Published: Sunday, Sept. 8 2013 1:51 p.m. MDT
Whether or not a clump of cells can feel pain is irrelevant. The relevant
discussion is whether or not the WOMAN whose body is going to be incubating the
cells WANTS to have a baby or not. It is nobody else's business. Not
yours, not mine, not the states.MYOB.
Since when is Pain a determinant for Abortion? By that reasoning if abortion
could be done pain-free, is it therefore morally acceptable? If a struggling
family could not care for their children, how about rendering the children
unconscious and killing them? The presence or absence of pain is NOT a
determinant for justifiably killing someone.
Since pain is a built in feature of all living things, we must assume that pain
would exist in any thing that has life. The significance of pain is
two fold. There is an aspect of pain that comes to our consciousness and is
unpleasant and another aspect of pain that simple causes physical reaction of
muscles.Our long held assumption has been that when a person is
unconscious they do not feel pain. Thus when medical procedures that would
cause much pain to a conscious person are done to a anesthetized person they
don’t feel the pain. We sometimes refer to this as simply putting a
person to sleep. Whether or not the person felt the pain and just doesn’t
remember seems irrelevant. When an unborn child moves around or
kicks in his very confining space, he may be consciously reacting to something
uncomfortable. But does it really matter if he won’t remember it.
If a fetus is just a clump of cells, then its parents can be defined in the same
way. What is inhumane treatment of a 1 month old child is also inhumane to a
fetus 1 month before birth. This article didn't concern a woman's
right to elect to have an abortion. It analyzed the methods and importance of
protecting the fetus from pain during medical procedures in the womb. Since we
are "our brother's keepers", then it is our business that unborn
babies be treated with compassion, even if they ultimately are not born.
If there is any doubt whether a human being in the fetal state, embryonic state,
or any other state, is experiencing physical pain by the deliberate action of
another, that human being should be protected and that inflicter of pain should
The good news:"(CBS News) The rate of teenagers becoming mothers
is declining rapidly, according to a report published by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). The average teen birth rate decreased 9 percent
from 2009 to 2010, reaching an all time low of 34.3 births per 1,000 women aged
15 to 19.That's a 44 percent drop from 1991 to 2010. There were less
teenage mothers in 2010 than any year since 1946."The key to
reducing the number of abortions is to reduce unplanned pregnancy.
Using pain or viability to determine whether or not an abortion should be
performed is just muddying the water. So is justifying abortion because there
are a lot of spontaneous abortions. Biologically, from the moment the egg is
fertilized, the zygote is a human being. It's not a dog or a cat or a
monkey. It has its own unique DNA and chromosomes, etc. It is metabolizing and
following a genetically programmed course to maturity. To intentionally kill it
is taking a human life no matter what its stage of development. If a woman
decides to have an abortion, it is taking her child's life. Sometimes a
very difficult decision must be made if a rape has occurred or if the life of
the mother is at serious risk. But to arbitrarily take the life of a child just
because to have the baby might interfere with the mother's career or
education or convenience is callous disregard and disrespect for human life.
Clump of cells??! I have heard it all.
Ranch,At what point does the “clump of cells” have an
interest separate from that of the “body . . . incubating the
cells”? Can the fetus ever have interests separate from those of the
mother?I think most would agree that a near term baby has a separate
interest from the mother. The question is when is that divergence?And, if abortion is not okay at 8.9 months, what about 8.8 months? Or 8.7?
And so on.
"Biologically, from the moment the egg is fertilized, the zygote is a human
being." I and many others have to disagree. It will possibly develop to be
a human being because of it's biology but it's not a human being. The
zygote actually would have DNA that is 50% compatible with a banana, and 97%
compatible with a chimpanzee. It's the developmental process that allows
the human differences to develop. Until that development takes place what
exists before is not a human being. "There is an aspect of
pain that comes to our consciousness and is unpleasant and another aspect of
pain that simple causes physical reaction of muscles." To Bob's point I
read an article how a body that is brain dead but having organs harvested
actually reacts to the procedure much like a fetus with muscle twitches and
Ranch, I bet God will have the final say, not you, me or the state! Murder is
murder no matter how its painted.
re:Befuddled"Murder is murder no matter how its painted."The LDS Church's stance is abortion may be allowed in cases of incest,
rape and or life/health issues of the mother. Are they condoning
I like the LDS position on abortion. In addition to rape, incest and life/health
of the mother, the Church has also allowed abortions in cases of severe fetal
deformity. Pain has not been a key factor in the Church's stance.In the Bible we also find that God allows the termination of unborn life in
three circumstances: 1. Use of "bitter water" to terminate pregnancy, as
explained in Numbers 5, 2. the stoning of women who are pregnant out of wedlock
and 3. the slaying in some cities of all residents, including women, some of
whom would have been pregnant.
