period become a crime?
I also wonder why no one has thought that an ectopic pregnancy, which cannot possibly result in a baby and which if left untreated can be fatal, would also be made criminal under "fertilization" statutes.
We could stop this nonsense in its tracks if only the science/rational side of the fence would have the guts to point out the implications of laws the ovophiles would want passed.
I also wonder why no one has thought that an ectopic pregnancy, which cannot possibly result in a baby and which if left untreated can be fatal, would also be made criminal under "fertilization" statutes.
We could stop this nonsense in its tracks if only the science/rational side of the fence would have the guts to point out the implications of laws the ovophiles would want passed.
3
Under the theory that life begins at conception it should be noted how this position will be incorporated into criminal law.
It stands to reason that all pregnancies will need to be officially documented and that any termination will require a full investigation by some sort of fetal-homicide squad. Every miscarriage will require this. And besides the capital charges for abortion, including everyone involved , there should be criminal negligence charges for mothers who poorly manage their pregnancies.
It looks to me like there's going to be a lot of women serving serious jail time, and that doesn't include the ones who are executed.
It stands to reason that all pregnancies will need to be officially documented and that any termination will require a full investigation by some sort of fetal-homicide squad. Every miscarriage will require this. And besides the capital charges for abortion, including everyone involved , there should be criminal negligence charges for mothers who poorly manage their pregnancies.
It looks to me like there's going to be a lot of women serving serious jail time, and that doesn't include the ones who are executed.
Unbelievable. Particularly coming off the heels of reading a Frank Bruni, and the hypocrisy of the far right when it comes to Trump. I would love some reporter to try to put Trump's feet to the fire on these questions of when conception begins and the various forms of birth control. I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that women the Donald has dated have used these common forms of contraception. Bet the religious right would embrace him anyway.y.
The only pleasure I derive from reading this medieval attempt to control a women's most intimate body parts and her sexual life is that it will (ideally) turn off a sizeable chunk of the electorate in 2016. This country, as the Donald would say, is in deep trouble. But it's not the kind of trouble the right to lifers assume it is.
Our troubles stem from crumbling bridges, to economic and social inequality, to incoherent foreign policy, to the need for tax and immigration reform. Yet, we are watching the equivalent of how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, when it comes to details of sexual acts that have no place in the public square.
They are largely religious issues--and, as such, represent the most brazen attempt to foist the views and morals of Republican men onto women protected by a secular state. For me, the issue of abortion and sexual behavior has absolutely no business in the secular society .
Lest one forget, separation of church and state is enshrined in the 1st amendment.
The only pleasure I derive from reading this medieval attempt to control a women's most intimate body parts and her sexual life is that it will (ideally) turn off a sizeable chunk of the electorate in 2016. This country, as the Donald would say, is in deep trouble. But it's not the kind of trouble the right to lifers assume it is.
Our troubles stem from crumbling bridges, to economic and social inequality, to incoherent foreign policy, to the need for tax and immigration reform. Yet, we are watching the equivalent of how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, when it comes to details of sexual acts that have no place in the public square.
They are largely religious issues--and, as such, represent the most brazen attempt to foist the views and morals of Republican men onto women protected by a secular state. For me, the issue of abortion and sexual behavior has absolutely no business in the secular society .
Lest one forget, separation of church and state is enshrined in the 1st amendment.
4
Its interesting. First, lets prioritize the mother's health. Rape and incest can create emotional and psychological problems for the mother. Pregnancy complications can endanger the mother's life. Deference must be given to the living in these circumstances, however rare. Because, lets face it, endangered pregnancies generally end quite nicely in a cesarean section. We all know this. And then, the US experiences only 27 rapes per 100000 people...or 0.027% (remembering that 2%=0.02; this number is 0.00027.) and the number of pregnancies from those rapes would logically be much lower.
So why does this writer focus on such rare occurrences to rationalize support for abortions based on convenience?
For years abortionists have presented the cause as a feminist movement. If a woman is saddled with a baby from an unwanted pregnancy, she can't get a college degree, can't get a rewarding job, and is subject to the whims of her more independent husband for life...trapped as a slave in the kitchen. Its an opportunity cost analysis. The opportunity cost of one baby is a education, fulfilling job, and independence. So, without a baby, all those things are theoretically possible. So really, abortion is all about materialistic desires. Yo are willing to kill another unique being so that you may have nice things.
If the fetus is not alive, why must it be killed?
So why does this writer focus on such rare occurrences to rationalize support for abortions based on convenience?
For years abortionists have presented the cause as a feminist movement. If a woman is saddled with a baby from an unwanted pregnancy, she can't get a college degree, can't get a rewarding job, and is subject to the whims of her more independent husband for life...trapped as a slave in the kitchen. Its an opportunity cost analysis. The opportunity cost of one baby is a education, fulfilling job, and independence. So, without a baby, all those things are theoretically possible. So really, abortion is all about materialistic desires. Yo are willing to kill another unique being so that you may have nice things.
If the fetus is not alive, why must it be killed?
1
So wanting an education, the ability to have a career/support yourself, the ability to become the best person you can be is, in your view (at least as far as women are concerned), the same as wanting to buy a nice pair of shoes? Why do you hate women?
This abortion/contraception issue is such a distraction. No candidate in his or her right mind will put an end to either. Let's get real here. Focus on state laws instead that are making it more difficult to have easy access to abortion and focus on birth control and its correct usage. It's already widely and cheaply available contrary to widely help erroneous beliefs. The problem is that especially for the poor, having babies is a mark of some type of accomplishment and although it would be in their best interest not to have children which only leads to more poverty, they choose otherwise. Politicians can say whatever they want to try to appeal to all sorts of voters, but no one has ever said they will disobey the law to defend their personal religious beliefs. On to more important issues please.
1
So, we are supposed to preserve human life. I will let others ask the question, if this is so, then why does the so-called pro-life party advocate war, the death penalty, profit based health care...you get the picture.
Instead, what is so important about human life? Many animals demonstrate a capacity of self awareness, care and even love for the humans in their life and each other. They play, rest, work to survive and can demonstrate grief and happiness.
What makes us so special?
The supposed existence of the human soul. But, what does a soul look like? Where is it? Can it be measured? So far none of these questions, to my knowledge can be answered. The real question is not when does life begin, but when does the soul enter the body? Those who are "pro-life," not having the factual data regarding the souls existence, fall back on a blanket answer, "at conception" and I think that is why the question of moment of conception has the weight that it does, it is the moment the soul is in place.
But there is no factual data to support that claim.
That leads me to another question. Why are men so eager to control what a woman does with her body, particularly when it comes to pregnancy?
I feel that answer may lie in the fact that only the female of the species can bring life into the world. Sure, men play an important part, but, if women really understood their true power, in theory, men could be milked for what they supply and then rendered largely irrelevant.
Instead, what is so important about human life? Many animals demonstrate a capacity of self awareness, care and even love for the humans in their life and each other. They play, rest, work to survive and can demonstrate grief and happiness.
What makes us so special?
The supposed existence of the human soul. But, what does a soul look like? Where is it? Can it be measured? So far none of these questions, to my knowledge can be answered. The real question is not when does life begin, but when does the soul enter the body? Those who are "pro-life," not having the factual data regarding the souls existence, fall back on a blanket answer, "at conception" and I think that is why the question of moment of conception has the weight that it does, it is the moment the soul is in place.
But there is no factual data to support that claim.
That leads me to another question. Why are men so eager to control what a woman does with her body, particularly when it comes to pregnancy?
I feel that answer may lie in the fact that only the female of the species can bring life into the world. Sure, men play an important part, but, if women really understood their true power, in theory, men could be milked for what they supply and then rendered largely irrelevant.
2
The moral question is not "When does human life begin?" A human egg fertilized by a human sperm is life and human, but so is every other living human cell (all of which are theoretically capable of being manipulated into zygote-hood). The moral question is "When does personhood begin?" or, to those of a more religious bent, "When does ensoulment happen?" Even absent deliberate intervention, up to 50% of fertilized eggs, I've been told, never result in a live birth. Are all those "people" who never made it to the uterine wall, or never had a beating heart, or never had enough neural development to respond to the environment, now with God in heaven? Perhaps so, but it seems a stretch.
Let us agree, for the sake of argument, that sex without adequate respect for the consequences is immoral. Let us further agree, again for the sake of argument, that abortion as a substitute for that respect is immoral. But not everything immoral is, or should be, illegal, including irresponsible sex. Unless this human life has achieved personhood (which historically our society has conferred upon live birth, but could arguably be earlier), its ending should not be illegal.
Let us agree, for the sake of argument, that sex without adequate respect for the consequences is immoral. Let us further agree, again for the sake of argument, that abortion as a substitute for that respect is immoral. But not everything immoral is, or should be, illegal, including irresponsible sex. Unless this human life has achieved personhood (which historically our society has conferred upon live birth, but could arguably be earlier), its ending should not be illegal.
3
Forgive me this analysis but every man, woman and child is closely related to or has a mother, sister, aunt or grandmother that had an abortion or two. Fathers, brothers, uncles have driven love ones to clinics and often paid for a pregnancy termination. It is simply a matter of numbers sense 1973 abortion numbers (annually) are high enough that a full cross section of women and men are abortion complicit (actively), or close blood relationship connected to abortions. So, the logic follows that every GOP candidate is likewise connected to abortion (by family relationships) and is technically a hypocrite. Abortion is an American family tradition and is here to stay irrespective of GOP dishonesty and hypocrisy.
2
There were abortions before Roe. A lot of them weren't very safe though.
My husband drove his then girlfriend to Mexico for an abortion in the early 60's. He described the facility where it was done, and it seems to me a miracle the girl survived. But of course, according to current Repubs, that would have been her just desserts for having sex in the first place.
My husband drove his then girlfriend to Mexico for an abortion in the early 60's. He described the facility where it was done, and it seems to me a miracle the girl survived. But of course, according to current Repubs, that would have been her just desserts for having sex in the first place.
1
The GOP is populated by a group of forced birthers. After this precious human life is actually in the world as a distinct individual, all bets are off.
"Life" does not begin at birth or even conception. The egg and sperm are alive already. Fertilization results in a potential human but certainly not a person. The fetus becomes a person when it can survive outside the mother. Before that point, it is a potential human but certainly not a person.
The whole personhood movement is an extension of dualism. Somehow, "we" are apart from our physical body. At one time, "we" resided in our heart. Then we figured out that it was the brain, not the heart. It is the functioning of this mass of neurons that is actually us. Damage the neurons and lo and behold there are changes in the person. This is not very flattering. We like to believe that somehow there must be more to it than that but there is nothing empirical to indicate otherwise. Religion says otherwise - depending of course on which particular flavor of religion you happen to adhere to.
The entire anti abortion/contraception push seems rooted in enforcing one group's particular brand of religious morality on one and all. Well, if middle class Susan and Billy get a bit frisky after the prom, it's pretty certain that the money will be found to fix the problem. Can't let one night's mistake ruin such promising futures.
"Life" does not begin at birth or even conception. The egg and sperm are alive already. Fertilization results in a potential human but certainly not a person. The fetus becomes a person when it can survive outside the mother. Before that point, it is a potential human but certainly not a person.
The whole personhood movement is an extension of dualism. Somehow, "we" are apart from our physical body. At one time, "we" resided in our heart. Then we figured out that it was the brain, not the heart. It is the functioning of this mass of neurons that is actually us. Damage the neurons and lo and behold there are changes in the person. This is not very flattering. We like to believe that somehow there must be more to it than that but there is nothing empirical to indicate otherwise. Religion says otherwise - depending of course on which particular flavor of religion you happen to adhere to.
The entire anti abortion/contraception push seems rooted in enforcing one group's particular brand of religious morality on one and all. Well, if middle class Susan and Billy get a bit frisky after the prom, it's pretty certain that the money will be found to fix the problem. Can't let one night's mistake ruin such promising futures.
3
This has been a major frustration of the current discussion regarding women's reproductive rights. The Republican Party will often ignore basic science and has actually tried to redefine "abortion" and "pregnancy", as if those terms have some wiggle room.
You can believe that life begins at conception, but pregnancy begins at implantation. There is often no mention of women in their discussions, as if a pregnancy can happen without a pregnant woman.
To review:
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy (no pregnancy, no abortion).
A pregnancy requires a pregnant woman (no implantation, no pregnant woman, therefore no pregnancy).
So, there is no abortion before implantation.
You can believe that life begins at conception, but pregnancy begins at implantation. There is often no mention of women in their discussions, as if a pregnancy can happen without a pregnant woman.
To review:
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy (no pregnancy, no abortion).
A pregnancy requires a pregnant woman (no implantation, no pregnant woman, therefore no pregnancy).
So, there is no abortion before implantation.
1
The anti choicers have become more intense because they now face the prospect of greater access to contraception. All of the resources devoted to cutting off access to abortion won't give as great a return if women can prevent the pregnancies in the first place. The women being harmed will mainly be those who need medically necessary abortions and we will all be treated to horror stories like those that occur in Ireland. So the next step is to come out into the open and start attacking contraceptives which was the target all along.
This war was begun in 1967 with Griswold vs.Connecticut (granting married couples a right to privacy in the use of contraceptives) not Roe vs. wade in 1973.
This war was begun in 1967 with Griswold vs.Connecticut (granting married couples a right to privacy in the use of contraceptives) not Roe vs. wade in 1973.
2
I approached this op-ed with keen interest at how Tom would graph the far-, religious-right's convictions regarding when life begins. Refreshingly, he solved the challenge by banishing graphs from his argument this time.
I'm a pro-choice Republican who sees as not only dangerous but distasteful the apparent conviction by many on the religious right that they must press restrictive abortion rights that invalidate Roe, basically because of the monumentally arrogant belief that God tells them to. However, I'm made extremely uneasy by the transparent attempt to take one issue and claim that its importance invalidates a party's presidential contenders when I find the left's positions on most OTHER issues to be patently unacceptable.
And all this analysis of what is an "abortifacient" (I'm in favor of leaving the invention of new language to William Shakespeare and popular usage, not to ideologues) and what is not misses the point. The real point to those who aren't wedded to absolutes is that we have a fundamental opposition of interests that requires a compromise. Roe, that acknowledges a woman's right to control her body while recognizing the state's right to regulate the modalities of sanctioned death, IS that compromise; and we need to protect it. We also need to work on conservatives' convictions while not forgetting that Bernie still wants to level society in his decades-long quest for 1960s Kumbaya.
I'll be voting for Jeb!, who I'm confident can be brought around.
I'm a pro-choice Republican who sees as not only dangerous but distasteful the apparent conviction by many on the religious right that they must press restrictive abortion rights that invalidate Roe, basically because of the monumentally arrogant belief that God tells them to. However, I'm made extremely uneasy by the transparent attempt to take one issue and claim that its importance invalidates a party's presidential contenders when I find the left's positions on most OTHER issues to be patently unacceptable.
And all this analysis of what is an "abortifacient" (I'm in favor of leaving the invention of new language to William Shakespeare and popular usage, not to ideologues) and what is not misses the point. The real point to those who aren't wedded to absolutes is that we have a fundamental opposition of interests that requires a compromise. Roe, that acknowledges a woman's right to control her body while recognizing the state's right to regulate the modalities of sanctioned death, IS that compromise; and we need to protect it. We also need to work on conservatives' convictions while not forgetting that Bernie still wants to level society in his decades-long quest for 1960s Kumbaya.
I'll be voting for Jeb!, who I'm confident can be brought around.
2
It is always a mistake to argue science with the ignorant because-regardless whether you are talking about pregnancy or about the relative safety of nuclear energy-people who have made up their minds will never concede the issue. Once a perrson has adopted a set of standards-regardless of their factuality or whether they hew to the tenets of science, those who are prepared to support their postions come hell of high water-whether pregnancy termination or vaccination will simply turn off when confronted by any information not conforming to their view of the issues.
It is the same among liberl as it is among extreme conservatives.
Facts mean nothing when compared to the fuzziness of their ideas and the bias of the group . This is also true for politics and war-recall that the US military, right wingers from all across the planet, and members of both political parties all felt a sense of righteous purity when they marched behind the flag and insisted that the war in Vietnam be continued, in perpetuity, if needed, because it was our war and we were America and never made mistakes and to question US policy was treason.
There is a kind of nullification "high" that comes from not thinking and it doesn't even matter what the issue is.
It is the same among liberl as it is among extreme conservatives.
Facts mean nothing when compared to the fuzziness of their ideas and the bias of the group . This is also true for politics and war-recall that the US military, right wingers from all across the planet, and members of both political parties all felt a sense of righteous purity when they marched behind the flag and insisted that the war in Vietnam be continued, in perpetuity, if needed, because it was our war and we were America and never made mistakes and to question US policy was treason.
There is a kind of nullification "high" that comes from not thinking and it doesn't even matter what the issue is.
2
Life begins at conception? Who thinks that? Life began when God made the world according to Genesis. According to biology it began with the first living cell that led to all living things today. Neither view makes conception the beginning of life but one step in a process of becoming which becomes and then ends with the death of the organisms. Does that step represent the transition from the long history of life to the actual definitive moment when any person becomes an individual person? If so, then identical twins are clones that developed one individual not separate individuals with their own separate existences. If they are separate people who were conceived once with one sperm and one egg, then the life of a person beginning at conception results in an absurd situation. If conception is one more step in the process of becoming an individual, then the life begins at conception argument is not true. The real meaning of the life begins at conception idea is that God decides who may exist and not and that people are fighting God's will when they attempt to control reproduction. This fight began with the idea that people not God are the authority for human institutions and that people have the right to decide the laws and governments over them.
If a fetus is a person, then an unwanted fetus is an invader in my body, the equivalent of a squatter or a rapist. I am therefore allowed to kill it as a simple matter of self-defense. "But", the theocrats will say, "You invited it in by having sex!" True but if you left your front door open and somebody walked in, it'd still be a home invasion. "But a fetus is innocent!" True and so is lettuce. The categories of guilt and innocence are, by definition, applicable only to entities capable of choice and self-reflection - i. e. persons. A fetus, let alone an embryo, has no such capability. Legally a fetus becomes a person at the moment of birth (which, by the way, was not the case in many ancient cultures, including Greece and Rome). Neurologically it probably happens much later. Treating fetuses as persons leads to such a legal and ethical morass that the idea simply falls apart under the weight of its own absurdity. But as this article and some of the responses demonstrate, opposition to abortion has nothing to do with moral or legal reasoning. It is a curious combination of a particular religious belief, sexual disgust, and emotional immaturity.
10
If "misconception" were the issue, then people could disagree. The real issue, it seems is that the true believers of Republican righteousness use this and related issues as political issues to demonize anyone who has differing views. Unfortunately, the Republicans have used the "Yellow Peril," the Red Menace,"Demon Rum, etc., for political gain and done so successfully. They have struck an emotional chord in the electorate, one that seems to have overridden any other concern.
Perhaps the real issue is that one needs a reason to hate, and same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraception are readily available. It is better that one advocates sequential polygamy (a la Trump) and dispute settlement using guns - and don't forget pharma profits, from Viagra and Cialis - as the basis of their religious "convictions." By the way, what did Jesus say about divorce? Did he say love thy neighbour or shoot thy neighbour?
They may see themselves as true believers, but what is it that they really believe?
Perhaps the real issue is that one needs a reason to hate, and same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraception are readily available. It is better that one advocates sequential polygamy (a la Trump) and dispute settlement using guns - and don't forget pharma profits, from Viagra and Cialis - as the basis of their religious "convictions." By the way, what did Jesus say about divorce? Did he say love thy neighbour or shoot thy neighbour?
They may see themselves as true believers, but what is it that they really believe?
2
Thank you. This is very clear. In fact, even though I follow the issue (and have always been firmly against anyone, including government, trying to control women's own rights over their own bodies), I have learned something new.
The Republicans are dodging the distinctions between "conception" and "pregnancy." Not only is their logic on liberty inconsistent, and their scientific literacy nonexistent, they are also still evading in their very words.
I passionately hope the MEDIA will as them, over and over, on our behalf (as the media should) to explain, clarify, and defend their indefensibly illogical rhetoric.
Small hope of that, of course. Yet I do think that after the economic blows to journalism in the past decades, a few have struggled to get back on track and again fulfill their role in democracy, to never quit asking the toughest questions.
Just as these pusillanimous candidates will never quit lying, dodging, and denying reality. Thank you for continuing to expose their misogyny, irrationality, and untruthfulness.
The Republicans are dodging the distinctions between "conception" and "pregnancy." Not only is their logic on liberty inconsistent, and their scientific literacy nonexistent, they are also still evading in their very words.
I passionately hope the MEDIA will as them, over and over, on our behalf (as the media should) to explain, clarify, and defend their indefensibly illogical rhetoric.
Small hope of that, of course. Yet I do think that after the economic blows to journalism in the past decades, a few have struggled to get back on track and again fulfill their role in democracy, to never quit asking the toughest questions.
Just as these pusillanimous candidates will never quit lying, dodging, and denying reality. Thank you for continuing to expose their misogyny, irrationality, and untruthfulness.
5
I want to hear each and every candidate for President state whether, if his/her daughter had been brutally raped, they would insist on the daughter giving birth.
I want all of the candidates to state whether, if their spouse was in danger of dying due to a complicated pregnancy, they would insist that the fetus be born, even if their wife died.
I want all of the candidates to state why it is they think that government -- the state -- takes precedence over a woman and her physician on matters related to childbirth.
I want all of the candidates to state whether the state should begin deciding the viability of fetuses that are damaged or compromised in some way prior to birth, on what basis such decisions are made. Then I want them to state how much funding should be allocated to enable the parents of those compromised children cope with their long term care, institutionalization, education, and medical bills.
Are these too much to ask?
I want all of the candidates to state whether, if their spouse was in danger of dying due to a complicated pregnancy, they would insist that the fetus be born, even if their wife died.
I want all of the candidates to state why it is they think that government -- the state -- takes precedence over a woman and her physician on matters related to childbirth.
I want all of the candidates to state whether the state should begin deciding the viability of fetuses that are damaged or compromised in some way prior to birth, on what basis such decisions are made. Then I want them to state how much funding should be allocated to enable the parents of those compromised children cope with their long term care, institutionalization, education, and medical bills.
Are these too much to ask?
287
I agree with all of your questions except for the last. I personally think it is morally wrong to terminate a pregnancy because of the diagnosis of a deformity or disease or to terminate an "unwanted" pregnancy. Because of this, I also think we should invest more in assisting these children after birth. Their are exceptions to every rule (I don't think a 12 year old child should continue with a pregnancy because that can lead to two ruined lives), but I don't think abortion should be used as birth control.
I want all anti-abortion candidates to state how many unwanted children they have adopted.
1
The fact that anyone believes that a woman ought to be forced to carry a fetus with trisomy 21 to term is ridiculous. It shows a distinct lack of knowledge when it comes to genetics and reproduction. First of all, not all Down's Syndrome children are affected equally. Some can be educated and some cannot. Some will have major medical issues that can bankrupt a family and others will be fine. Some families will prosper and others will fall apart under the strain of a handicapped individual who will have special needs for his/her entire life. Given how little we spend on a social safety net for normal individuals, and how poorly we treat those in need, the claims that are made about forcing women to complete any pregnancy they don't want are ridiculous.
If the anti-abortion, pro-punishment crowd truly believe in the sanctity of all life they would pay for everything involved with an unwanted or handicapped child. They would also allow and endorse education on reproduction, starting at a very early age so that when teens want to have sex they can do so without worrying about STDs and pregnancy. Their true interest, as revealed by their ridiculous statements about women's safety, is punishment. The ones they are punishing are those who are born unwanted, severely handicapped, or worse. As an unwanted, abused child, I would not wish that on anyone. And as someone with handicapped brother, I would not force a woman to have a handicapped child.
If the anti-abortion, pro-punishment crowd truly believe in the sanctity of all life they would pay for everything involved with an unwanted or handicapped child. They would also allow and endorse education on reproduction, starting at a very early age so that when teens want to have sex they can do so without worrying about STDs and pregnancy. Their true interest, as revealed by their ridiculous statements about women's safety, is punishment. The ones they are punishing are those who are born unwanted, severely handicapped, or worse. As an unwanted, abused child, I would not wish that on anyone. And as someone with handicapped brother, I would not force a woman to have a handicapped child.
25
"direct contrast to the party’s previous five presidential nominees, all of whom sought during their campaigns to play down social issues"
True, in the last five general elections, the Party's nominee did try to avoid being identified with a strong position on a strongly felt, divisive issue. They tried for a broader appeal, which meant ducking that.
However, in the primaries, before doing the "Etch-A-Sketch" for the general, candidates to become the nominee used "social issues" including this to appeal to the much narrower base of the Party itself.
And at all times, the Republican Party presented itself as guardian of social issues, and tried to portray the Democrats as heathens without any social values.
Since we are now approaching the most heated part of the primary appeals to that narrow sector, it is entirely consistent with the past to have this highlighted.
Whoever is nominated will most likely lose that idea, and pretend it never happened, for purposes of the general election.
True, in the last five general elections, the Party's nominee did try to avoid being identified with a strong position on a strongly felt, divisive issue. They tried for a broader appeal, which meant ducking that.
However, in the primaries, before doing the "Etch-A-Sketch" for the general, candidates to become the nominee used "social issues" including this to appeal to the much narrower base of the Party itself.
And at all times, the Republican Party presented itself as guardian of social issues, and tried to portray the Democrats as heathens without any social values.
Since we are now approaching the most heated part of the primary appeals to that narrow sector, it is entirely consistent with the past to have this highlighted.
Whoever is nominated will most likely lose that idea, and pretend it never happened, for purposes of the general election.
12
I suspect that politicians' absolutist anti-abortion position appeals to many conservatives who would nonetheless approve resort to abortion if it were someone in their own family or someone connected to their own "misbehavior" who needed one.
It's a moral disconnect that is similar to the one we've seen just recently between public moralizing on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and membership in Ashley Madison. Conservatives are quite facile at getting past the contradiction. Witness how easily Republican politicians whose sexual misconduct becomes public get reelected. And I believe I saw mention yesterday of a tweet from some conservative caught up in the Ashley Madison hack proclaiming that because he had sought forgiveness from his wife and from God, all was forgiven and he was once again without sin.
It's a moral disconnect that is similar to the one we've seen just recently between public moralizing on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and membership in Ashley Madison. Conservatives are quite facile at getting past the contradiction. Witness how easily Republican politicians whose sexual misconduct becomes public get reelected. And I believe I saw mention yesterday of a tweet from some conservative caught up in the Ashley Madison hack proclaiming that because he had sought forgiveness from his wife and from God, all was forgiven and he was once again without sin.
8
We are a nation that separates Church and State. We are free to practice any faith and hold to its beliefs. We are free from the tyranny of being forced to practices others' beliefs. Unlike in Saudi Arabia, I can drive a car here, leave the house without a male escort, and I can wear capris and a short sleeved shirt without getting arrested. No matter how much this might outrage a respected religious leader.
The timing of when on the continuum from zygote to birth, a fetus becomes something more than meat, something of value, in my religion gains a soul, is a moral matter, not a scientific one. There is no gene for it, and God rarely makes a visit to personally explain His creation.
We don't legislate on moral, religious beliefs. Not all of the ten commandments are outlawed: when was the last time someone was arrested for back-talking their parents, or for adultery?
