@snowmanI understand your point, but you entirely miss the
difference. It seems obvious that at conception the embryo has potential of
becoming a full-blown human being yet embryos used in in-vitro fertilization are
routinely destroyed. Does that make them human beings or persons? And if so, as
human persons, is it murder to “kill” all those embryos? One
important fact about embryonic development that is often overlooked is that
between two-thirds and four-fifths of all embryos that are generated through
standard sexual reproduction are spontaneously aborted. If embryos have the same
status as human persons or beings, this is a horrible tragedy and public health
crisis that requires immediate and sustained attention. Not only should we
abandon stem cell research, but we should reallocate the vast majority of our
research dollars from projects such as cancer research into programs to help
prevent this staggering loss of human life. Big difference between a man killing
a pregnant woman and a woman's right to privacy in abortion. As
the title says...abortion is a complex issue and it remains legal because it is
a private matter. You only "briefly" address only one of many issues.
Joggle: They are the same thing. If it's growing inside a human it is not
a dog, or cat or alien for that matter, it is a human being. I know of atleast
two cases where a man has killed a pregnant woman and they have been convicted
of 2 murders because that baby is human. Unborn babies do have a physical
bodies. An unborn baby has a heartbeat at 21 days gestation.
@snowmanYou confuse the adjective "human" and the noun
"human being," giving them the same meaning. Common sense actually says
fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts
doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. Another key
difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for
survival, it actually (as you said) resides inside her body. Human beings must,
by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human
being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being....the very
thought is inherently ridiculous. The normal meaning of human being implies a
physical body of a certain size and shape usually with common attributes. Early
embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings.
For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and
have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Are they materially
substantial enough to count as human beings? Obviously they don't. We are
more than our genes, so the fertilized egg cannot represent a "complete"
human and neither can a fetus.
Joggle: If a baby(fetus) is growing inside a human common snese says its a
Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being, and its
similarities to a human being, we cannot say that a fetus is a human being. A
fetus resides in a legal and social no-man's land, where rights and
personhood can have no force or meaning, unless women are kept thoroughly
oppressed. Plus, there are many significant differences between a born human
being and a fetus, which creates reasonable doubt as to its status. Because
there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a
subjective, personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must choose
what the status of a fetus should be, based on their personal beliefs, morality,
conscience, and circumstances. And ultimately, this choice belongs only to
pregnant women and other peoples opinions, moral indignation, religious beliefs,
and lack of understanding of the issue and attempts to invade women's
privacy don't matter. Nature does not value humans any more
than worms, and in all species, vast numbers of eggs and seeds don't stand
a chance of reaching maturity. An acorn isn't an oak tree and the egg
isn't a chicken!
While I disagree with the Professor's position on abortion, I actually see
and agree with the point she is making in the article.We legislate
to the extreme cases that represent a very small percentage of the actual
abortions. Most of us would agree that abortion for convenience sake is
inappropriate/wrong. Most of us would agree that abortion in the extreme cases
of saving lives and rape/incest should be at least allowable. (I know there are
exceptions to both statements).Yet we build our laws and policy
around the extreme cases, not the most common ones.
I still do not understand how abortion is political. The baby is a life.
It's fascinating that those who are pro-choice state that the fetus is
"nothing but tissue" but if a woman was murdered and pregnant, the
murderer would be charged with two murders instead of one. Thus, the law
defines the fetus as a life.
Coach Biff, you are a guy, right? If so, you are not likely to ever be pregnant,
so please be silent.
Way back to number one, Mr. Maslar. Sir are you aware that we can grow a
beating heart in a lab simply by putting stem cells on a dead pig heart? We can
also cause and record electrical activity in a single piece of brain tissue
attached to an electrical stimulant? None of these things by themselves define
life. Life happens when all vital activities come together in a synergistic
fashion and consciousness ensues. Pain can't even be felt without that
consciousness (ever had surgery)? So heart beats, brain waves, hand movements
etc. don't denote life. Consciousness denotes life, and yes fetuses are
consciousness at some point in the womb, just not when a sperm winks at an egg.
I am pro choice because unlike most conservatives I actually believe in small
government. I don't think politicians should have a say on what
goes on in woman’s body. Nor should they have any kind of power to force a
woman to carry a child IN HER BODY that she doesn’t want. Remember... Any government "big enough" to force a woman to carry
full term, is "big enough" to force her to have an abortion she
There is so much disinformation out there. and this whole discussion could take
a more positive turn if people would not be so quick to foist their religious
beliefs off on people who do not think like they do. and take Roe v. Wade out
of the equation. How many of you are aware that Roe v. Wade is NOT about
abortion. The decision (yes, I have read it) does not even mention the word
"abortion". it is about womens right to determine what happens to their
own bodies without having to consult with others who have no business making the
decision for them. I am anti-abortion I do not think they should be
performed except in limited cases. I would not encourage one or willingly
participtate in one. that being said, however - I am pro-CHOICE,
abortion is a religous question not a legal one. the choice for an abortion
should be between the Doctor, the woman and whatever God/Gods/Godesses she may
or may not pray to. every one else should stay out of her choice as it is no
business of theirs.
Nan BW: The only one who can make the desioion is the mother. I
dont support abortion for any reason.
If the parents are married in the temple both an unborn baby and a still-born
are already sealed to them
To SlopJ30 I think your reasoning is sloppy. To call someone else's
willingness to go to full term in a pregnancy such as you describe
"insane" is poor taste and judgmental. I know of baby who was born with
a distorted brain stem. Hence doctors said she would never be able to live a
normal life, that she would be a "vegetable." However, one member of the
medical team (not a doctor or nurse) told the mother she could see intelligence
in the baby's eyes. That sounds insane, no doubt. The baby developed into a
normal child with intelligence in the normal range. I hope I would have done
what the mother of the "doomed" baby did.
A bacteria in Mars and other planets could be consider a form of life. Some
scientists even consider a virus as a living being. So why can't a fetus be
a living being? Why is it so different?As far as I am concerned,
unless in cases of risk for the mother's life or rape, an abortion is a
crime.Do you want to have sex? Go ahead and do it. But be
responsible with its consequences. Also I do not see any problem in talking
about preventive measures in a LDS home - even Elder M. Russell Ballard advised
parents to be as open about sex as they could be, without being vulgar.And to SlopJ30: we are all dying. WOuld you kill a family member just because
you know they are going to die (for whatever reason)?
Bebyebe - That is the epitome of oversimplification. I can at least understand
someone stating that total strangers should have no say in the matter, but your
statement implies the father doesn't either. If a pregnant woman wants an
abortion but the father doesn't, or vice-versa, who gets the final say? I
don't even know the answer to that question, but I'm not comfortable
just saying the father's wishes are irrelevant.
Abortion is far from a cut-and-dried issue, and religion/superstition only
complicates matters. A few years back my wife's cousin was pregnant with a
child who was later diagnosed with a condition that would not allow it to live
more than a few minutes outside the womb. So, from maybe week 15 they knew that
this child would die. Not "maybe" or "probably"; this was as
much of a sure thing as modern medical science can provide. Their
doctor assumed she was going to abort, which to him (and to me) was the only
rational choice. So what did they do? Because of some obscure LDS doctrine about
a baby needing to "take a breath" outside the womb, she carried it to
term, at which point it was born and died as predicted. I couldn't then and
still can't even get my head around that. You'd voluntarily put
yourself through months of needless emotional agony knowing the outcome.
I'm sure many of you find that admirable, but to me it's a sign of
There were more than 55,000,000 babies aborted in America since Roe v Wade.
That is more than the combined populations of California, Oregon and Washington.
55,000,000 times, one person decided that another person would be destroyed.
No reason had to be given. No evidence had to be presented. No counciling was
required. The life of the unborn baby could not be given "status".
Only the desire of one person had to be accepted. Because of that, 55,000,000
babies were not born.What will history say about the world-wide
destruction of the unborn? What can history say? What value is life if it can
be destroyed without even requiring that that life be considered?
The reality is that the vast majority of the population supports much stricter
laws on abortion than we have. There is no reason why what Gosnell did is
illegal, but killing equally developed children entirely before birth is legal.
Except when a doctor deems it necessary to save a mother's life, abortion
is wrong, just as it is wrong to kill another person, except in self-defense or
to defend another person. Public opinion should not be a factor. There have been
cultures in which human life had no value, except when it was useful to someone
in power. That did not make it right, nor would it be right if 90 per cent of
the population thought abortion should be widely available.
@CoachBiffThere are three stages in life -- the pre-mortal
existence, mortality, and eternal life. In order to experience mortality, it is
necessary to have a "shell" (body) for the spirit to motivate/drive
while mortal. Pregnancy is the process by which that shell is constructed.
Mortal life begins when the spirit enters into the body at birth and signals
acceptance of the body by driving it to take a breath.I believe
abortion is appropriate only in limited circumstances -- if the life/health of
the pregnant woman is severely threatened, if the pregnancy resulted from rape
or incest, or if there is a fatal fetal deformity (circumstances in which
abortion is acceptable according to the LDS Church website). Consequently I
endured six very difficult and dangerous pregnancies, four of which resulted in
second-trimester self-termination (miscarriage), because I felt a responsibility
and obligation to live up to my promise to provide shells for spirits that were
waiting to enter mortality. I CHOSE to risk my life to do so, and almost paid
the price for my choice.I have "walked the walk" not just
"talked the talk" on this issue. Can you say the same?
When you can get pregnant you are entitled to an opinion.
Furry,Tell me why the baby/fetus/growth, or whatever status you have
relegated it to has no standing? Is it not alive?
@LDS Liberal 10:16 p.m. July 31, 2013I have been through the
scenario you describe only, in my case, I was the one on the delivery table. My
OB said the same thing to my husband and me. Your wife's doctor and my
doctor were right in their position and choice. It's time to
get politics out of this issue, and leave the choice to the only person and only
life-in-being in the equation -- the pregnant woman. I totally support the
anti-abortion advocates' right to speak and pontificate but, when all is
said and done, it is not their decision to make.
@truth "Albert Maslar did not say when life begins, just that is
a life"then he saying that life has begun which is an opinion
not a fact no matter how hard you wish it to be.
Having been in a delivery room, with my wife, and her doctor, in an emergency
delivery...I changed my mind and understood better what the LDS
Church statement is regarding abortion - even for late term abortions.As the doctor was scrubbed, and the emergency crash cart was rolled in - her
doctor turned to us and speaking to my wife said, "I just want you to know,
that if there is a choice to be made, I will be saving you 1st, and doing
whatever I can to save the baby 2nd. Is that understood?"He told
me afterward that he was thankful there were no politicians in that room telling
us how to play doctor or God.Stay out of it.
I don't believe that life begins at conception. I respect others'
right to believe that it does.I do not think that the government
should be inserting itself into private medical decisions between a woman and a
doctor.Having said that, I do not favor late term abortions. I
might be agreeable to abortions before two months. If someone is pro-choice, it
might help all of us to explain why you have reached the conclusion that a fetus
at 20 weeks old is not alive, i.e. it is only a growth like an appendix.
Explain your reasoning, it would help us a lot.
Sorry that was suppose to be at @truth
Let us assume that a fetus is not a full human life - that it is something less.
