The Culture War of Words

What article did you post? You know, the one Constitution Lover read and became enlightened from? I'd like to look at it myself.

I will post the article by itself soon.

You talk a lot about the right to life. You even mention the Declaration of Independence and disregard the "rights others may think they have to kill an unborn child".

Not sure if you are saying that I disregard the rights others may think they have to kill an unborn child! No, I don???t disregard their rights, I question them! Who gave them this so-called right to murder? Why only the woman has this right to decide if the unborn can live or die? If a man cannot decide why should he have to pay child support? If a man decides that he wants an abortion and the woman doesn???t why does he have to still pay child support? These questions may sound silly, but if the overall responsibility falls on the woman before birth then why give the man equal responsibility after the child is born? Doesn???t the Declaration of Independence state that WE (man and woman) are ALL created EQUAL? Then one shouldn???t have more rights over the other. I personally think that neither one should have a so-called right to terminate a life that is not their own.

But do you have a serious, practical anti-abortion policy? Something that addresses the situation when the life of the mother is in jeopardy? Can she get an abortion if she chooses?

The life of the mother should be the first and foremost important thing when giving birth. If the mother???s life is in danger then NO ONE should be able to decide she should risk her life except the MOTHER alone! If she decides that she doesn???t want to risk her life then the decision should be made to not allow another life to take the life of an existing life! Now out of the 1.3 million abortions performed yearly in the United States less than 1% of them involve (rape, incest, life of a mother)

"I know you are busy trying to argue with Constitution Lover and showing him the error of his tactics. "

Since there is no error in my methodology there is nothing that he can show me.


To him everything is black and white. He is not able to see that this issue is mostly shades of grey. It is caused by his blind faith in his version of his bible.

Bojack27, thank you for posting this article.

I have to wonder if this article is biased or even good science. Maureen Condic does seem to be a reputable biologists studying neuroscience. However, she is a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, which clearly has a political and religious bias especially on issues like abortion and stem cell research. I found another article by Condic:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-16/does-research-really-need-human-embryos-and-cloning/3/

In this article, she advocates against Obama's stem cell research policies. More importantly, as an "ethical expert" she quotes Leon Kass, a controversial figure who served on George W. Bush's Council on Bioethics. Also, her view on whether fertilization is a process or an event is at odds with what other scientists think, so the science of the paper is potentially questionable. I think you should be more careful about the bias in articles that you read.

The article itself is mostly about a point that I don't really contest: human life starts developing at conception. I already accepted this fact and presumed that abortion was killing, just justifiable killing. Moreover, this doesn't really refute what Constitution Lover says about "viability" because Constitution Lover arguing not that a fetus isn't a living being, but that a fetus is not a person. In particular, the fetus is not an independent being but relies on the mother's body for survival.

Ultimately, I think you should realize that what the pro-choicers are debating about is NOT when life begins or whether abortion is killing. We are debating whether abortion is acceptable given the situation and burden that pregnant women face. We are also questioning what policies will working for ALL these women, including the ones where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Rather than focusing on when life begins, you could be focusing on providing us with a good policy for banning abortion (I doubt one exists, so I look forward to being proved wrong) or policies for reducing the number of abortions without banning abortion.

Bojack,

"This is the article that ConLuv couldn't answer"

I could have easily answered it. I said that I chose to do additional research on both the topic, Condic and the Westchester Institute and then decided not to respond to your posts.

It took several days to do my basic research and a couple more to digest it and re-evaluate my views. As I said, I did come to the determination that a fetus is a form of human life. But what she wrote did not address the viability issue which is still an important one (I would argue a central one).