My faith tags abortion as wrong, and I have held myself to that belief. I have acted on it too, voting for people who will give resources to those who cannot afford to bring a pregnancy to term, to give people who are desperate options.
But I cannot force others, legally, to accept this tenet of my faith. Republicans need to stop trying to be preachers, and start trying to be stewards of our nation.
The timing of when on the continuum from zygote to birth, a fetus becomes something more than meat, something of value, in my religion gains a soul, is a moral matter, not a scientific one. There is no gene for it, and God rarely makes a visit to personally explain His creation.
We don't legislate on moral, religious beliefs. Not all of the ten commandments are outlawed: when was the last time someone was arrested for back-talking their parents, or for adultery?
My faith tags abortion as wrong, and I have held myself to that belief. I have acted on it too, voting for people who will give resources to those who cannot afford to bring a pregnancy to term, to give people who are desperate options.
But I cannot force others, legally, to accept this tenet of my faith. Republicans need to stop trying to be preachers, and start trying to be stewards of our nation.
20
There is no greater evidence for the contempt that these men show for women that even the life of the mother is not reason for an abortion. All they care about is protecting sperm.
12
What's the equivalent question for Democrats? It's "When is abortion the taking of a human life?" When the baby leaves the hospital ? When the babies toes exit the birth canal? After the second trimester? When the baby is viable outside the womb? When is the baby viable outside the womb? Can you explain how a fetus in the womb becomes human when it exits the womb? If a baby survives the abortion procedure is the abortionist obligated to give it medical care? If so why ?
2
Go read Roe v. Wade, Woody.
2
This has been settled. Read (if you can) Roe V Wade.
You are not being clever. You are being uninformed.
You are not being clever. You are being uninformed.
1
As with most loudly touted politico-religious bunco, we know that it is not sincere. It is simply a ploy to coax more votes, and less close inspection, by the rubes who are wrapped up in religious superstition. The very politicos who rant most loudly most likely use the very types of contraception that they loudly condemn. They also would (probably have) quietly arranged terminated pregnancies for careless, unmarried daughters who skipped a period or two.
9
the article is about how far Republicans will go to attempt to control women, its that simple....why bother with conception, just declare all women are property of the Republican party and be done with it.....To get to conception, you have to have sex, which is bad....correct, so there one problem gone, on to the next one.
Oh, by the way, governing, that is for the other party we are busy
Oh, by the way, governing, that is for the other party we are busy
7
To conservatives life begins at conception and ends at birth. American women who vote Republican must realize that the party sees them as baby making appliances and tension relievers for men. Under the GOP theocratic regime women are not viewed as autonomous actors but rather accessories for the only humans that matter-men! The GOP is tapping into the anger that many men feel as they lose their jobs and ability to thrive in this economy. Of course this situation has nothing to do with women. It is totally driven by the GOP's deep love and respect for their real constituency --corporations. The GOP war on women and their rights is a way of distracting men from the destructive anti worker, anti middle class polices of the GOP and a way of giving disaffected men a target for their anger.
As a result, rape is an opportunity! And women should simply accept that. Are you female and dying because of a failed pregnancy, don't worry the GOP has an answer for you..DIE!
If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
As a result, rape is an opportunity! And women should simply accept that. Are you female and dying because of a failed pregnancy, don't worry the GOP has an answer for you..DIE!
If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
15
We would all be making a mistake if we actually believed the Republican candidates are stating their actual personal views on contraception and abortion. They clearly do not believe any rules they would impose on (poor) women would apply them. Let's do a little score keeping on how many children some of these candidates have: Carosn - 3, Fiorina - 0 (but two step children from her second marriage)., Cruz - 2, Trump - 4 (from 3 marriages), Walker - 2, Bush (converted Catholic) - 3. There be a whole lot of contraception going on here.
I used to like to say that Republicans loved babies from the momment they were conceived until the day they were born. But since they don't believe in providing quality prenatal care to pregnant women that really isn't true either, is it?
I used to like to say that Republicans loved babies from the momment they were conceived until the day they were born. But since they don't believe in providing quality prenatal care to pregnant women that really isn't true either, is it?
21
I'm trying to understand why fetal tissue research that leads to life saving medical advances is considered immoral but organ donations are thought of as "gifts." Both turn tragic situations into something positive.
13
Republicans for a long time payed lip service to being "pro-life" knowing that Roe v. Wade was a settled issue. They could take the moral high ground without really doing anything about it. But this issue, like so many other Republican issues has come alive and Dr. Frankenstein can't control it anymore. Nothing is too extreme.
And these candidates have nothing else to offer. Divisive social issues keep their base distracted from the anti-social security/Medicare and tax breaks for the wealthy positions that the plutocracy demands.
And these candidates have nothing else to offer. Divisive social issues keep their base distracted from the anti-social security/Medicare and tax breaks for the wealthy positions that the plutocracy demands.
10
In the materialistic post-modern world, in which capitalism is the only one true religion and money the only one true god, it is not surprising that many move into extreme positions in the search for meaning. ISIS is the best example of a radical return to the past. Thus, in the so-called "pro-life" movement we find the extremely post-modern belief (a radical move into the future) that a single-celled fertilized egg is a "human life" entitled to all the right that humans (at least some humans) are believed to have.
The problems of new extremist pro-life position is that:
1) It requires that the government become the de facto owner of each woman's uterus. If abortion is murder, any woman who threatens "life" has must be jailed.
2) The government is essentially imposing a religious belief on the entire population (usually associated with Islamic radicals) in a secular state;
3) Although most pro-lifers will fight for an embryo created by sex, almost none will pay to support someone else's born child. And embryos created by IVF still have no rights.
4) In the most extreme case, a 12-year-old girl, who becomes pregnant after being raped and infected with HIV by his HIV-positive father, would be requires to give birth to a child that wasn't really hers.
In the end, the pro-life movement is about male domination. Even the new wonder Pope Francis supports the teachings that women were created by God to serve men and that all birth control (except abstinence) is a sin against God.
The problems of new extremist pro-life position is that:
1) It requires that the government become the de facto owner of each woman's uterus. If abortion is murder, any woman who threatens "life" has must be jailed.
2) The government is essentially imposing a religious belief on the entire population (usually associated with Islamic radicals) in a secular state;
3) Although most pro-lifers will fight for an embryo created by sex, almost none will pay to support someone else's born child. And embryos created by IVF still have no rights.
4) In the most extreme case, a 12-year-old girl, who becomes pregnant after being raped and infected with HIV by his HIV-positive father, would be requires to give birth to a child that wasn't really hers.
In the end, the pro-life movement is about male domination. Even the new wonder Pope Francis supports the teachings that women were created by God to serve men and that all birth control (except abstinence) is a sin against God.
12
Speaking of uncomfortable truths, the abortion of a fetus at any stage is the destruction of life. And using the phrase 'women's health' while using no such opposite phrase regarding the destruction of the child is beyond illogical, as reasonable people understand.
4
I'm a reasonable person, and I don't understand why a clump of cells should be considered a child.
Why is it anyone's place to interfere in a very personal and agonizing decision being made by a woman? If a woman is incapable of raising the child for financial or other ersonal reasons, why should she be forced to? The same people who are against abortion are also against providing any financial aid or support to that woman and her child; where's the concern for that child's health then?
Why is it anyone's place to interfere in a very personal and agonizing decision being made by a woman? If a woman is incapable of raising the child for financial or other ersonal reasons, why should she be forced to? The same people who are against abortion are also against providing any financial aid or support to that woman and her child; where's the concern for that child's health then?
1
A fertilized egg is not a fetus. So your comment does not clarify the issue.
Speaking of uncomfortable truths there is no child before viability. You and the rest of you busy-bodies just cannot understand that.
When you are spewing this stuff IN OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES you are not being reasonable. You are being a bother. You are getting in the way. You are the problem.
When you are spewing this stuff IN OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES you are not being reasonable. You are being a bother. You are getting in the way. You are the problem.
I have known for years that is is not about abortion, but about controlling women's reproductive rights through limiting birth control choices. The extreme right and evangelical Christians prefer women to be at home, pregnant and submissive to their man. We are all to be Duggars, and what a great life they lead.
19
The pro-life movement reminds me that in the antebellum South, it was acceptable for a respected and respectable white, church-going, married Christian man to have non-consensual sex with a female slave (it wasn't rape since she was a piece of property, not a human life), and the children of the Union (world play intended) was the property of the white father, and not his son or daughter, by law. And today more than 150 years later white people still flag the Confederate flag to honor this tradition. So where was the "pro-life" movement back in 1860?
And where is the "pro-life" movement every time the police carry out an extrajudicial execution of an unarmed young person (usually a minority, but sometimes a white)?
And since many death row inmates had terrible childhoods during which the future murderer was abused horribly, isn't the death penalty, which many "pro-life" politicians support, just an extremely late-term abortion?
And where is the "pro-life" movement every time the police carry out an extrajudicial execution of an unarmed young person (usually a minority, but sometimes a white)?
And since many death row inmates had terrible childhoods during which the future murderer was abused horribly, isn't the death penalty, which many "pro-life" politicians support, just an extremely late-term abortion?
19
The Republicans are doing their best to divide our country over issues like immigration (see Friedman's column today), abortion (see this column), and "makers" vs. "takers". (see any number of articles). They ARE trying to unite us in fear: terrorists, shooters at schools, and regulations.
The mainstream Democrat party, on the other hand, wants to unite voters against Republicans.
This divisiveness works well for their billionaire donors who want to distract us from the real threat to our country, which is economic inequality.
The public is fed up with this and are listening intently to the only candidate NOT beholden to large donors… Bernie Sanders. Instead of having candidates squabble about when conception starts or how expensive it would be to build a wall along our southern border, maybe they could tell us how they intend to rebuild the middle class and how they will pay for it.
The mainstream Democrat party, on the other hand, wants to unite voters against Republicans.
This divisiveness works well for their billionaire donors who want to distract us from the real threat to our country, which is economic inequality.
The public is fed up with this and are listening intently to the only candidate NOT beholden to large donors… Bernie Sanders. Instead of having candidates squabble about when conception starts or how expensive it would be to build a wall along our southern border, maybe they could tell us how they intend to rebuild the middle class and how they will pay for it.
16
"Instead of having candidates squabble about when conception starts or how expensive it would be to build a wall along our southern border, maybe they could tell us how they intend to rebuild the middle class and how they will pay for it."
Only if Bernie tells us how he'll pay for Universal Healthcare first.
Only if Bernie tells us how he'll pay for Universal Healthcare first.
How they will rebuild our roads, bridges, power grid, and water sources. Without those things, it wont matter WHEN "life begins."
1
I am an ob-gyn physician who thinks ACOG is an irrelevant trade group and self-interested lobbying organization. ACOG is funded by ob-gyn physicians for the purpose of maximizing the incomes of these on-gyn physicians, including the 20% of ob-gyns who perform abortions. Any opinion from ACOG should be considered in light of this. Throughout history, "life" has been defined as beginning at conception, at implantation, at quickening (first perceived movement of the fetus by the mother), at survivability outside the uterus, and at birth. The definition of "life" is not the same definition as to when "pregnancy" begins. Life begins most distinctly at fertilization, whether that fertilization occurs in vitro or in vivo. Is abortion the interruption of a pregnancy or the interruption of a life at an early stage? ACOG says the former; the Republican candidates say the latter.
10
And, its nobody's business except the woman, and her doctor. Republicans represent a disgusting prurient interest in the wombs, and sexual activity, of strangers. They think it's okay for men to do anything they want, without consequence.
1
If you think abortion is going to be a big topic in the upcoming presidential election, you would be very mistaken.
4
And your proof for this baseless assertion?
1
When Kennedy ran for President he had to assure people that the Pope would not dictate the policies of the United States. We now have Republican candidates who are unable to express an independent thought that does not hew to the dogma of the Catholic Church. We have Huckabee proclaiming that religious belief supersedes the Supreme Court. These are the same people who condemn theocracy in other countries.
12
I actually disagree with the notion that Dr. Carson and Sen. Paul are trying to have it both ways with respect to endorsing the use of certain forms of contraception. As it happens, I, too, believe that life begins at conception. The difference is that I also believe that MY convictions in this matter should not be imposed on all pregnant women as the law of the land. Absolutely no one apart from the woman herself should have any say over what she can do with her own body (even if the body of a fetus is contained within it). Reproductive rights should certainly be no less restricted than gun rights- and that would include the right to abortion as well as to contraception.
13
The disturbing thing about this discussion in general is that it is framed by men, most of whom are about as different from women as it gets and in particular they really should have no say whatsoever.
14
I am a Tea Party Conservative and this is just a matter of reading the US Constitution - when does a fetus/baby get US Constitutional protections?
Sadly the US Consitution is silent on the matter so the current practice of awarding US Citizenship on a fetus/baby is done when a live birth certificate is issued.
If you want to change that then pass an Amendment to the US Constitution - simple. Until then mom is in charge, to suggest otherwise makes mom a prisoner of her own body - something the Founders did not create America to see happen...
Sadly the US Consitution is silent on the matter so the current practice of awarding US Citizenship on a fetus/baby is done when a live birth certificate is issued.
If you want to change that then pass an Amendment to the US Constitution - simple. Until then mom is in charge, to suggest otherwise makes mom a prisoner of her own body - something the Founders did not create America to see happen...
155
Why do we only speak of it as a woman and doctors choice? Why is the husband, father, boyfriend etc. ever included in the discussion? The woman carries the child, but it is also the husbands child as well. The decision to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term and make a man pay child support shouldn't lay solely with the mother. We need to strike a balance for both.
a fetus is a human. Hence it is entitled to protection.
Why do liberals not understand this simple basic fact? The Republican candidates do. Hopefully the will win both the executive and legislature and finally make abortion illegal.
Why do liberals not understand this simple basic fact? The Republican candidates do. Hopefully the will win both the executive and legislature and finally make abortion illegal.
You're headed the right direction; the big question is if and when something shy of a delivered baby is granted protections. Although this decision must be informed by science, it is fundamentally a political decision that the country must make (and perhaps periodically revisit).
Rights are (and should be) conferred to those other than citizens of the US. Robbery, assault, murder and the like are illegal regardless of the citizenship status of the victim. Thus, "awarding US citizenship" is not the test of when protections are conferred to a fetus.
Beliefs on abortion span a wide spectrum, but the largest fraction of Americans want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. By extension, most want to protect the reproductive rights of women but with some limits, typically based on the developmental stage of the fetus.
In other words, at some stage of development, a great number of Americans believe the rights of the fetus rise to the level of some form of protection. For most, that happens well before birth.
Rights are (and should be) conferred to those other than citizens of the US. Robbery, assault, murder and the like are illegal regardless of the citizenship status of the victim. Thus, "awarding US citizenship" is not the test of when protections are conferred to a fetus.
Beliefs on abortion span a wide spectrum, but the largest fraction of Americans want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. By extension, most want to protect the reproductive rights of women but with some limits, typically based on the developmental stage of the fetus.
In other words, at some stage of development, a great number of Americans believe the rights of the fetus rise to the level of some form of protection. For most, that happens well before birth.
1
The relevant question is not about "life" since all sorts of life exist without its being illegal to terminate. The relevant question is about when a "person" exist. If a fertilized human egg is a "person" then the person who performs the abortion must be prosecuted for murder. In addition, the person who brings the victim to be killed must also be prosecuted, i.e. the pregnant woman and anyone who helps her.
2
No, you are incorrect. The relevant questions were thoroughly dealt with in Roe V Wade. This is just the usual drivel from those who have no idea about what they are speaking.
The term "person" is not part of this discussion.
The term "person" is not part of this discussion.
1
Do you apply these same standards to those who execute live, living "persons"?
Or do they fall under your category of life that exists "without its being illegal to terminate."
Why do you, or why does any church or organization, get to decide what life is "legal" to terminate and what is not?
Or do they fall under your category of life that exists "without its being illegal to terminate."
Why do you, or why does any church or organization, get to decide what life is "legal" to terminate and what is not?
1
You can better understand the rationale for the antipathy to contraception by seeing that the candidates' views support sexual activity for women only with the purpose of conception. Any other purpose, according to their belief, is rightly punishable by pregnancy and resultant motherhood. This explanation perfectly describes their "love" for the fetus--but neither the mother nor the resultant child.
10
There is only one question that interests me and will never be answered either truthfully or at all by the majority of Republicans against abortion and birth control.
I have a family member who doesn't believe in abortion or birth control due to her and her husband's faith. They have, at present, six children.
My question is this: how is it that so many Republicans against abortion and most birth control methods do not have large families also? Do they simply not have intimate relations or do they, as I suspect, use birth control methods that they would deny others?
I have a family member who doesn't believe in abortion or birth control due to her and her husband's faith. They have, at present, six children.
My question is this: how is it that so many Republicans against abortion and most birth control methods do not have large families also? Do they simply not have intimate relations or do they, as I suspect, use birth control methods that they would deny others?
11
The entire nonsensical article is an attempt to distract the folks from the ISIS like actions of Planned Parenthood and the selling of human body parts. Nobody is objecting to contraception and since every individual makes a choice to have consensual sex, abortion for the health of the mother or rape or incest should be an extremely rare event. Instead, killing of unwanted babies has become both a substitute for birth control and a baby parts business venture. This feeble attempt at an intellectual discussion of " reproductive rights" is nothing more than a subtle attempt to justify the killing and dismemberment of human babies by trying to draw attention away from the butchery.
2
Re: A number of those who insist on no abortions under any circumstance also insist on no abortions even to save the life of the mother. Everyone has a right to life except a pregnant woman, no matter how many other children she has to raise, or how much has been invested in her upbringing and education to make her a highly productive member of society. A highly developed and productive woman is worth nothing to these people if she cannot successfully complete a pregnancy.
210
"...or how much has been invested in her upbringing and education to make her a highly productive member of society."
I find mothers to be among society's most productive members.
I find mothers to be among society's most productive members.
woman = mother. This has been the case throughout human history. Why do liberals not understand this simple fact? Are they so hateful of humanity they want to see it extinct?
One has to wonder how many unwanted or severely handicapped children each of these "pro-life" candidates have adopted?
3
JWT I also think that "pro-life" legislators must make sure that funds are available to care for these children.
1
The Republican candidates need to get it through their heads that regardless of when life begins (fertilization or implantation - the latter being the dictionary DEFINITION of pregnancy) women always have and always will terminate unwanted pregnancies - even if it costs them their lives.
Heavily restricting abortion is already creating a black market underground where the naive can stay above ground with blinders on and PRETEND that they have stopped abortions. We can't keep out heroin, so there is no chance of keeping out abortion pills or contraceptive devices.
When society drives something underground, it completely abdicates the right and ability to effectively control it. The Jane groups and the back-alley abortionists of pre-Roe v Wade are probably already operating in places like Texas (my backward state).
Let's hear from the ER doctors. Are your cases of miscarriages with severe (or fatal) bleeding going up?
Heavily restricting abortion is already creating a black market underground where the naive can stay above ground with blinders on and PRETEND that they have stopped abortions. We can't keep out heroin, so there is no chance of keeping out abortion pills or contraceptive devices.
When society drives something underground, it completely abdicates the right and ability to effectively control it. The Jane groups and the back-alley abortionists of pre-Roe v Wade are probably already operating in places like Texas (my backward state).
Let's hear from the ER doctors. Are your cases of miscarriages with severe (or fatal) bleeding going up?
9
I remember voting for a pro-choice Republican for governor of Minnesota (yes, such people actually existed back in the old days of the 1990s). Now, because of the GOP's unrelenting attacks on women's health care, I wouldn't vote Republican under any circumstances. The party lost me when they decided that their brand of religion was more important than my own.
7
"..(yes, such people actually existed back in the old days of the 1990s).."
And plenty of us remain in existence today...
And plenty of us remain in existence today...
The drive to defund Planned Parenthood exposes the Republican objective for what it is - a desire to keep captive and a disdain for their physical health and mental well being.-even for their souls.
This is not just about abortion. It is about free agency - breast and cervical cancer, post natal, pre natal health.
I am struck how each Republican candidate asserts nonsense as facts - one says "science says" that a "child" starts at conception. I went to Catholic School and in our biology class, that is not what "science" said. We learned about dividing cells, zygotes, etc. It is along road (9 months) to Tipperary - and in between there is another innocent life - the mother's. Republicans want us to forget that because they already have.
This is not just about abortion. It is about free agency - breast and cervical cancer, post natal, pre natal health.
I am struck how each Republican candidate asserts nonsense as facts - one says "science says" that a "child" starts at conception. I went to Catholic School and in our biology class, that is not what "science" said. We learned about dividing cells, zygotes, etc. It is along road (9 months) to Tipperary - and in between there is another innocent life - the mother's. Republicans want us to forget that because they already have.
5
I would like to see the few candidates that support an exemption for rape and incest pressed for details. It's hard to believe that this is now a relatively liberal position in the party.
Does the rape have to be proven in a court of law, or is it strictly on the honor system? What if the criminal case takes longer than nine months? What if the defendant appeals? What if the rapist escapes conviction on a technicality? If it's the honor system, how can you ensure there won't be fake rape allegations made in order to secure an abortion?
Where do you draw a line in the sand for incest? Distant cousins have been known to marry and have children. Do they still qualify for the exemption? What if the abuser and victim are in the same family , but biologically unrelated because of adoption?
It seems the exemption argument is just lip service to avoid appearing heartless. But sadly, it's no longer even necessary in this climate.
Does the rape have to be proven in a court of law, or is it strictly on the honor system? What if the criminal case takes longer than nine months? What if the defendant appeals? What if the rapist escapes conviction on a technicality? If it's the honor system, how can you ensure there won't be fake rape allegations made in order to secure an abortion?
Where do you draw a line in the sand for incest? Distant cousins have been known to marry and have children. Do they still qualify for the exemption? What if the abuser and victim are in the same family , but biologically unrelated because of adoption?
It seems the exemption argument is just lip service to avoid appearing heartless. But sadly, it's no longer even necessary in this climate.
1
The Republicans are digging in their heels on this issue because they have nothing--nothing--else to offer voters. Where are their plans to rebuild America? To provide jobs to the under- and unemployed? This issue gives them something to say in the silence.
8
Do the Republican candidates and anti-abortion groups oppose In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)? Given their logic that life starts at fertilization, presumably they would. IVF results in many discarded fertilized eggs - do the Republican candidates consider that murder? Or is the fact that IVF is expensive and is used mainly by people with enough extra money to afford it mean that IVF is ok, but not abortion? I'd be interested in hearing their views on IVF, as that would help to show the hypocrisy in their position.
5
If conservatives contend that life begins at comception wouldn't they also have to advocate for a tax exemption for the "unborn child"?
5
As our common grasp of the science of conception and abortion continues to improve, so will the opposition. The future holds no refuge, since our technology and neonatal skill levels continue to challenge our basic understanding of life's inception and life's earliest sustainability.
It's all about the absolutes. If we are truly religious-Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim- abortion is wrong, even criminal. If we are truly Humanitarian, equally so. But the obvious truth, regardless of our status as unique forms of life, is that Human Lives Don't Matter, evidenced by our constant willingness to gas, electrocute, bomb, behead, shoot and otherwise quickly bring about that profound change from sentient living organism to another disposal problem. We should too be jumping up on stage with the Candidates, trying to see if there is any future to a new movement called "Human Lives Matter" regardless of one's developmental stage, color or country of origin.
It's all about the absolutes. If we are truly religious-Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim- abortion is wrong, even criminal. If we are truly Humanitarian, equally so. But the obvious truth, regardless of our status as unique forms of life, is that Human Lives Don't Matter, evidenced by our constant willingness to gas, electrocute, bomb, behead, shoot and otherwise quickly bring about that profound change from sentient living organism to another disposal problem. We should too be jumping up on stage with the Candidates, trying to see if there is any future to a new movement called "Human Lives Matter" regardless of one's developmental stage, color or country of origin.
Women of American and men who care about their rights: Register. Vote. Rinse. Repeat.
2
In my 60+ years, I have met only a few people (count them on one hand) for whom the question of abortion is really, truly about the life of the unborn 'child'. Talk to the flag-waving others even for a short time and you will see that it is really, truly about women having sex. The anti-choice people have gotten smarter over the years, but for a long time about the fourth sentence into a discussion they would say something like "abortion would let her get away with it" (the 'it' being having sex). Pregnancy as punishment. Punishment for having sex. The anti-choice people have gotten smoother over the years in their public message, but deep down, it is still about women having sex.
24
"...it is still about women having sex."
Well said.
Now we must ask, "Why is it NEVER about men having sex?" Why is it only the women who are guilty, who risk punishment, involuntary pregnancies, perhaps damnation itself?
Why are men allowed to go about impregnating women willy-nilly (is there a double meaning here?) without any more comment than "Boys will be boys"? When will the loose-zippered boys and men be held financially, socially, legally, and morally responsible for the careless and wanton depositing of their reproductive fluids?
Until then, until equality strikes, we must not let the spineless politicians make victims out of America's daughters, sisters, and unwilling mothers. It takes two to reproduce.
Oh, by the way, a zygote much smaller than the period at the end of this sentence cannot honestly be declared a person, human being, or child. Really.
Well said.
Now we must ask, "Why is it NEVER about men having sex?" Why is it only the women who are guilty, who risk punishment, involuntary pregnancies, perhaps damnation itself?
Why are men allowed to go about impregnating women willy-nilly (is there a double meaning here?) without any more comment than "Boys will be boys"? When will the loose-zippered boys and men be held financially, socially, legally, and morally responsible for the careless and wanton depositing of their reproductive fluids?
Until then, until equality strikes, we must not let the spineless politicians make victims out of America's daughters, sisters, and unwilling mothers. It takes two to reproduce.
Oh, by the way, a zygote much smaller than the period at the end of this sentence cannot honestly be declared a person, human being, or child. Really.
1
Planned Parenthood has served a function for the healthcare system, and American doctors and hospitals, of keeping abortion *over there* where they didn't have to deal with it. Now that Republicans are hell-bent on closing down Planned Parenthood, exactly who is going to step forward for women? We need to hear from doctors, hospitals and healthcare administrators. Somebody put a microphone in front of these people.
This all seems pretty theoretical until it is your granddaughter with an infected uterus and a pregnancy which could kill her. Or when your wife is raped and finds herself pregnant at age 50. These Republicans think all abortions should be outlawed.
This all seems pretty theoretical until it is your granddaughter with an infected uterus and a pregnancy which could kill her. Or when your wife is raped and finds herself pregnant at age 50. These Republicans think all abortions should be outlawed.
10
Do any of these candidates live in the modern world of 2015?
The current worldwide fearful clutching at idealogical purity--almost always worked out on the bodies of women-- is deeply dangerous and more than slightly insane.
As is any woman who votes GOP right now. They should think about the larger implications of governmentally mandated decision-making on their own bodies and those of their daughters. There is no perfect choice--the best choice is the one made by the individuals involved.
The current worldwide fearful clutching at idealogical purity--almost always worked out on the bodies of women-- is deeply dangerous and more than slightly insane.
As is any woman who votes GOP right now. They should think about the larger implications of governmentally mandated decision-making on their own bodies and those of their daughters. There is no perfect choice--the best choice is the one made by the individuals involved.
10
There would be no abortion debate if men could become pregnant.
Abortion would not even be part of the American lexicon if men had to have them.
Abortion would be called shaving if men could bear children.
The morning after pill would be sold as non-prescription chewing gum in every retail establishment in the nation if men could become pregnant.
The abortion debate is about right-wing, biblically-inspired conservative, misogyny and a reckless disregard for modernity and female human beings; it's also quite common in Middle Eastern and some African cultures.
Laws specifically regarding female body parts should be voted on by women only.
Laws specifically regarding male body parts - of which none exist, of course - should be voted on by men only.
Republican public policies on women poll very well in the Dark Ages and the Middle East.
Abortion would not even be part of the American lexicon if men had to have them.
Abortion would be called shaving if men could bear children.
The morning after pill would be sold as non-prescription chewing gum in every retail establishment in the nation if men could become pregnant.
The abortion debate is about right-wing, biblically-inspired conservative, misogyny and a reckless disregard for modernity and female human beings; it's also quite common in Middle Eastern and some African cultures.
Laws specifically regarding female body parts should be voted on by women only.
Laws specifically regarding male body parts - of which none exist, of course - should be voted on by men only.
Republican public policies on women poll very well in the Dark Ages and the Middle East.
74
If the political candidates, and their parties, could agree that neither side (pro-life and pro-choice) reflect the views of most Americans (when stated on their most extreme poles), the world would be a better place.
Protecting life does not need to infringe on women's rights. And recognizing women's rights does not require aborting a developing fetus two, three, or four months after fertilization.
Protecting life does not need to infringe on women's rights. And recognizing women's rights does not require aborting a developing fetus two, three, or four months after fertilization.
7
This stance is all about power and control over women and a desire to infuse ultra-conservative Christian doctrine into government policy. There is no other way to explain their split personality: they say no to abortion, but then they do things like defund Planned Parenthood so that women (and men!) can't get easy access to contraception. There's a simple answer to lowering the number of abortions, which is make contraception free and readily available to anyone who needs it. But that would mean women could actually have sex for fun! They couldn't possibly condone that, now could they? (I can't comment on the ones who wouldn't allow abortion in the case of rape or incest without using profanity, so I think I should stop right here ...)
22
It should come as no surprise that the rabid conservatives are coming after a woman's right to bodily autonomy with such a vengeance, seeing as it's hot on the heels of losing the battle in the supreme court over same sex marriage. If they can't keep gay people in line, then they're sure-as-shootin' going to keep women down.
12
This crop of Republicans is not "pro-life," but merely anti-abortion and, in some cases, anti-contraception, anti-sex, and anti-sex education.
If they were truly pro-life they'd be defunding the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex (especially where capital punishment still occurs), and corrupt police departments with histories of violence against the communities where they operate. Likewise, They'd be supporting better and more accessible healthcare for all Americans, along with better nutrition and safer air, food, and water.
We can tell the leopard by his spots. Let's see how eager these hard line "pro-lifers" are to defund the next war!
If they were truly pro-life they'd be defunding the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex (especially where capital punishment still occurs), and corrupt police departments with histories of violence against the communities where they operate. Likewise, They'd be supporting better and more accessible healthcare for all Americans, along with better nutrition and safer air, food, and water.
We can tell the leopard by his spots. Let's see how eager these hard line "pro-lifers" are to defund the next war!
12
Good points, but is it ethical to kill the unborn because the Republicans support the military-Wall street complex?
Don't YOU have a responsibility to think about a moderate solution without constantly bringing in Republicans?
Don't YOU have a responsibility to think about a moderate solution without constantly bringing in Republicans?
A very helpful, careful account of the various positions about when a pregnancy begins. It appears that there are several quite *distinct* criteria ... which we often confuse, & mix together.
1) It is a question of *medicine* (science) when a pregnancy begins, & the current *medical* decision is that a pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg is successfully implanted.
2) It is a question of theology (or philosophy) when a human life begins, & the most pure GOP position is that it begins *at* fertilization of the egg, but *before* implantation.
Each claim makes good sense ... in its own domain. The problem is that there is a 3rd important question:
3) When does a human life begin *legally*? One may use (a) or (b) above, & that will make ones decision law; but the law, at present, seems to support only (a), whereas the GOP candidates often prefer (b).
This is a complex matter, & not as simple as either side often makes it appear.
1) It is a question of *medicine* (science) when a pregnancy begins, & the current *medical* decision is that a pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg is successfully implanted.
2) It is a question of theology (or philosophy) when a human life begins, & the most pure GOP position is that it begins *at* fertilization of the egg, but *before* implantation.
Each claim makes good sense ... in its own domain. The problem is that there is a 3rd important question:
3) When does a human life begin *legally*? One may use (a) or (b) above, & that will make ones decision law; but the law, at present, seems to support only (a), whereas the GOP candidates often prefer (b).
This is a complex matter, & not as simple as either side often makes it appear.
1
When I was young and Catholic back in the 1960's I believe in an immortal soul that came into existence at conception. So I get why some people can hold that position and are not therefore misogynists. Today I struggle to find a deeper meaning of life that might be called "spiritual," but I often find myself concluding that Freud was right and our need for the divine is just a reflection of our need for our omnipotent parents. Regardless, although I "feel" that early term abortions are actually the "right" thing to do on the basis that someone who does not want a baby is probably not going to provide beneficial parenting for the child, I remain psychologically aghast at the very concept of late term abortions. I see nothing any more magical about a perfectly viable infant exiting his or her mother's body than I once did about the act of conception. More importantly, if it is murder to kill a new born... why is it inconsequential to kill the baby just seconds before it escapes the womb?
14
Discussions of late-term abortions horrify most people who do not understand the circumstances when women decide to have them. It's not because they suddenly wake up and want to go to the prom. One such condition is anencephaly--a baby that develops without a brain--merely a brain stem. This condition is discovered late in a pregnancy. There's no cure for it. Although there are freak instances of babies going on to live with this condition for as long as 12 years, they are always incapable of everything except feeling stimuli. In most instances, the condition leads to death a short time after birth.
The condition is rare. But rare is only a statistic. I know about it because my dear friend discovered, at 7 months, that the baby she dearly wanted had no brain. She was in agony, and could not stop weeping. The only doctor who would perform the abortion was the compassionate Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas abortion doctor who was assassinated in 2009. Had he not performed the abortion for my friend, she would have had to carry that baby without a brain two more months.
I ask you to put aside your philosophy and answer this: Do you really think the State should compel a woman to carry a severely malformed fetus to term?
The condition is rare. But rare is only a statistic. I know about it because my dear friend discovered, at 7 months, that the baby she dearly wanted had no brain. She was in agony, and could not stop weeping. The only doctor who would perform the abortion was the compassionate Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas abortion doctor who was assassinated in 2009. Had he not performed the abortion for my friend, she would have had to carry that baby without a brain two more months.
I ask you to put aside your philosophy and answer this: Do you really think the State should compel a woman to carry a severely malformed fetus to term?
22
I don't think much of anyone is speaking of aborting a fetus seconds, much less weeks, before birth. A fetus, though, just a few months in is hardly viable; in terms of it "being alive" it really is little more than an extension of the person, the woman. Granted, a fetus is not blood or skin, but in the sense that blood and skin is "alive," that is a fetus early on. Yes, as fetal development continues, the arguments grow as to "life," "sentience," and so forth. For sake of argument, even if one were to concede much ground, most pro-life people presume that "life," if not "child" begins at the moment of conception and thus, would not compromise in any sense (and it really is not compromise; it is admission of truth, of facts).
Hence, the debate will rage on until either the courts get a spine and speak to science, if not social health, or abortions are banned, and women's rights suffer horrendously, we have a number of deaths due to "back alley abortions," and public outcry forces legislators to overrule the emotive, irrational positions of the few.
Hence, the debate will rage on until either the courts get a spine and speak to science, if not social health, or abortions are banned, and women's rights suffer horrendously, we have a number of deaths due to "back alley abortions," and public outcry forces legislators to overrule the emotive, irrational positions of the few.
7
First, late term abortions are not performed "just seconds before it [the fetus] escapes the womb;" second, late term abortions are, as a rule, performed when the health or the life of the woman is at risk from continuing the pregnancy, or when the fetus has anomalies incompatible with life.
13
Why are men not a responsible part of the pregnancy picture?
Do women become pregnant spontaneously without male involvement?
Do men not have sex with women who then become pregnant by those men? WHY are Republicans dead-set on staring down and finger-pointing at women.
Why are Republicans no also staring down and finger-pointing at the men
whose sperm made those women pregnant? Are Repubs delusional and chronically hateful toward women?
Do women become pregnant spontaneously without male involvement?
Do men not have sex with women who then become pregnant by those men? WHY are Republicans dead-set on staring down and finger-pointing at women.
Why are Republicans no also staring down and finger-pointing at the men
whose sperm made those women pregnant? Are Repubs delusional and chronically hateful toward women?
41
Republicans were supportive of women's rights until they absorbed the right wing cultural conservatives into the Party who had fled the Democratic Party. It's male humans not reasoning and exercising compassion but responding to whatever chemicals are flooding their limbic systems. Look at our species closest cousins, the chimpanzees and the bonobos. Male chimpanzees never share the parenting role after they have made the females pregnant. The male bonobos share in parenting. Hominids form communities which share the parenting roles which allows males who will not parent to be who they are while others care for the young.
1
C'mon. It's patriarchy. In a patriarchy, men impregnate who they want, when they want, and the women, who are deemed unclean from the start, need to shut up. Remember that old phrase, "The only good woman is a dead virgin." And the other one, "Boys will be boys." Only women are held responsible, and they are to be held responsible for what the men do, as well.
What are you talking about? Since men have no say in this "decision" they don't receive the scorn. I would love to see men have more of a say in this decision. However, who are we to tell women what they can do with their bodies? Really?
At fertilization the egg has a diameter about the same as a human hair. It is quite a while until it has neurology more complex than that of a house fly. Ah, but when does it acquire a soul? That's an interesting question for a priest, not a doctor.
19
According to the medieval Church, at the "quickening" when motion of the fetus could be detected.
The "conservative" taliban christians - part of the ALEC/Koch brothers/Wall Street/u.s. chamber of commerce/radical "taliban christian" religious right/nra/major media corporate conglomerate that has been attacking the rights of women for 40+ years. WE are sending their operatives home from every elected office in the land in the next elections and replacing them with socially conscious women and men who want to restore REAL democracy in America and empower women around the world. The only thing that will stop the linear "control/war/destruction" mindset of our male-dominated world is socially conscious women sharing at least one-half the power. And I'm not talking about Ms. Fiorini or other women who have been assimilated into the civil destruction model.
51
Later when these self-proclaimed followers of Jesus take power, inspired by the Ayatollah Khomeini, Mullah Omar and the self-proclaimed Islamic State, we will be asked to feel sorry for all the women...who voted to "wear the vale" of the radical Christians and whose uteri belong to and are controlled by the government.
Thank you for thoroughly exposing the inanity, not to mention outright hypocrisy, of the GOP position. I should be more specific - in this case, on abortion and contraception. It would be highly entertaining watching the GOP candidates engage in this game of Twister, if, that is, the stakes weren't so high for so many.
27
Why do republicans have such a low view of women? A male dominated group wants to keep power away and to themselves. I guess they can because they are stronger physically. Isis, supposedly pure of thought and pure of religion, sets up prisons full of women who are abused by men and justifies this by saying that these women don't believe in some god or other in the proper way. You have to be pure of thought not to be abused, and any man can come along and take you by saying you are not. Aren't the republicans effectively like that? They want to run women's lives.
If nothing else, it is always good to have the fools and zealots identify themselves as such.
Now just make sure you vote properly, regardless of "party".
Now just make sure you vote properly, regardless of "party".
30
It's ridiculous. None of those candidates except Huckabee gives a hoot about abortion. If their own daughters wanted one, she would have it, probably somewhere overseas. What they care about is a strong reliable voting bloc. It's easy to please that bloc because nothing else matters to them except abortion and homosexuality. They lost on homosexuality, so now they are ratcheting up the abortion fight.
139
The social issues appeal to the bloc in part because Republican candidates have fanned the fires over them for a long time in order to distract middle-class voters from the fact that the party's economic policies are exclusively for the wealthy and big business. Gazillionaires don't bankroll candidates because they are homophobic.
"For those of you (who are) full of moral teachings/and teach us to renounce the major sins/ our middle's empty/there it all begins"
Brecht and Weill's "Three Penny Opera" takes a hard look at those who have the luxury of good health and a strong bank account, and from the comfort of their middle and upper class perch, take to the lectern and preach, never feeling any sense of empathy for those who die of starvation each day. Why can't we discuss the "population bomb," and those 18 to 20 thousand people, mostly children, who die each day for lack of nourishment? This is a moral challenge for those politicians, and this topic needs commentary in relation to birth control.
Brecht and Weill's "Three Penny Opera" takes a hard look at those who have the luxury of good health and a strong bank account, and from the comfort of their middle and upper class perch, take to the lectern and preach, never feeling any sense of empathy for those who die of starvation each day. Why can't we discuss the "population bomb," and those 18 to 20 thousand people, mostly children, who die each day for lack of nourishment? This is a moral challenge for those politicians, and this topic needs commentary in relation to birth control.
73
Ah yes, pro life - but only for eggs, maybe implanted. In 1960, the world population was 3 billion. It is now 7 and counting. Notice how there are species going extinct at an acclerating rate, how water is running out in parts of the world, how the rest of the entire biosphere suffers from the glut of humans. Guess what, pro life people? If we keep on merrily overproducing and simultaneously destroying the planet, partially because continued over population, partially through inaction on climate change and pollution, there won't be any life for anyone. Being pro life should, if one were consistent, mean also being pro conservation, pro environmental stewardship, and pro population control. At the very least, it should mean respecting ALL forms of life. It certainly would mean a belief that humans need to live in balance with the biosphere and all forms of life, and acknowledging that humans need to work really hard to do sio.
102
The media allows the right wingers to control the conversation by referring to them as "conservatives," when they are anything but, and by calling these anti-abortion nuts "pro life." Words do matter and I blame the media for allowing this word-folly to go on.
People who oppose all abortions believe that a person not just living cells are present from conception. The sperm and egg are living cells. The Catholic Church teaches that a soul is infused by God at birth which is clearly a faith, not science, based idea. No one believes that an acorn is an oak tree or that a plate for farm fresh fertile eggs are scrambled chicken.People have every right to believe a complete person exists at birth but absolutely no right to force it on the rest of us.
144
I'm pretty sure there is nothing about abortion in the teachings of Jesus or (I think) the Bible. The Church gets its info from some kind of natural philosophy. OK, if abortion interferes with God's plan to bring a human into the world, doesn't treating an ill person interfere with God's plan to potentially take that person out of the world?
I think you mean "at conception." :) A complete person does exist at birth.
A Modest Proposal: Confine all women to Home Detention between the age of puberty and menopause. This will eliminate the abortion problem.
22
Or confine all men beginning at puberty or give them a pill to render them incapable of reproducing. (Wonder what the religious fakes would think of that idea--does life begin at sperm?) Takes two to tango.
That does seem to be the Republican goal for women, except rape and incest happen in the home all the time, so it probably wouldn't eliminate the abortion problem.
First, thank you for making this so clear not just in what the GOP is saying but by WHO specifically is saying what. I wish more issues important to the electorate was covered as thoroughly, and factually, not playing around with fluffy rhetoric saying nothing.
I agree with the commenter here who notes this is not so much about abortion as it is about how establishing how far we are willing to allow some to force other people to subject to their norms.
If one maps out government size by GOP rhetoric, we would find a very interesting phenomenon. While the IRS shrinks, other areas become outsized to the point of being grotesque like regulation of fertility. Other areas are similarly out of whack like businesses reach over employees expanding exponentially while worker's ability to control even small matters on their lives is shrinking. Medical devices and medication business over patients is another.
No, the GOP is not about smaller government at all. It's about how far they can get away with saying "their way or the highway".
The real question is how much such force is tyranny?
This article proves the GOP wants tyranny of women's parts. Will the women of America be treated as chattel? With no more control over reproduction than farm animals?
This IS what the GOP is shaping up to.
I agree with the commenter here who notes this is not so much about abortion as it is about how establishing how far we are willing to allow some to force other people to subject to their norms.
If one maps out government size by GOP rhetoric, we would find a very interesting phenomenon. While the IRS shrinks, other areas become outsized to the point of being grotesque like regulation of fertility. Other areas are similarly out of whack like businesses reach over employees expanding exponentially while worker's ability to control even small matters on their lives is shrinking. Medical devices and medication business over patients is another.
No, the GOP is not about smaller government at all. It's about how far they can get away with saying "their way or the highway".
The real question is how much such force is tyranny?
This article proves the GOP wants tyranny of women's parts. Will the women of America be treated as chattel? With no more control over reproduction than farm animals?
This IS what the GOP is shaping up to.
101
"I agree with the commenter here who notes this is not so much about abortion as it is about how establishing how far we are willing to allow some to force other people to subject to their norms."
True to a point but much more important is that the GOP's opposition to abortion is not even about abortion per se, but about using the issue as a gill net to draw in gullible voters and stay in power. The GOP, and the 1% who own them, don't give a rat's rear end about abortion, other than securing one for a daughter who might desire it.
True to a point but much more important is that the GOP's opposition to abortion is not even about abortion per se, but about using the issue as a gill net to draw in gullible voters and stay in power. The GOP, and the 1% who own them, don't give a rat's rear end about abortion, other than securing one for a daughter who might desire it.
Republicans are like the conservative politicians in Islamic countries who want their nations run under Sharia. Republicans are always trying to impose their strange religious beliefs on all Americans. They forget that this country was originally conceived as a place where people could live without being hounded by the religious conservatives of circa 17th Century Europe.
The truth is that Republicans are a bunch of religious extremists. Their personalities are very similar to those of Islamic extremists.
Punishing women who have abortions is what happens when belief systems are created by mentally ill people.
The truth is that Republicans are a bunch of religious extremists. Their personalities are very similar to those of Islamic extremists.
Punishing women who have abortions is what happens when belief systems are created by mentally ill people.
181
No, we just want a country were babies are not hounded and aborted by the secularist left simply because they want sex without consequences. I love the bomb throwing tolerance of the left. Thank you for understanding our position Cassandra without having to call us terrorists.
The question to ask people who believe that life begins at conception is the petri dish vs the pre-school question. It goes like this:
A building has a lab with a peri dish containing 20 fertilized human eggs and a preschool with 10 four year olds. A fire breaks out and you can only get to one room. You can save either the four year olds or the contents of the petri dish. What do you do?
If they were consistent and truly accepted no compromise, the absolutists would go for the petri dish. But the numerous times I've presented this question to a person who believes that life begins at conception I have yet to hear them make that choice. Typically they'll say it's not a fair question and avoid giving an answer. But when pressed, they go for the real live kids.
A building has a lab with a peri dish containing 20 fertilized human eggs and a preschool with 10 four year olds. A fire breaks out and you can only get to one room. You can save either the four year olds or the contents of the petri dish. What do you do?
If they were consistent and truly accepted no compromise, the absolutists would go for the petri dish. But the numerous times I've presented this question to a person who believes that life begins at conception I have yet to hear them make that choice. Typically they'll say it's not a fair question and avoid giving an answer. But when pressed, they go for the real live kids.
88
And yet people are prohibited from killing a fetus, aside from abortion, when it's in a pregnant woman's uterus. It's considered a "real kid" when it's murdered.
The fact that we are even having this debate and you must devote a column to it shows how far off the rails we have gone. Why is anyone , let alone a group of allegedly Christian men dictating to women how they should protect their physical, emotional and psychological health ? When a woman chooses to use a contraceptive method of her choice and one that is approved by the FDA who are they to determine she does not have that right? If a woman is raped and must deal with the emotional and physical consequences of such a trauma must she then be told by Mike Huckabee or Scott Walker that she has no right to decide whether she wants to terminate that pregnancy? Why are these very people the ones who claim the President is a dictator and usurping peoples rights and freedoms when all they want to do is to take away a woman's right to choose ? The mean spirited hypocrisy of these people never cease to amaze and shame!
209
In the context of the range of stresses that threaten our life support systems, e.g. global warming and over-consumption, single issue voters who have no interest in these threats are the modern day equivalent of Emperor Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.
20
Its climate change now. Temperatures have not really gone up, so scientists had to change the name of this "threat" to meet the facts.
Nero got bad press, mainly from christian historians. Rather, single issue voters are like the bigots Oliver Wendell Holmes likened to pupils,"the more light you shine on them, the more the more they contract."
Do these candidates expect us to believe that none of the women in these candidates' families has ever used contraception? Have they forbidden their wives, their sisters, and daughters to use birth control, not to mention themselves? Do they trust but verify? Hypocrites all.
132
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated that "pregnancy is established only at the conclusion of implantation of a fertilized egg".
To those who question the morality of abortion, when a 'pregnancy' starts is not the issue. The issue is when a human life starts.
Reading medical embryology books, it becomes apparent that human life starts a bit earlier than when ACOG states that a 'pregnancy' starts. We used the 3rd Edition of Medical Embryology (a popular standard text) in our course which beings: "The development of a human being begins with fertilization…".
Nothing fundamental has changed in our understanding of human development during those past 35 years and those opening words of that very standard text remain valid.
If ACOG wishes to define that a short portion of human development occurs outside of what they define of as pregnancy, well, I guess they can define it as they wish. But that should not be used to obfuscate the issue. Anything that kills and embryo prior to its implantation may not have interrupted a pregnancy as ACOG defines it but it certainly has interrupted the development of a human life as a standard embryology text defines it.
To those who question the morality of abortion, when a 'pregnancy' starts is not the issue. The issue is when a human life starts.
Reading medical embryology books, it becomes apparent that human life starts a bit earlier than when ACOG states that a 'pregnancy' starts. We used the 3rd Edition of Medical Embryology (a popular standard text) in our course which beings: "The development of a human being begins with fertilization…".
Nothing fundamental has changed in our understanding of human development during those past 35 years and those opening words of that very standard text remain valid.
If ACOG wishes to define that a short portion of human development occurs outside of what they define of as pregnancy, well, I guess they can define it as they wish. But that should not be used to obfuscate the issue. Anything that kills and embryo prior to its implantation may not have interrupted a pregnancy as ACOG defines it but it certainly has interrupted the development of a human life as a standard embryology text defines it.
3
Sure - interrupts a part of the life cycle. But so what? The issue is the rights of women to make decisions about their bodies. Since a pregnancy has not begun before implantation, and since implantation is not guaranteed, why does anyone have the right to stop a woman from preventing implantation?
Yikes--"pregnancy" in quotes!
You can't just redefine pregnancy to meet your political goals.
You can't delete a woman from the concept of a pregnancy.
A woman is pregnant, if there is no pregnant woman, there is no pregnancy.
A fertilized egg is not a pregnancy until it implants.
If you really believe a fertilized egg is the same as pregnancy, why aren't you down at the fertility clinic, protesting all the babies in the freezer?
This is really about controlling women, since the only time you conflate a fertilized egg with a pregnancy is when there is a woman who dares to be in control of her own body.
You can't just redefine pregnancy to meet your political goals.
You can't delete a woman from the concept of a pregnancy.
A woman is pregnant, if there is no pregnant woman, there is no pregnancy.
A fertilized egg is not a pregnancy until it implants.
If you really believe a fertilized egg is the same as pregnancy, why aren't you down at the fertility clinic, protesting all the babies in the freezer?
This is really about controlling women, since the only time you conflate a fertilized egg with a pregnancy is when there is a woman who dares to be in control of her own body.
All these men (and they are mostly men) will strongly support the right of the yet-to-be-born fetus since, in their world, it is a live human being. However, these very same men will not support policies that will provide food, education and healthcare for kids that are born. For some weird and warped reason, once born, kids become the sole responsibility of the parents and no help can be rendered by the state.
A fetus needs more support than a suffering child. You go figure that out!
A fetus needs more support than a suffering child. You go figure that out!
130
It's almost like they are more interested in controlling women than saving children.
Mr. Edsall,
I wish you could ask them if they support this statement, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Thanks
I wish you could ask them if they support this statement, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Thanks
52
The potential for a new, unique human being may start at the instant of fertilization, but potential is all that it is.
That one cell still stands a very high chance of not thriving, of being naturally aborted. And that one cell doesn't yet think, or have a heartbeat, or feel pain. It's just a single cell.
Its rights certainly don't trump the rights of the woman housing it.
It is only because some of the religious believe in the concept of "ensoulment" that they accord this one cell such exagerated rights. The rest of us can see this cell for what it is: just the potential to become a human being.
That's why we support women having the right to choose the fate of this cell.
That one cell still stands a very high chance of not thriving, of being naturally aborted. And that one cell doesn't yet think, or have a heartbeat, or feel pain. It's just a single cell.
Its rights certainly don't trump the rights of the woman housing it.
It is only because some of the religious believe in the concept of "ensoulment" that they accord this one cell such exagerated rights. The rest of us can see this cell for what it is: just the potential to become a human being.
That's why we support women having the right to choose the fate of this cell.
55
Good article. I must have nodded off for a bit, and when I awoke I found that words had again changed their meaning. "Life" begins at conception? Every one of my hair follicles is "alive." Some might even be used to clone me (God forbid! Imagine listening to Donald Trump twice!) But a hair follicle is not a human being. Nor are the cells shed by the inside of my cheek onto my toothbrush actual human beings, even though they might be used to clone me.
The problem with this abuse of language is that “life” in this context has been accepted in twitterese to mean a “human being.” The politics of this “personhood” movement is scandalous. It is a reckless dismissal of the scientific method of acquiring knowledge and substituting in its place gross superstition. This applies to many aspects of current knowledge and theory. Evolution is rejected in favor of ancient fables. Detailed study of climate is displaced by the availability of snowballs.
The Right has created a monster and is now caught in its coils.
The problem with this abuse of language is that “life” in this context has been accepted in twitterese to mean a “human being.” The politics of this “personhood” movement is scandalous. It is a reckless dismissal of the scientific method of acquiring knowledge and substituting in its place gross superstition. This applies to many aspects of current knowledge and theory. Evolution is rejected in favor of ancient fables. Detailed study of climate is displaced by the availability of snowballs.
The Right has created a monster and is now caught in its coils.
53
Does the scientific method bare that a freshly laid Bald Eagle egg is an Eagle & therefore worthy of federal protection? I bet it doesn't.
The Republican "war on abortion" is a war on pregnant poor women across the nation. By limiting a woman's abortion options, only the poor will suffer. The white middle class will continue to have whatever options the law allows. Poor Blacks and Latinos will be forced to have children no one wants and no one wants to pay for. There is no justice in poverty.
49
Changes in law, will not prevent those with resources from obtaining an abortion. Remember that abortion is available readily in other places. With the right resources and the will to travel, those who want one will have no difficulty in receiving the services they wish to obtain. Otherwise, I fully agree that this "war on abortion" is a war on women, especially poor women.
Why isn't Fox News all over this "War on woman's private parts"?
14
It's completely reasonable for someone - politicians included - to believe that life begins at conception, to be against abortion (with or without exception), and to support policies that make abortion safe, legal and rare.
This position, in fact, reflects that of many Americans. Deeply held personal beliefs can be held deeply without being thrust upon others.
This position, in fact, reflects that of many Americans. Deeply held personal beliefs can be held deeply without being thrust upon others.
16
With all the monumental problems that Planet Earth and our civilization are facing in the next decades, why oh why does every presidential campaign invariably have to come back to the abortion debate? Seriously, don't we have anything better to talk about?
Who cares about abortion if billions of people are going to die of famine, floods and disease as global warming will displace entire populations? And why do the same people who care about abortion also support guns, are in favor of the brutal ethnic cleansing of illegal immigrants, are against health care for living, breathing human beings and do not give a hoot about the welfare of the living, breathing human beings living next door to them?
Hypocrites, ignorants and bigots. Are these the "base" that presidential candidates need to pander to? Please, let's grow up and talk about serious stuff. If the religious fanatics and rednecks stop watching TV, then be it.
Who cares about abortion if billions of people are going to die of famine, floods and disease as global warming will displace entire populations? And why do the same people who care about abortion also support guns, are in favor of the brutal ethnic cleansing of illegal immigrants, are against health care for living, breathing human beings and do not give a hoot about the welfare of the living, breathing human beings living next door to them?
Hypocrites, ignorants and bigots. Are these the "base" that presidential candidates need to pander to? Please, let's grow up and talk about serious stuff. If the religious fanatics and rednecks stop watching TV, then be it.
33
"why does every presidential campaign invariably have to come back to the abortion debate?"
Because this is a sure divider. It's an issue used only by the GOP in order to appeal to emotions rather than the intelligence of the voters. Face it, the GOP has nothing else to offer. If they laid out exactly what they want – cut SS & Medicare, eliminate education funding, lower taxes for corporations and the 1%, privatization of pretty much everything, etc – how else would they get people to vote for them?
Because this is a sure divider. It's an issue used only by the GOP in order to appeal to emotions rather than the intelligence of the voters. Face it, the GOP has nothing else to offer. If they laid out exactly what they want – cut SS & Medicare, eliminate education funding, lower taxes for corporations and the 1%, privatization of pretty much everything, etc – how else would they get people to vote for them?
4
This is a sticky argument with merits on both sides of it that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction and thus makes a perfect wedge issue for Republicans to exploit. Anyone paying attention will notice that Republicans have had three and only three issues that they run on: "If my opponent is elected, he will take away your guns and force you to get gay married, then sneak into your house in the middle of the night and abort your baby." Gay marriage (or "marriage" as it's now known) is now the law of the land. Under the Obama administration, guns have only increased, even into federally protected national parks and recreation areas. So abortion is the only thing that's left to exploit. None of these rabid pro-fetus politicians would want a single penny going towards the health care of the mother and child, nor one groat applied to educating the child nor feeding and housing the child if it had the misfortune to be born to one of the increasing number of parents (or parent) in poverty and will be all too eager to send the child off to die in a war of opportunity at the first possible chance, throw it in jail for the mildest offense and apply the death penalty if possible. There is nothing pro-"life" about Republican positions once the fetus is delivered. George Carlin once noted that to Republicans, a woman exists only to serve as a brood mare for the state, that they want live babies so they can become dead soldiers. This crop is not proving him wrong.
51
Republican wedge issue? It's democrats that advance the "War on Women" meme.
2
We call it as we see it. Voting against equal pay for women and micromanaging their reproduction would seem to justify using the somewhat hyperbolic term.
7
"If my opponent is elected, he will take away your guns and force you to get gay married, then sneak into your house in the middle of the night and abort your baby."
Exact and beautiful succinct. The suckers who fall for this think that the leaders and owners of the GOP really give a hoot about these issues. The NRA, Right to Life, and the various anti-gay movements have been co-opted into the biggest sucker nets in the country.
Exact and beautiful succinct. The suckers who fall for this think that the leaders and owners of the GOP really give a hoot about these issues. The NRA, Right to Life, and the various anti-gay movements have been co-opted into the biggest sucker nets in the country.
2
If these candidates wanted to take away a right guaranteed to men by the Supreme Court (won't someone please think of the sperm?) the clamor would be deafening. But these people have no qualms about trying to deny a right held by half the population. They would do better to direct their energy elsewhere.
13
The Republican party has become a coalition of single issue voters. The pro-life crowd really doesn't have much in common with the anti-immigration crowd which doesn't have much in common with the low tax, small government crowd, etc... This situation lends itself to Republican candidates sounding pretty foolish as they defends the rights of pre-birth children while cutting benefits to poor post-birth children. They are in favor of cutting federal spending while simultaneously suggesting they will build a modern "Great Wall", go to war in the Middle East and deport tax paying immigrants who are not allowed to collect benefits. In order to be competitive, the first requirement for a Republican presidential candidate is that you must willingly embrace sounding like a complete idiot.
351
Glenn Sills,
I think that's why Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert staged their Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.
I think that's why Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert staged their Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.
I hear the arguments and realize that the actual argument is that YOU are not permitted recreational sex. Of course the "I's" give themselves an exemption.
13
Although sperm and eggs are haploid cells, having only one set of chromosomes, they are, nonetheless, living cells. Life began some 3 billion years ago. It is diploidy, the state of having two sets of chromosomes, that begins at conception.
7
Bush: "“Yes on supporting exceptions for life of the mother, rape and incest. " So it is OK if the child is murdered for a parents sin. That's OK by Bush! (That's if you believe abortion is murder, which I for one do not.)
1
Once again, NYT is arguing details, instead of the basic ideas.
A woman's right to her life, her liberty, and her pursuit of her happiness, are hers to determine and engage in. This includes whether she decides to carry a pregnancy - not a human life - to term. The only strictly human life is that of the pregnant woman, and she has the right to decide for herself whether continuing the pregnancy supports her rights as listed above.
In this respect, Republicans are anti-rights.
In contrast, my rights to my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of my happiness are violated when Democrats determine that upholding a woman's rights means taking my wealth from me to pay for abortions.
In this respect, Democrats are anti-rights.
If I didn't get her pregnant, you have no right to force me to get her un-pregnant.
A woman's right to her life, her liberty, and her pursuit of her happiness, are hers to determine and engage in. This includes whether she decides to carry a pregnancy - not a human life - to term. The only strictly human life is that of the pregnant woman, and she has the right to decide for herself whether continuing the pregnancy supports her rights as listed above.
In this respect, Republicans are anti-rights.
In contrast, my rights to my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of my happiness are violated when Democrats determine that upholding a woman's rights means taking my wealth from me to pay for abortions.
In this respect, Democrats are anti-rights.
If I didn't get her pregnant, you have no right to force me to get her un-pregnant.
3
Great argument until the end. Because really society is entirely built on taking your money, and mine, for things we may not want, use, need or believe in. Educating other people's children, paving other people's roads, fighting other people's fires, treating other people's cancers...the list is endless. It is a bedrock part of the social contract, and it makes sense but is always going to be contentious. You cannot afford your own army, road, medical facility, research center, bridge. Your mom might get Alzheimer's, your sister might need an abortion. Your crystal ball will never be unclouded.
11
Ever hear of the Hyde Amendment, KarlosTJ. Federal tax dollars cannot be used to pay for abortions so, contrary to your claim, your hypothetical wealth is not taken from you to pay for abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, or the woman's life being at serious risk.
8
Um. No one is taking your wealth to pay for abortions.
However, your wealth is taken to pay for the pre-natal care, childbirth and support of the child born to an impoverished woman.
However, your wealth is taken to pay for the pre-natal care, childbirth and support of the child born to an impoverished woman.
7
Back in 2012 when Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan to be his running mate, it was Ryan's views on conception that made cemented my opposition to him. He supported the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which states “each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” He also co-sponsored a bill that would grant the pre-born equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
The repercussions of policies like these would be far-reaching and are utterly irrational. Support for laws and policies like these highlights the black-and-white nature of the GOP. They leave little room for informed policies based in messy reality.
http://c-dawson.blogspot.com/2012/08/can-pregnant-woman-drive-in-carpool...
The repercussions of policies like these would be far-reaching and are utterly irrational. Support for laws and policies like these highlights the black-and-white nature of the GOP. They leave little room for informed policies based in messy reality.
http://c-dawson.blogspot.com/2012/08/can-pregnant-woman-drive-in-carpool...
19
You say "women's reproductive rights." There is nothing reproductive about abortion which by definition is the termination or death of something that is alive. I rest my case. Oh, by the way, you might want to read the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade; it is a convoluted argument with twisted reasoning to kill a human being by abortion. What do you think is growing in the womb of the mother? A potted plant!
2
Bob, Cannot advise you strongly enough to not have an abortion.
12
Unless and until you yourself can become pregnant, none of this is any of your business. Also, reproductive rights includes the right to decide whether to reproduce; you know, as in after a male rapes a woman and actually or potentially impregnates her. Are you willing to carry that child around in your womb? Oh, wait, that brings me back to my first point.
10
The greatest threat to contraception is not republicans but women's inability to use it. About 40% of unintended pregnancies is caused by women's not using the birth control they have or using it incorrectly. Guttmacher describes this as their having a "poor relationship" with birth control.
Since 50% of those pregnancies result in abortion, it's a significant part of the puzzle. Unfortunately, it is rarely articulated by abortion advocates, who would like everyone to believe the greatest threat is access.
Interesting that Mr. Edsall has shifted from the GOP's position on abortion, in general, to "in cases of rape and incest" and when conception begins. Could this be because certain GOP candidates have said that abortion is legal and they would not support action to make it completely illegal?
If anything, Mr. Edsall points out how the DNC's position on abortion -- without any constraints whatsoever -- is way outside the mainstream. Only 10% agree. Many more likrly agree that life begins at conceptionr rather than at birth too.
The GOP will continue to be painted a certain way but its candidates who don't support ending abortion are more in touch with most Americans, who do favor limitations, than pro-abortion advocates who don't support any limitations.
Since 50% of those pregnancies result in abortion, it's a significant part of the puzzle. Unfortunately, it is rarely articulated by abortion advocates, who would like everyone to believe the greatest threat is access.
Interesting that Mr. Edsall has shifted from the GOP's position on abortion, in general, to "in cases of rape and incest" and when conception begins. Could this be because certain GOP candidates have said that abortion is legal and they would not support action to make it completely illegal?
If anything, Mr. Edsall points out how the DNC's position on abortion -- without any constraints whatsoever -- is way outside the mainstream. Only 10% agree. Many more likrly agree that life begins at conceptionr rather than at birth too.
The GOP will continue to be painted a certain way but its candidates who don't support ending abortion are more in touch with most Americans, who do favor limitations, than pro-abortion advocates who don't support any limitations.
7
The availability, in theory, of contraception, is not as firm in reality as those writing may assume. I would surmise that most who say contraception is easily available live in metropolitan and therefore relatively anonymous, areas.
To live in a small town with only one pharmacy, or no pharmacy, or the owner/workers attend your church or are excellent friends with your parents puts an enormous block in the path to easy availability.
Until effective methods, be it the pill, morning after pill, or IUD or other medically implanted devices or shots become universally available to those wishing to control their fertility and destiny without social pressure or implied shame that has been so successfully used in the past, we still don't have easy access.
To live in a small town with only one pharmacy, or no pharmacy, or the owner/workers attend your church or are excellent friends with your parents puts an enormous block in the path to easy availability.
Until effective methods, be it the pill, morning after pill, or IUD or other medically implanted devices or shots become universally available to those wishing to control their fertility and destiny without social pressure or implied shame that has been so successfully used in the past, we still don't have easy access.
11
The issue of women using birth control methods does not arise for the most effective birth control methods -- the IUD and hormonal implants. But, as the editorial explains, these are exactly the methods that are targeted by extreme pro-lifers who insist that these methods prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus wall, making them "abortifacients" and therefore verboten under their moral code.
7
HT:
Evidence please. While I agree that contraception that requires little on the part of women will likely be more effective (yes, I saw the study of teens with IUD's), it's not been demonstrated yet. Better to not have too idealistic an image of women. After all, they might not have all that good a "relationship" with IUD's or morning after pills either.
Time will tell. There's a human component that will be better addressed but not entirely eliminated. Fighting republicans is a lot more gratifying than that truth.
Evidence please. While I agree that contraception that requires little on the part of women will likely be more effective (yes, I saw the study of teens with IUD's), it's not been demonstrated yet. Better to not have too idealistic an image of women. After all, they might not have all that good a "relationship" with IUD's or morning after pills either.
Time will tell. There's a human component that will be better addressed but not entirely eliminated. Fighting republicans is a lot more gratifying than that truth.
2
When I was a teenager (late 1960s), I was bodily thrown out of a physician's office for asking him a question about the Pill.
He'd glanced at my new patient medical info form, chuckled, and said that I must be a newlywed, since I'd accidentally checked single instead of married. When I told him I was single, he told me to stand up. I complied. He spun me around, pushed me to the door, opened it, and shoved me out. Patients awaiting their turn looked up in surprise, clearly wondering what heinous act I'd committed.
This is the world the Republicans hope to send America back into.
He'd glanced at my new patient medical info form, chuckled, and said that I must be a newlywed, since I'd accidentally checked single instead of married. When I told him I was single, he told me to stand up. I complied. He spun me around, pushed me to the door, opened it, and shoved me out. Patients awaiting their turn looked up in surprise, clearly wondering what heinous act I'd committed.
This is the world the Republicans hope to send America back into.
421
Thank you for your honesty. Viewing women as chattel and only capable of one thing--producing babies--is antediluvian. Abrogating the right of women to think and choose for themselves, and exercising an arrogant paternalism as this doctor did towards you is simply not going to fly in 2015-2016.
I hope the NYT keeps covering this issue over and over--to expose it for what it is, which is assuming control over a women's personal matters.
I hope the NYT keeps covering this issue over and over--to expose it for what it is, which is assuming control over a women's personal matters.
8
Yep, and back then, Planned Parenthood was supporting responsible birth control when abortion wasn't even legal. And they still spend a high proportion of their funds on that.
8
The powers that be, would like to put the genie back in the bottle of women's rights in general. They also promote religion for the masses but not for themselves. Controlling people's sex lives and what they eat are two ways in which the manipulation of the public is taking place. Corporations are planning a major power grab in the new trade treaties whose contents are secret according to leaked documents. This is the biggest news that should be blasted out loud on our media to alert us to what is going on. Emphasis on social issues is a great way to divert our attention away from what is happening under our noses. Yes, control of women is deplorable, but it is just one of many ways we are all losing our rights.
82
Perhaps reporters should ask the Republican candidates what form of contraception they use. It would not be unreasonable for a candidate to reply that this is a very personal issue not appropriate for discussion in a public forum.
.....um....so.........
.....um....so.........
553
Perhaps reporters should also ask democrats at what point they believe abortion should be prohibited. At 9 months? Seven months? Then they should ask the DNC chair to defend an abortion at 8 months, which is the position she is advocating.
5
Do you want a reply from Democratic candidates for president, from registered Democrats, or from democrats? I'm a philosophical democrat, and I say to you, yours is an immaterial question. There is a law; until a fetus is capable of living viably away from the womb (approximately 23 weeks) an abortion is a woman's personal medical decision, for whatever reason she has in her own conscience, in consultation with her medical providers and anyone else she chooses to bring into the discussion, including the putative father where that is appropriate (he's around, he's not beating her, he is someone who can hold a rational discussion). After that, decisions get more difficult, and medical judgment is more important. The reality is that very few abortions occur after 23 weeks, and the vast majority of those are for significant medical complications that arise to the fetus or the woman after that point.
25
To aacny; those questions have been answered. Where were you? Catch up.
11
Ah, yes. The article reinforces the oft-repeated adage that, to Republicans, life begins at fertilization/conception and ends at birth.
448
The United Nations Population Fund estimated that 289,000 women died of pregnancy or childbirth related causes in 2013. I add to that children who are born with Down's syndrome or a related serious genetic disorder, about one out of every 1000 births per year, which can be detected by prenatal screening. I will believe a pro-lifer when I see him/her giving the same intensity as they give to their anti-abortion agenda to 1) life support of the 289,000 women dying every year due to pregnancy or childbirth related causes, for 2) life-after-birth support for genetically impaired children and 3) life-after-birth support for children born as a result of rape or incest. It's tough to get a job if your average IQ is ~50, as it is for the Down syndrome babies, who have an average life expectancy of over 50 years. Prolifers-- let's compare the numbers in time and money you've spent on anti-abortion and on items 1-3) above.
15
Just two simple points....................
The Law recognizes the start of life as "THE BIRTHDAY". Good luck trying to document conceptions.
The Republicans control over women is just like a rapist's. Maybe that's why they object to abortions after rape.
I don't like abortions but it's obvious why some women choose to have them.
Sorry I wasn't profound, but that's the facts Jacks.
The Law recognizes the start of life as "THE BIRTHDAY". Good luck trying to document conceptions.
The Republicans control over women is just like a rapist's. Maybe that's why they object to abortions after rape.
I don't like abortions but it's obvious why some women choose to have them.
Sorry I wasn't profound, but that's the facts Jacks.
273
I could not agree more
1
This issue is not about what people believe is the start of life, but about how far you are willing to go in forcing other people to subject to your norms. If the anti-abortionist were really sincere about wanting to prevent abortions they would follow the lead of nations where abortion is readily accessible, but rare, like the Netherlands.
346
In the Netherlands one can smoke pot and visit a prostitute. That's "immoral."
Although it makes sense to the Dutch given that arresting people causes more harm to both the arrested person and society than does regulating the "sin."
However, if a woman's uterus is government property as the pro-life folk believe, that means every woman who is or may be pregnant must now be monitored to make sure that she is doing nothing that might injure the embryo.
Although it makes sense to the Dutch given that arresting people causes more harm to both the arrested person and society than does regulating the "sin."
However, if a woman's uterus is government property as the pro-life folk believe, that means every woman who is or may be pregnant must now be monitored to make sure that she is doing nothing that might injure the embryo.
1
It's really their perception of Biblical commands , not scientific or logical issues, that Fundamentalists are interested in. They believe it is a sin to interfere in any way with God's plans for making a child. This means no contraception AND no abortion.
The anti-abortionists aren't being hypocritical exactly; they just believe what they believe and they insist that you believe it too.
It's really a separation of Church and State issue.
The anti-abortionists aren't being hypocritical exactly; they just believe what they believe and they insist that you believe it too.
It's really a separation of Church and State issue.
3
Tom, their is no such thing as 'pro-choice', its really 'life or death'. Your attempt to frame it otherwise speaks to your being part of the culture of death. All barriers to fertilization, chemical or mechanical, are intrinsically evil and hence the moral doctrine of the Catholic Church always holds such. Exceptions? There are none, as much as all the candidates dance around to say there are. When it comes to evil, there must be absolutes.
6
@Coolhunter in NJ: "All barriers to fertilization... are intrinsically evil"? Do tell. Though pro-choice, I do not like abortion and always hope women will find other avenues. So I do understand those who are anti-choice to some degree. However, I cannot for the life of me understand the position that preventing a pregnancy in the first place is "evil." I wonder if you support all the programs and services needed to raise a child parents cannot afford, to support single mothers (my grandmother was a single mother - not because she was 'loose,' but because her husband died suddenly when she was pregnant with her 4th child), to help care for a disabled child, or to help a poor child get a good start at school. Do you vote for politicians who want to improve mental health services to families, food stamps, and, yes, Medicaid? Judgmental moralists like you generally vote against all that would help a mother (parents) bring that child to healthy adulthood - and, ironically turn around and blame her for "having so many children she cannot afford."
303
Life and death, indeed!
This much is certain: in our era of climate change and multifaceted ecological challenge, the more human beings refuse to address the problem of population growth, the more it will become necessary for nature to do it for us.
Hence, what you and my former ostrich-like Church call the pro-life position must eventually mutate into a maniacal embrace of death - death directly at the hands of nature or death at the hands of human beings fighting for what remains of the earth's remaining resources.
My God is a God of evolution, not a God of dusty scriptures. It demands the evolution of all things, even human beings, and not retreat into sanctimonious ideologies.
What was must pass away. Prepare to live.
This much is certain: in our era of climate change and multifaceted ecological challenge, the more human beings refuse to address the problem of population growth, the more it will become necessary for nature to do it for us.
Hence, what you and my former ostrich-like Church call the pro-life position must eventually mutate into a maniacal embrace of death - death directly at the hands of nature or death at the hands of human beings fighting for what remains of the earth's remaining resources.
My God is a God of evolution, not a God of dusty scriptures. It demands the evolution of all things, even human beings, and not retreat into sanctimonious ideologies.
What was must pass away. Prepare to live.
84
If there must be absolutes, then for those who think the Catholic Church is wrong on its stance on contraception, the Catholic Church must be absolutely evil.
Is that really the world we want to live in? I thought the New World sought to escape the Old World's religious disorders.
Is that really the world we want to live in? I thought the New World sought to escape the Old World's religious disorders.
74
Will someone please ask the GOP candidates very specifically if, if the life of their wife or daughter were in danger without an abortion they would opt to save the fetus and let the mother die. The questioner could mention the appalling case of the young Indian dentist practicing in Ireland who began to miscarry ( probably due to a bacterial infection) was hospitalized in extreme pain and was refused a requested abortion on the grounds that there was still a fetal heartbeat. She died four days later from septicemia. How any woman could vote for GOP candidates who want the power to decide whether they live or die is simply beyond my comprehension.
682
@Susan
Your example is not dissimilar from those who would complete an amniocentesis and abort a Down Syndrome child in the second or third trimester.
Both your example and mine reveal troubling evidence of how broken the current debate is over this fraught issue and why it is not convenient to sound bite.
Women and our children should be held in equally high and protected regard.
Your example is not dissimilar from those who would complete an amniocentesis and abort a Down Syndrome child in the second or third trimester.
Both your example and mine reveal troubling evidence of how broken the current debate is over this fraught issue and why it is not convenient to sound bite.
Women and our children should be held in equally high and protected regard.
This is one, extremely rare case. I suppose the other 42 million cases a year where only the baby dies during an abortion are beyond your comprehension also?
The new republican mantra:
Shrink government until it will fit inside a woman's private parts.
Shrink government until it will fit inside a woman's private parts.
421
The only comforting thought I have when thinking about the anti-abortion zealots is the fact that their lives are wasting away as they tilt at windmills. They are, in effect, aborting their own life, with their rabid, single-minded focus on abortion. I find in joy in that.
123
Me too. Most of them are dinosaurs in more ways than one, can't wait for their extinction.
16
"I find...joy in that?"
They are, to use your words, "aborting" everyone's life around them as well.
I find no joy in that.
They are, to use your words, "aborting" everyone's life around them as well.
I find no joy in that.
1
The specific details of these candidates' positions are interesting, but, to me at least, irrelevant. Either a candidates supports a woman's right to make her own medical decisions or s/he does not. I find it particularly egregious that the candidates insisting on their right to interfere in women's decisions regarding pregnancy are just as opposed to providing any social services to help raise the resulting child. Either you believe in shrinking government or you do not.
375
When the woman's decision involves ending another's life, you have to expect that it moves into the area of morality. To deny this is myopic.
It's silly to try to position it as ONLY being about the woman and her right. It is a position that is getting increasingly difficult when ultrasounds clearly show what is growing within the woman's uterus and technology allows in utero surgery and life support for preemies.
The days of claiming that it's not a life are over. Better to just acknowledge that the woman has the legal right to end it than pretending that's not what she's doing.
It's silly to try to position it as ONLY being about the woman and her right. It is a position that is getting increasingly difficult when ultrasounds clearly show what is growing within the woman's uterus and technology allows in utero surgery and life support for preemies.
The days of claiming that it's not a life are over. Better to just acknowledge that the woman has the legal right to end it than pretending that's not what she's doing.
3
Edsall should have been a bit more clear in asking candidates about the degree to which they separate their personal beliefs and opinions from the policies they'd pursue.
2
>
> it moves into the area of morality.
>
Nonsense.
We killed 60,000+ Americans & 100,000+ Iraqis & never said a peep about "morality."
> it moves into the area of morality.
>
Nonsense.
We killed 60,000+ Americans & 100,000+ Iraqis & never said a peep about "morality."
14
So if I am following this Republican logic (for lack of a better NYT publishable term) correctly, does this mean that frozen embryos are human beings?
If the parents die does that make the frozen embryos wards of the state?
Who is responsible for their health care?
What if they are Mexican frozen embryos?
Someone needs to ask the candidates these questions.
While we are on the subject of the rights of the most defenseless of Americans, who among the Republican candidates will stand up for the second amendment rights of the unborn?
If the parents die does that make the frozen embryos wards of the state?
Who is responsible for their health care?
What if they are Mexican frozen embryos?
Someone needs to ask the candidates these questions.
While we are on the subject of the rights of the most defenseless of Americans, who among the Republican candidates will stand up for the second amendment rights of the unborn?
230
According to trending GOP ideology and according to current Roman Catholic doctrine, a single fertilized cell, the zygote, is a human being. In some court cases, lawyers have been appointed for the "unborn."
5
One of the other questions arising from "Life begins at conception" is "Is a miscarriage involuntary Manslaughter?"
5
"the moral absolutism — of the anti-abortion movement conflicts with the far more complex views and the pragmatism of the electorate, including many conservative Republicans." Exactly! Some of the candidate's debate responses, such as prohibiting abortion even to save a mother's life are beyond mind-bogling. Why so extreme when these views are certain to alienate GOP supporters?
Basically - lousy campaigning. Instead the GOP candidates should be broadcasting the extreme views of pro-choice advocates. "Hillary, your view please on partial birth abortions?" "Hillary, should the US adopt abortion restrictions to conform with Western Europe which highly restrict abortions after 10 weeks pregnancy." "Hillary, what is your view on Planned Parenthood selling fetus (baby) parts?"
These and so many other questions which strike at the discomfort many Americans feel toward our current life-termination law as stated by Roe v. Wade could really earn the GOP points with the moderate electorate.
Basically - lousy campaigning. Instead the GOP candidates should be broadcasting the extreme views of pro-choice advocates. "Hillary, your view please on partial birth abortions?" "Hillary, should the US adopt abortion restrictions to conform with Western Europe which highly restrict abortions after 10 weeks pregnancy." "Hillary, what is your view on Planned Parenthood selling fetus (baby) parts?"
These and so many other questions which strike at the discomfort many Americans feel toward our current life-termination law as stated by Roe v. Wade could really earn the GOP points with the moderate electorate.
8
I agree. Democrats are also outside the mainstream. They just never get asked about their positions by a media that treats the parties very differently.
The media, itself, has a hard time with abortion realities, which is why it had to undergo a bit of soul searching after it failed to cover the Gosnell case. It was too gruesome some claimed, which is not something a journalist would normally have trouble with. The thought of condoning his action was obviously too much. Easier to go after republicans than wrestle with their own morality.
The media, itself, has a hard time with abortion realities, which is why it had to undergo a bit of soul searching after it failed to cover the Gosnell case. It was too gruesome some claimed, which is not something a journalist would normally have trouble with. The thought of condoning his action was obviously too much. Easier to go after republicans than wrestle with their own morality.
3
Here's some questions for the candidates: "Do you care about children once they're born? Are you willing to raise taxes to take care of them, or do you want to cut food stamps and let the innocent go hungry?
52
There is much discomfort in life. There is discomfort in birth and death. There is discomfort in abortion. There is great discomfort in the knowledge forced on us that many obviously think they have a right to dictate the actual details of a woman's life, and even greater discomfort in knowing you can't see the incongruity of preaching liberty while also preaching reproductive slavery,
36