On Their Own Terms

None of the other commenters discussed the issue of twinning. If life begins at the second of conception, and twinning occurs hours or days later, then by the "at conception" group's reasoning, twins are a single life. No, I don't buy that. "At conception" is a convenient time, but not valid.

Quit making excuses for women who, in a large percentage of cases, have already excercised their freedom of "choice" and need to learn to deal with the consequences! CHOOSE a different lifestyle if you aren't interested in being a parent.

Begging the question...
Given the use of the term "personal" to define a woman's choice to use RU-486 as an abortifacient, Anna Quindlen's article begs two important questions. First, how is she defining "person"? And secondly, how does the human body feature in her definition? Her reference to a woman's pelvis as "property, whether "public" or otherwise, presumes a dualistic view of the human being: the "person-ness" is exclusively located in the power of choice, and the human body is a possession.
The problem is that persons don't HAVE bodies. They ARE bodies. I can speak of MY body, but only with the realization that I don't own it like a football. If I decided to throw my body out of a window, my "person" would not wait patiently on the sill while it fell. Contrary to Descartes' interesting but utterly unpragmatic hypothesis about the superfluity of the body as opposed to the intellect, thinking is an always-already embodied act for humans. Everything I do is a lived statement about what I understand "person" to mean. If that's true about picking up the mail and the dry-cleaning, how much more when weighing another person in the balance?

Begging the question....
Given her premise that a woman's pelvis is "property" (whether "public" or otherwise), Quindlen's use of the term "personal" at the close of this essay begs two questions. First, how is she defining "person"? And secondly, how does the human body feature in that definition?
It appears that Quindlen's defense of RU-486 is built on a dualistic view of the human being: my body is something I have (a possession). But using the word "property" in reference to a woman's physiology, and particularly in reference to her fertility, is not only crass, it's bad anthropology. If I decided to throw my body from a window, my "person" would not wait patiently on the sill. I don't HAVE a body, I AM a body. So everything I do as a body says a whole lot about what I understand "person" to mean. If I'm living a statement about personhood when I pick up the mail and the dry-cleaning, how much more when I'm choosing to end another person's life?

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome):

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. . . . This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School:

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School:

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter???the beginning is conception."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology, fertility and sterility, discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm:

"I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest???that human life commences at the time of conception???and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances."

Constitutional Lover,

What kind of scientist are you quoting to say that life doesn???t begin at conception but after birth? Are they human embryologist? Then if they are not what credit or validity are their statements?

Human embryologist Bruce Carlson, in his 1994 textbook: "Human Embryology and Developmental Biology", states in his opening sentence: "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of the egg and the sperm. . ."[2]. This is so because the concern of Human Embryology is the human embryo whether it be in the fallopian tube, uterus, ectopically placed or in a petri dish. Additionally, for a pregnant woman, the expected time of delivery, fertilization age, time of gestation, or, the period of confinement is always calculated so that the time of pregnancy begins at fertilization.

The idea that pregnancy begins at implantation of the embryo in the uterus was generated more than 3 decades ago. At that time there were concerns about the actions of chemical contraceptives. Albert Rosenfeld wrote in his book: "Second Genesis" (1969):

Because these substances do not prevent the sperm from penetrating and fertilizing the ovum - the classic definition of conception - they are not strictly contraceptives. What they do is prevent the newly fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus. Since the interference occurs after conception, some hold that such practice constitutes abortion. A way around this impasse has been suggested by Dr. A.S. Parkes of Cambridge: Equate conception with the time of implantation rather than the time of fertilization - a difference of only a few days" 3 (my emphasis). Thus, a fact of science gave way to political correctness.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html

What happened tot he other comments?

blue_rylie has listed the best points in an argument that I can't believe we're still having in 2009. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, when the people who oppose a woman's right to abortion recognize the fact that it takes two people to conceive a child-- when single mothers are no longer stigmatized (and make no mistake, they are); when deadbeat fathers are truly held accountable for the costs of raising their children; when anti-choice politicians recognize the continued incidence of date rape and the vulnerability of women, especially young women, to media that objectify them; when our legal system no longer forces any woman to choose between being jailed for an abortion or being jailed for neglect; and when mostly male clergy who have no idea about the costs of raising a child use guilt to convince women to have babies they do not want or cannot support because the babies' "fathers" are long gone -- then we might have a foundation for discussing the topic in a sensible way. Until then, those who oppose a woman's right to choose are simply exhibiting their cynicism and hypocrisy.

A few basic points, your cat's legal protections are not in question here, a woman's legal protections are. But since we're there, your cat can have an abortion so go kitty!
To those posting the adoption-option, adoption is a great option but it does nothing for a woman who doesn't want to risk her health and possibly her life for a pregnancy. Adoption is a choice, and it is not always the right or best choice for the woman involved. Your use of adoption as a cure-all solution shows just how little you know about adoption, please educate yourself.
If your religion or beliefs forbids abortion, then the answer is quite simple. Do not have an abortion. Religion and beliefs forbid many things that are not illegal, simply believing it is wrong or bad is not enough to take the choice away from everyone else.
Equating abortion to slavery has it's place, although the use of it here has been incorrect. Forcing a woman, against her will, to carry a pregnancy to term is a form of slavery. In no other situation is there even a question of forcing another human being to sacrifice their autonomy, their body, their health to sustain another's well being. No one is forced to give up a kidney, and no one should be, and yet a woman is called into question because she's not willing to give up her uterus.
As for the argument that the fetus (yes, the medical term) suffers pain, etc. It is common knowledge that it is not until after 20 weeks (scientists can argue whether it's 20 or 24, either way it's not before 20 weeks) and the VAST majority of abortions are done well before that time. Abortions after that time are already regulated, it's a moot point and consists of nothing but emotional babble designed to add guilt to the issue.
As for the choice of the fetus, are you even remotely serious? First, a fetus is incapable of choice, so a wasted point anyway. Secondly, if you're going to spout the adoption-option, are you going to ensure the baby has a say in that choice? I don't know any parents that ask "would you like to get your immunizations?" Of course they don't ask, the ADULT in the situation makes the decisions. Nevermind that a fetus simply can't make a choice, it also negates the requirement that the adults make the important decisions. But in case I'm wrong, I'll be sure to ask my kids what they think about our next home loan application and whether or not Daddy should worry about his cholesterol.