Now I am glad to know that you support abortion for the woman's life (and I imagine health). And just so that you know I have come to the realization that aside from the issue of the woman's life and health or the fetus's health, that I have come to the relization that there is no valid reason for late term abortions (those performed AFTER the fetus is viable). Now I just raised an issue that as friend of mine pointed out this morning. She got pregnant and found out early on that the fetus had Tay Sachs disease. She and her husband decided to abrort the fetus. She had seen her cousin have a cihld with Tay Sachs who lived a fairly short life and spent the entire time in pain an agony. She was not ready to do that to her child. She pointed that that many people forget that it is not only the woman whose life or health could be at risk. Now mind you, although I personally do nto think that a Downs Syndrome child is a good reason to abort a fetus since they can live long, happy and fairly healthy lives I am also aware that they can also live physically painful ilves, so I understand why some parents decide to abort them. I have a friend with a 35 year old daughter who has mild Downs Syndrome and is the poster child/adult for not aborting Downs Syndrome fetuses. But again that is not a black and white issue.

Yet this topic has come to the fore in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the topic of when life begins has generally been avoided by politicians and government officials, recently a number of prominent figures have offered their interpretations, making this a timely subject to consider with scientific rigor and neutrality.

Q: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion?

Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?

To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways.

These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.

Q: Many in the scientific world would say that fertilization doesn't happen in a moment, but rather that it is a process that comes to an end at the end of the first cell cycle, which is 24 hours later. Why is it important to define a "moment of conception," as opposed to a "process of fertilization"?

Condic: It is not important to somehow define a "moment" or a "process" of fertilization in the abstract. It is important to base conclusions and judgments about human embryos on sound scientific reasoning and on the best available scientific evidence.

Had this analysis led to a different conclusion -- for example, that fertilization is a "process" -- I would have accepted this conclusion as scientifically valid. However, a scientific analysis of the best

Yes I know women who have had abortions. One woman has had 4 abortions last time I talked to her and one had one abortion and the other one has had two abortions.

One thing I know about them is the justification of why they did it always centered on a selfish motive! I wasn't ready, I didn't know him that long, I couldn't afford the child at the time, it wasn't the right time...etc. As far as you plan on having children comment. This is not a gaurantee that you would have them since many woman don't know if they can have children until they become pregnant. Even then they must carry them to full term without miscarriage.

Now let's look at your reasoning about not having a child and giving this child up for adoption. Your main concern is just for yourself of how you would feel and therefore you have tried to justify your actions with this type of reasoning. When in reality their is no reason why you terminated the life of your child. If you could meet your child and look at him or her in the face what excuse would you give them for allowing someone to do the things to them?

Keep thinking this way and maybe one day you be able to convince yourself that it was ok to relieve you of such a BURDEN as you would call them. You sound like Obama when he said the same thing concerning his daughter not being burden with his own grandchild. But that is another story.

Tone down the judgment! Women are thinking for themselves and you have just proven that, but when are you going to think for the children?

"Do any of you actually know anyone that has had an abortion?"
No. But I have heard stories like yours where the birth control fails like yours. I read one blog of a person whose medication called the birth control to fail. She seemed to feel bad about the abortion. She also was left by her boyfriend over the pregnancy. I also have a friend who knew someone who had an abortion and would proudly declare it an act of love online (pretty low if you ask me).

"Not all women (or teens) who have abortions are uneducated, poor, single women."
My understanding is that most people who get abortions are young adults (in their 20s) or are married women with several kids who can't afford another child. (I remember reading an article a year or two ago indicating that most abortions were for married women the past year. Moreover, I'm guessing you are in your 20s. My apologies if I guessed wrong.) The young adult women often are busy working on their careers, are sometimes single, and do not have the time for a pregnancy, don't have big paychecks, and just aren't ready for a kid at all. So when I talk about supporting poor women carry to term, I mean these women who I have in mind, not some "uneducated, poor, single woman". Women who don't have the time, money, and/or energy to actually be pregnant.

"My birth control failed... I was not ready to be a mother and there is no reason why I should have to carry the burden of a child when I was practicing safe sex."
The issue of birth control failing was acknowledge by Constitution Lover. The fact that a child is a "burden" has also been mentioned. Seriously, we understand.

"There needs to be better research into the "types" of women that are having abortions."
There already is a body of such research. It just isn't actively discussed during public debates over abortion and it really should.

Bojack,

Actually your articles made me realize that it is some form of a life. But that also made me do is do some serious introspection about what my issue (and medicine and science's issue on abortion really is all about). So thatnk you for inspiring me to do that deeper research.

I realized that what I was really trying to say was the viability and legal personahhod issue is what is more important issue.

Is a fetus a life in some way shape or form? Yes. But that does not mean that it automatically gets equal rights to the woman.

Interestingly enough, in the non-web world I have had a number of discussions with a variety of people on this issue. 7 of them were with anti-abortion people who after my explaining the viability personhood (and referencing your articles about the life issue) have become pro-choice. They all realized that althoug they themselves would not have abortions, that prohibittting others to have them is wrong. (Andf I was not trying to convince them to change thier viewpoints, just trying to explain my newly refined reasoning) I gave you credit for that. So thank you for convincing 7 anti-abortion folks to become pro-choice for others.

BTW, I have no god. Science is simply a tool that I utilize, not something that I worship.

You raise a good point and it seems that I wasn't clear about why the mother's rights are. Pregnancy and raising a child, as I'm sure you know, is a major responsibility and requires substantial time, money, and energy. Some people don't have the time, money, or energy to take on this responsibility and should be given options to not take on the responsibility (or to have support so that they can take on the responsibility). Moreover, the mother also has a right to live and occasionally the mother's and child's right to life are in conflict. Thus it is reasonable to give the mother the right to decide to not go through with the pregnancy. This right should only be exercised as a last resort and not for mere convenience. But it is also impractical to give the right to chose only if the chose is made for the right reasons, as there is no way to enforce this. Thus every woman simply has the right to chose. Nonetheless, I hope they use this right wisely.

As for society/taxpayers making the same decision about orphans, I think it is clear that society collectively does have the resources to properly raise a child and as a society we chose to accept the responsibility of raising the child if no one else will. Thus I don't think it necessary to further discuss society/taxpayers having this right, as they have no interest or need for exercising this right.

Note that society does have the right to kill a person if they are a significant burden to society and sometimes exercises this right. In particular, society does kill murders using the death penalty.

I didn't ask you to justify your claim to persuade me of it. I asked you to justify your claim since you seem to assume it as part of your argument and others would disagree with you, so you should state this claim as an unsupported assumption. Justify to everyone else reading/posting why you think a fetus is alive.

Um, so I take it that you agree that if a fetus was not regarded as living then your entire argument and opinion becomes invalid?

Moreover, I know some people, including at least one person posting here, think that a fetus is not living. Given that the premise that a fetus is living is controversial and is the key premise behind your position, can you give justification for the claim that a fetus is living?

The woman's right to choice over abortions is guaranteed by the legal precedent Roe v Wade. I only get to vote against your feeble (and dangerous) attempts to infringe upon this right. I accept the fact that defending this right means permitting life being terminated, perhaps for bad reasons, and I will defend the right to choice nonetheless. I merely protect the woman's right; it is her responsibility to exercise it wisely and deal with the consequences of exercising it. Moreover, I am sure there are many women who have abortions and are not horrified that they terminated a life.

Finally, you are talking about "KILLING", horrified women, and how pro-choice is "Warped Logic" in an attempt to convince me to abandon my pro-choice position so that you can ban abortion. Roe v Wade is here to stay and you are never going to ban abortion. I noticed that you did not explain what you have ACCOMPLISHED

I think you misunderstood my point. Your entire argument rest on the notion that a fetus is alive at conception and that abortion is "killing". If you reject this premise and argue that a fetus is not alive, then an abortion is not killing a living being and thus your argument falls apart.

Note that I am not saying that I agree with this line of reasoning. I'm just pointing that your position rests on the common opinion of pro-lifers that life beings at conception and without this assumption your argument doesn't work.

I am accusing you of doing nothing to reduce abortions because it seems your entire tactic for trying to reduce abortions relies on overturning Roe v Wade. Also it seems you pro-lifers want to do is overturn Roe v Wade so that you can ban abortion or work around Roe v Wade to strictly regulate abortion. You concern about "killing children" seems to be entirely secondary to you opposition Roe v Wade and is just part of your argument against abortion. The thing is: you aren't going to overturn Roe v Wade. All this energy trying to show that supporting abortion is illogical is a waste. You are accomplishing nothing towards reducing abortions. For you to talk a lot about preventing abortions and doing nothing to actually reduce abortions is warped and illogical.

If you disagree that you are acting as illogical hypocrite, then explain to me what you are accomplishing towards reducing and preventing abortions.

"I noticed that you mentioned that you used to engage in homosexual behavior"
That does not mean that she is lesbian, it just means that she engaged in lesbian behavior. She is more likley bisexual.

"Moreover, I hope you realize that you in a very luck minority and what worked for you won't work for everyone."
I would argue that it has nothing to do with luck. She made perosnal decisions that hs eis contnet with. That is good for her, but as you correctly pointed out it is irrelevant to others.

"Some people will be gay their whole lives"
If you are gay then you ARE gay your entire life. You cannot change from being gay. But she was proably bisexual and people who possess that sexual orientation can have some form of attraction change as they get older (or succumb to soical pressures.)

This 2006 study considered whether or not the women smoked marijuana. What is the relevance of this? I know people who smoke marijuana to relax, like people drink a beer. There is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana. So why did they look at this factor and why did you mention it?

As for this South Dakato Task Force, are you sure this is unbiased information. It was done before the 2008 South Dakota Abortion Ban Initiative (which failed) and probably with the initiative in mind. I went to check if it was unbiased and found the following site: http://www.prochoicemovement.com/blog.html. Admittedly, the blog has a bias. But it says that the tax force, led by Roger Hunt, had a clear pro-life bias. "Minutes later, Hunt, along with other nine majority pro-life members - there were seventeen members - struck down a motion requiring the taskforce only accept as evidence studies that were peer-reviewed and published." "At the final hearing, the pro-choice minority members, as a last resort, offered motions primarily focused on promoting ways to prevent abortion by expanding access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. Every motion to equip the citizens of South Dakota with a greater chance to avoid unintended pregnancy was rejected by the pro-life majority."

I wasn't at these hearings. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on the hearings can post about whether or not they were biased. But if they were as biased as the blog and other sources on the internet suggest, I think you should justify your position with better, unbiased sources.

Moreover, petergauhar, I noticed most your posts have mentioned religion, in particular Christianity. Please respect the 1st Amendment and the diversity of religious views of your fellow Americans. Keep religion out of your public policy positions.

"I'll stand up and say that in an "Ideal" world, no woman anywhere in the world, much less America would seek an abortion and no doctor would provide one."

Your ideal world sound like a very sorry place. Repressive.

I would argue that in an ideal world, that there would be 100% effective contraceptives for both men and women and that both would use them unless they wanted to have children sine sex in not just about having children. In todays advanced and far more civilized wordl it is first and foremost about love and caring (or it should be). Children, although a wonderful addtion to many couple's lives (if they are wanted and loved) are a secondary effect.

"In an IDEAL world, no woman anywhere would seek out alternatives to doctors for abortions."
In an ideal world they would not have to do so.

" In an IDEAL world, no man or woman would participate in a relationship that would cause a pregnancy that was not wanted."

Actually it is not the relationship that they would not particiapte in it is the unprotected sex that they would nto particiapte in.

" In an IDEAL world, people would not engage in sex unless they wanted the resulting product, the BABY."

UNPROTECTED sex, not all sex, since children are not the only (or even the main reason anymore) for sex.

"THAT is what a Christian says and believes. "


No. that is what YOU (and some others) as Christians believe (and that is your right to belive that way, just not to force your beliefs on others). There are many believing Christnians who believe differently. I know because I have met hundreds of them.

"Go ahead, fire away with the hate bombs people."

No need for hate bombs. Just common sense commentary.

"Tell me how much you want to go on murdering babies."
They are fetuses not babies. And it is not murder.