The question becomes, how much less and why?Viability is an often
used standard but there are, of course, fully adults who are not very viable on
their own and without machines to shore up their life processes.Intelligence? Maybe. But we have full humans who are on the low end of the
intelligence scale and we would not consider (at least in today's world)
killing them for their lack of intelligence.I don't know the
answer to what the line should be. But let me say emphatically that we would
not allow someone to kill dogs for convenience the way we allow them to
terminate a human fetus. There would be a public outcry.Should we
have abortion that is safe and legal? Yes. But for medical reasons. Not for
simple convenience. If it were solely a medically-based decision, there would
be far less of it and the resistance to the remaining amount of abortion would
@GeorgeAlbert Maslar did not say when life begins, just that is a
life. And it is human life and nothing lese.That fact
remains there is a beating heart and brain activity by the end of the first
trimester. Within the next two months the baby is fully formed and
just maturing, growing bigger and stronger until it is born.You can
decide what that means.
I agree that the abortion debate should not be reduced to bumper stickers and
slogans. Having been through 3 pregnancies with my wife, I find the thought of
any abortion horrifying, but I see a world of difference between an early
abortion and a late term one. I can't see making all abortions
illegal and that will never happen, but I do favor a ban on late term abortion.
I'd like to see more informed consent and notification requirements for any
abortion. Many women are wracked with guilt when they come to understand better
the nature of abortion after the fact.
I don't believe whether or not someone can be sealed is a good indicator of
one's belief in whether or not they are alive. There are many that cannot
be sealed that are alive, and there are many that are dead that can be sealed.
@albert maslerActuay science makes no claims as to when life begins
and in terms of when life ends there is actually little concensious within
the above comments so beautifully support the professors reasoning. The reason
polls will never acuratlly be able to gage the publics true attitudes on this
issue is that over symblisic hyperbol and not a well examined and reasoned
discussion dominates the discourse on this very complex issue. This issue will
remain a fire storm as long as people try to boiler plate it down to simple
sound bits and propaganda slogans.
Can you be sealed to an unborn child or still born?Than someone must
believe life begins with the first breath.
Only the most depraved would support abortion after witnessing one, especially
with the knowledge that it was performed for "convenience". I cannot support abortion because of promiscuity, I can for rape, incest or
fear for a mothers life.Supporters need more information and maybe
some conscience re-hab.
I think the parameters used to determine when human life ends should be used to
determine when human life begins. If a person has no heartbeat, and the brain
waves have flatlined, we have a dead human being. Conversly, when it can be
determined that a baby in the womb has a heartbeat and brainwave activity can be
detected, that should qualify as a living human being. Simple. Now the
question becomes, under what circumstances to we allow human beings to be
killed. All the time, only under certain circumstances, or never. That's
the not so simple part. But please don't try to claim abortion is not
killing a human being. Your tonsils or appendix do not grow into people, a
Let's talk about sex like adults, and recognise that it is fun and natural
for people to do. Therefore, we need to make protection and prevention a part of
the dialogue, and get it out of the realm of 'dirty'. If you
don't like abortion, do what you can to help people not need it.
With the exception of rape or incest abortion is a choice like smoking,
drinking, driving, having sex or any other nonessential activities. Soooo, since
it is a choice the user should also pay for accidents like a car wreck, a DUI,
lung cancer, and so on. I'm not willing to pay for accidents in other
choices, I'm also not willing for my taxes to be used for " choice"
problems. Maybe an insurance policy can be purchased for such accidents.
Why don't we ask all of these children who are being born this year how
they feel about Abortion? Let's wait 7-10 years and ask them if they
believe we should have allowed more abortions and thinned their class sizes out
Science has proven the developing baby in the womb is alive, has brain activity,
the lack of which is used to determine death. The fetus is in fact a child. An
old axiom, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck, it's a duck." All the signs prove it is a baby developing in the
womb, and all the polls are meaningless in that the issue of abortion, the
taking of the most defenseless life is not subject to vote but to the Creator
alone. 3D/4D ultrasound shows the baby alive and well and doctors do successful
procedures and surgeries on these babies in the womb. Validity of abortion is
not dependent upon polls. The brutal fact is that there have been about 55
Million abortions in the US since the 1973 passage of Roe v, Wade. That number
plus progeny would be about 100 Million today, one-third of the total population
of the US. The economy continues treading precariously along as it has lost 100
Million customers. Abortion kills more than babies.