Rape and incest implies that the woman did not consent to have sex. There was
no choice. She was a victim. Her body was invaded against her will.That circumstance is rare. Regardless of what some people insist, of the
55,000,000 abortions since 1976, very few were the result of incest or rape.
Very few involved the imminent death of the mother if the pregnancy
continued.Telling us that better birth control would reduce
abortions is nonsense. If a man and a woman honor their Creator, they will not
kill unborn children because of their "mistake" any more than they would
kill a parent just because they didn't want the responsibility of
"dealing" with that parent.Pain is pain. The closest method
of destroying the unborn baby is being drawn and quartered. NO COUNTRY on earth
allows that as a form of capital punishment. Are we so deaf that we can't
hear the screams of the unborn as they are being destroyed?
I'm pretty sure most of you support abortions in the case of the life of
the mother being in jeopardy. Those are pretty much always late-term abortions
so do you want those banned now because that'd be in the fetal pain stage?
@Mike Richards"...Rape and incest implies that the woman did not
consent to have sex. There was no choice. She was a victim. Her body was invaded
against her will.That circumstance is rare...".Is
that a feeling or do you have some info/data?"...of the
55,000,000 abortions since 1976...".Conservative icon Ronald
Reagan, while he was the GOV. of California, signed into law, in 1967, an abortion bill that led to the murder of over 2,000,000 babies. Why the arbitrary cutoff of 1976, in your comment?
Mike, I don't know what you call rare, but the official stats say that over
10% of abortions are because of rape or incest. I would say 10% is not rare but
significant. Also the number of abortions, and the rate of abortions are also
declining significantly again nearly 10% over the last decade. Coincidence is
not causation, but the decline is coincidental with increased birth control and
sex education. Once again I think the numbers indicate that better birth
control likely does reduce abortions. BTW over 80% of abortion
occur before the 16th week so the vast majority of abortions would not be
effected by a twenty week deadline so it's pretty much grandstanding by the
If abortions were only performed when pregnancy was caused by rape or incest and
if as many as 10% of all abortions were the result of rape or incest, there
would have been 5,500,000 abortions instead of 55,000,000 since Roe v Wade.
There would be 49,500,000 people who not been destroyed inside the womb of their
mothers. Maybe that number means nothing to you because you are one of those
people who was not aborted. You have experienced life. You live and breathe.
Those who were destroyed do not. That is the difference. They didn't have
a choice. If it is "grandstanding" to protect the right of
a baby to be born after that baby was conceived by consenting parents, then
I'll "grandstand" everyday of my life. NO ONE has the right to
destroy life unilaterally. Life is a gift from our Creator, both ours and the
lives of those whom we invite to join us in mortality because of our actions.
@JSBSugar City, IDBiologically, from the moment the egg is
fertilized, the zygote is a human being. [So then - Biologically a
dead person must be "biologically" living several months after being
buried then as well?...]====@BefuddledWEST VALLEY
CITY, UTMurder is murder no matter how its painted.[I
disagree. That is inconsistent with the LDS Church's stance on the
issue.]======@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahRape and incest implies that the woman did not consent to have sex.
There was no choice. She was a victim. Her body was invaded against her will.That circumstance is rare.[So you and the other
uber-far-right guys are OK with allowing what happened to the victims of Ariel
Caesar in Cleveland, Ohio? A Total ban on all abortions because "those"
circumstances are rare? I suppose you also believe a human body will
spontaneously abort in cases of "legitimate" rape.The LDS Church
allows for abortion in these circumstances, it is not considered murder, and the
Church is politically "neutral" over the issue. I have a suggestion --
Follow the Prophet.]
Mr. Richards, believe as you will, you have every right to do so. Grandstand
all day long everyday. As long as it's within certain limits you also have
that right. But some of us are here to point out that these are beliefs fueled
by your religious beliefs and while they may inform your opinions and votes they
are not beliefs shared by everyone. Many don't believe that a) life comes
from a creator, and/or b) a fetus prior to around the 26 week period is humanly
developed enough to trump the life choices of the mother. Both beliefs
resulting in a woman's legal ability to choose whether she wants to
continue with a pregnancy up to the 26 week period. Both are
beliefs but the later set of beliefs are informed by science either partially or
wholly. You are entitled to your beliefs and your sources but you don't get
to change the facts of science. You have to either accept them, reject them, or
somehow accommodate them.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments