These came out of the debate triggered by Diane’s two articles on “The Third Option: Pro-Individual Choice” and “Being Human”.
From Kevin
An alternate definition of Person (dictionary.com):
“4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.”
Or from Webster’s online we also have:
“7. A living, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child.”
Which would indicate that self-conscious is a requirement here.
Or my 1951 American College Dictionary:
“4. Philos. a self-conscious or rational being.”
Or from my trusty 1946 Funk and Wagnalls:
“2. An individual and rational being; a being possessed of self-consciousness , recognitive memory, powers of rational inference, and with ethical and asthetic feelings, conceptions , and ideals, as distinguished not only from the inorganic, but also from the merely organic and animal existences.”
This is the problem with trying to define your way into the solution (to TPOV). I have seen it attempted in many different debates of this type and it is ultimately a losing argument as equivocation is a fallacy. You will convince no one by using a different meaning of a term that is just as valid as the one they are using. If you want to know how I base if the fetus in some particular point in development needs protecting look at the definition, “a self-conscious and rational being.”
The rest of your post is dependent on that premise that we don’t agree on and thus no reason to debate its merits. I think we’ve played this out as far as we can go.
Thanks, Kevin
From John
Personhood: Definition and Time of Acquisition.
The fetus is no longer “a fetus” when the mother and/or the father perceive there is a recognizable person inside the mother’s womb. The unborn child acquires personhood at the time of conceptualization of this person by the mother or father. To say it another way, the moment of personhood is when the mother and/or father perceive distinct individuality in the baby. This realization probably comes to fruition because of the unborn baby’s physiological communication with the parents in one form or another and likely results in reciprocal physiological communication with the baby.
Um, we may have played it out before – but now you’ve re-opened the discussion!
Under the definitions presented here, a person in the advanced stages of Alzheimer’s Disease wouldn’t necessarily qualify as a “person” at the point that they are no longer self-conscious or rational. They definitely wouldn’t qualify if “recognitive memory” is the quantifier. This would be true even for those patients who require no life support systems whatsoever. Those whose hearts beat independently and whose brains generate brainwaves independently, although the “person” may not be able to perceive and recall much of what those brainwaves are generating.
I’m really genuinely fond of both of you gentlemen. At the same time, I’m kind of astonished with the extent of the linguistic acrobatics you’re both displaying here.
Life has a definite and distinct endpoint. Tons of people have seen it personally. Ask anyone who’s ever sat by the bedside of a friend or loved one who is dying. By that I mean that if you are personally there to witness a person’s final hours, there are very distinct and definite signs that death is approaching. Ask any medical professional who works with terminally ill patients.
And if it is true that life has a distinct endpoint in death, so too must life also have a distinct and definite beginning point; a point of origination or initialization – at conception. This is why I insisted in the other thread that there is no scientific question and no moral question.
The only question in need of definition in this discussion is strictly a political one and it always has been. That is, as a society, do we want to protect life from natural beginning to natural end, or not? If not, why not?
Until American citizens are allowed to have this discussion nationwide, and have an opportunity to vote for legislation that answers this political question one way or the other, this debate will never be “played out”.
Newcomer,
There are no linguistic aerobics here. The definition and implications of the way I see it are as clear to me as you think your boundaries are for you.
Protection by the law of human life in our legal system (or any I can think of) has never been solely delineated by when life biologically begins or ends. Our current legal system agrees with my interpretation and so it’s not just me that sees these boundaries. I’d like you to consider that just maybe there is logic and consistency to our viewpoint even if you don’t agree with it.
Thanks,
Kevin
P.S.,
I don’t see why you believe we haven’t been “allowed” to have this discussion. It’s been going on in public since before abortion was legal. Plenty of legislative votes have happened to define the boundaries of it. You also can always get a constitutional amendment to override it. No one is stopping you other than the normal political process. This debate has been playing out for over 40 years in full view of the public with political movements on both sides participating and trying to get legislation favorable to their view in place.
Thanks,
Kevin
Three people, three ideas about what and when a person begins.
This is why, until there is some way to agree on this point, there is no way to identify when an organism, which clearly possesses the potential to become a person or a human being, actually becomes a person or human being. While some base their opinion on specific religious beliefs, others use philosophical and/or ethical contructs to arrive at their beliefs, and still others seemingly have no “beliefs” at all, just an opinion, the essential character of all of these ideas is that they constitute a way of looking at human beings that differ substantively and are not amenable to proof, given our current state of knowledge. Were it otherwise, we would all be able to agree, at least on the fundamentals.
When the Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution, virtually everyone in this country believed in God, in one form or another. Since many came here to escape religious persecution for not seeing God in the same light as the majority of their former countrymen, the First Amendment was drawn in part to guarantee that in the United States, no one religious persuasion, regardless of how many citizens supported it, could be imposed on other citizens who did not hold the same beliefs. Had the framers of those first 10 amendments realized the extent to which agnosticism and atheism would grow, they would have not have used the words “institution of religion”. It was not their intent to dictate to the American people that they MUST believe in a specific “religion” and if they did not, their beliefs could be trampled. It was their intent to protect all of us from the imposition, through law, of religious/philisophical dictates with which we do not agree.
From my daughter Christina today:
Hi Dad & Becki, Just wanted to let you know that I am pregnant again. I have been scared that I would lose this one too, but yesterday we heard a nice strong heartbeat again. I am 12 weeks now. It’s been a rough one with feeling sick, but now I have a medication that helps so I’m feeling in better spirits. Hope you guys are doing well! Love you! Oh, and I’m due November 10.
Christina
I’m sure that Christina has already conceptualized this baby to be as a person. Christina’s picture is in “This just happened today” six articles down.
“Protection by the law of human life in our legal system (or any I can think of) has never been solely delineated by when life biologically begins or ends. Our current legal system agrees with my interpretation and so it’s not just me that sees these boundaries. I’d like you to consider that just maybe there is logic and consistency to our viewpoint even if you don’t agree with it. – Kevin
I agree with this sentence completely, Kevin. I just feel life SHOULD be protected when it technically begins. I’ll try to convince others to see it the same way. Our supreme court also once decided that slaves were property, and not humans. Society saw slaves as not worthy of being protected, even though they were biologically ‘human’. Eventually the community started to view things differently, and laws were changed. I hope this happens someday with abortion as well.
I do see there is logic and consistency to your viewpoints. However, I will never agree with it.
Diane, an atheist could be pro-life. I know of two. You don’t need to be religious to believe that human life should be protected, at any stage. And remember, something doesn’t need to be beyond opinion to have a law associated with it. Remember, all laws are based on opinion.
No Newcomer,
Our statements are not “linguistic acrobatics” a characterization which implies that we are playing games with you. I don’t think you have ever heard me belittle and characterize your statements that way. I haven’t done this because I, like Diane, believe in an individual’s right to choose and express their beliefs without being mocked.
Here’s the use of this phrase on the Internet “Does poetry have a place in politics (not counting the linguistic acrobatics of Governor Blagojevich)?” – 39,000 hits in Google,
I do find it interesting, though, that only a self-conscious, rational being deserves protection in your opinion. That rules out quite a bit of people in our population; people in a coma, those on life support, those that have gone insane, those with several types of brain disorders.
I have always found our history of rendering entire groups of human beings as non-humans interesting. As I stated before, blacks were rendered non-human. Our own Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a “person” with rights but the “property” of his master. Throughout history, we’ve use linguistic arguments to dehumanize entire groups of human beings, usually for political and/or religious reasons. We can justify discrimination against whole groups of people by simply painting them as non-human. Jews were ‘sub human’, so Hitler could justify to his people that it was OK to slaughter over 6 million of them. Witches in Europe weren’t human, so hundreds of thousands of them were burned alive. Some authors even believe the number to be higher, and refer to it as the woman’s holocaust. Native Americans were not human, they were savages. That made it OK to drive them from their land, kill off their food supplies, and enslave and kill millions of them.
Throughout our history, we have had some infamous accounts of serious human rights abuse. Abortion may go down as the greatest abuse of human rights in history.
John
If you want to read some sort of negative characterization into my use of the term lingustic acrobatics, that is your right to do. However, I was not mocking nor belittling you when I chose that term. You made up your own definition of personhood based on nothing concrete or scientific, which is strange to me given your professional background. But again, that’s your right to do as you see fit. Nevertheless, you seem to be putting a great deal of effort into taking a very concrete definition (that life actually does have a beginning at conception) and are trying to alter it to fit your personal and possibly political beliefs. That’s what I call linguistic acrobatics – straight up and stripped of any characterization, be it negative or glowing.
For those like you and Diane and many, many others, who believe that a pregnant woman has more rights than a developing oocyte, embryo, etc., why is not possible for you to see that life begins at the beginning and stipulate that you don’t agree that life should be protected from the beginning? I would still disagree with your opinion, but at least everyone on all sides of this issue would be talking about the same thing, agree or disagree.
To put it more simply, I have yet to come across any such definition of personhood that makes sense to me if it views the beginning of life as an arbitrary point on the development continuum. In some states, if you kill a woman who is in her first trimester of pregnancy, you’ll be charged with two murders, not one. Yet in that same state (since abortion is legal in all 50 states) if a pregnant woman seeks an abortion in her first trimester, that’s not murder at all – that’s a choice.
Do you see any contradiction in the laws and definitions in that example? I would say that linguistic acrobatics could be partially to blame, but not because of game-playing. Maybe it’s because some lawmakers don’t want to see a pregnant woman accused of murder but still want to protect pregnant women in general.
The problem is that in going about legislating without a generally accepted definition of when life begins, no one is protecting the rights of the child. It’s an all-or-nothing approach: protect the mother’s rights at the expense of the child. I’m suggesting to you that the approach should be: protect both.
Talk about “linguistic acrobatics”.
Newcomer, You have some great points. I agree with you completely. I think the problem lies in my post about our history of rendering groups as being non-human. It’s easier for those that are pro-choice to keep abortions legal if they continue to use semantics that paint the fetus as being non-human. Once it becomes scientific consensus that the fetus is a human being, their next plan is to confuse things with subjective definitions of the word ‘person’. For me, it makes no difference. I find it as important to protect a human being as I do to protect someone these 3 subjectively define as a ‘person’. However, that is not fact, only my personal opinion.
The hypocrisy involved with the murder laws is all political. Murdering a pregnant woman is unbelievably reprehensible to everyone. No one will argue if the murderer is charged with 2 counts of murder, because they can generate so much sympathy for the pregnant woman and the wanted baby. With abortions, not enough sympathy is generated for the aborted fetus. No one saw its picture, or read the story of its life in the newspaper. Many still just view it as a blob of cells. There are 2 lives involved, and people still sympathize more for the plight of the woman than the plight of the fetus. Until this changes in society, this double-standard will always exist. I see your point about about it being completely hypocritical from a legal and scientific stand-point.
I’m curious, too, about the pro-choice viewpoint. If they realize that the fetus is technically a human-being, but believe it is not yet worthy of protection at the expense of the woman, there is really no scientific argument against that. It would be, as justthisonce suggested in another post, only a moral issue. It comes down to a simple matter of opinion. However, if they do not yet realize that the fetus is technically a ‘human being’ (even if it doesn’t fit their subjective definition of ‘person’), then the debate can continue on a scientific basis. And yes, I’m still saying that it is scientific fact that the fetus is a human. Is it fact that it fits some people’s definition of ‘a person’? No, it isn’t. But it is fact that it is scientifically a human being.
John,
In your post #8, I’m not aware of that article about politics and poetry that you’re citing. I certainly wouldn’t put you in the same category as Rod Blagojevich!
At any rate, I have obviously offended you and that was not my intention. I can’t and won’t apologize for feeling as strongly as I do about this issue. But I apologize for using a term that hurt your feelings or insulted you in any way.
Regarding #7:
First, if you want “human life” to mean “any living cell of human origin”, fine. If you want it to mean a “human being or person”, fine. If you want it to mean something else, fine. But please pick one meaning and stick with it. Otherwise, your arguments all become the logical fallacy “Ambiguity of Terms/Equivocation wherein you use different meanings of the same word or phrase so you can draw mistaken conclusions.”*
Second, I did not say that all athiests are pro-choice. I said that had the framers of the Bill of Rights realized that there would be so many atheists and agnostics in their future, they would not have used the phrase “institution of religion”.
Third, I did not say that you “need to be religious to believe that human [beings] should be protected”.
*http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html, Ambiguity of Terms/Equivocation.
Regarding #9:
Your argument fails because it relies on a logical fallacy – the Straw Man*, wherein you attacked just two of Kevin’s points as if they were the whole argument. The fallacy lies in your use of the word “only”. We have offered many arguments to support why an embryo is not a person. Here, Kevin lists some “alternate” definitions of the word “person”. You claim it is our position that ONLY two definitions of “person” qualify a being for protection, presumably under the law.
To see the fallacy more clearly, remove the word “only”. Now the first statement in #9 is one with which we can all agree and the second statement becomes a non sequitur since stating that self-conscious, rational beings deserve protection in no way addresses whether or not those who are not self-conscious or rational also deserve protection.
*Ibid., LEO, Straw Man
Regarding #15:
I apologize for the quotation marks around the words beginning with “Ambiguity” and ending with “conclusions.” They are a paraphrase, not a direct quotation.
“…all laws are based on opinion.”
In “The Third Option”, post #79, I disputed your claim that all laws are based on morality, pointing out that murder was originally considered a crime because it threatened the survival of a tribe. Therefore, the “laws” against murder were based on practicality, not morality.
In post #81 you then equated opinion to morality so my post #79 would then apply to that claim as well.
TPOV,
I just read the entire Roe v. Wade decision. It’s interesting on many levels. The court did summarize the history of abortion, as best as it can be known, from ancient civilizations to present. According to the SCOTUS, there has never been any agreement regarding the definition of when life begins so they decided they (SCOTUS) had every right to sidestep the burden of crafting any such definition as the basis for law. Personally, I feel that was a mistake and a deliberate abdication of their power and responsibility to U.S. citizens.
Roe v. Wade does give states the right to regulate and even outlaw abortions after the point of viability of the fetus, which the SCOTUS defined as the end of the first trimester.
I’m no Constitutional scholar, but barring a Constitutional Amendment, the only other loophole and way to overturn Row v. Wade lies in the realm of science and technology and such technological devices do not yet exist.
But, once some scientist is able to take one of those frozen embryos produced by in vitro that John mentioned and grow it successfully to a full-term baby in a simulated uterus, then that will be a game-changer in terms of any court’s definition of viability. At that point, life would be viable from conception in a scientifically demonstrative way. Ethically, it would present its own disastrous consequences, of course, because if science could ever achieve such a thing, who needs women at all? Just harvest their eggs from them at birth and get rid of them! It would be a dream come true for the communist government of China.
What a mess we humans can make out of something as simple, natural, and beautiful as a baby.
For anyone who has not yet read the Roe v. Wade decision for themselves and would like to, here’s a link (devoid of any outside commentary or interpretation):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
Regarding #11:
“In some states, if you kill a woman who is in her first trimester of pregnancy, you’ll be charged with two murders, not one.”
Which states do this?
If there are states which define a 12- week embryo/fetus as a human being for the purposes of convicting someone of murder but then permit the aborting of these same entitities because they are not persons or human beings, I agree that would indeed be hypocritical.
For Diane:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Regarding #13:
“I’m curious, too, about the pro-choice viewpoint. If they realize that the fetus is technically a human-being…”
I have reviewed the three topics on this subject here on the Café and although there are numerous references by Teacher to technically life/human/human being, the only one by Kevin was in “The Third Option”, #75, “I do not find the question of where life technically begins as all that compelling of an argument” which he wrote as a response to Newcomer’s assertions about when “life” begins, not as a statement on “the pro-choice viewpoint.”
“But it is fact that it is scientifically a human being,”
Sigh… no it is not. Please cite a peer reviewed study that demonstrates that. This incorrect assertion has been repeated so often, one would think that even dead horses can feel pain.
Diane,
Every time I give scientific evidence, one of you pulls out another term. I show it’s human life, so you use “human being”. I show it’s a “human being”, so you use person…
As I said, pro-choice people continue to dehumanize the fetus because it allows them to continue supporting abortions, as has been done with numerous groups of people in the past.
Again, in a past post:
1) Is the fetus a life form?
There are five criteria for life found in all scientific textbooks.
a. Living things are highly organized.
b. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
c. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
d. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
e. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to these basic tenets of life, life starts at conception. The being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).
2) Is this new life human?
The new being is a member of the homo sapiens species. When humans procreate, they do not make non-humans (worms, monkeys…). If you want absolute proof of this, go to an abortion clinic. Send a sample of the aborted fetus to a lab and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. I’m sure we all know what the result will be.
“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” The “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris
“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
Definition of being:
be·ing (bng)
n.
1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.
2.
a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
b. The totality of all things that exist.
There is nothing in that definition that suggests that the fetus is not a “being”. Therefore, the fetus is a human being. Now maybe your thinking, “OK, but a person may not be synonomous to a person.” Now that may be true. But to make that argument, we must stray from science into the realm of religion and philosophy. See, as I’ve said, it’s not I that am making this a religious debate.
A fetus is, scientifically a human being. Any attempt to use semantics to cloud this is simply trying to dehumanize the infant. Just as we did with slaves, witches, Jews, Native Americans…
While you may have a point that murder laws are base on practicality, it doesn’t apply for almost any other law. What about rape? One could argue that if were rape were legal, it may even help expand the tribe! But since I can see your point about murder laws being practical, I’ll revise my statement. All laws, aside form murder (which could be considered practical), are base off opinion and morality.
Newcomer,
Why do you think people have abortions and what could we do as a society to help prevent this choice from being made?
I have my own opinions, but would like to hear yours. Perhaps the prevalence of abortion is a symptom of something more than simply a lack of moral or ethical standards as some would suggest. I don’t think anyone, whether they are pro choice or not, wants to have an abortion.
Libdem,
I think that women have abortions for many varied reasons. I think that few women who seek an abortion do so because they really want to. I think they feel as though they don’t really have a choice.
These are my top 2 but this is by no means an exhaustive list, just a couple possible reasons some women might have for seeking an abortion:
1. they feel they lack the financial resources to support a child and therefore feel they have no choice but to abort,
2. Feel pressured to get an abortion by the baby’s father, or the pregnant woman’s own parents; also if a married woman becomes pregnant by someone who is not her husband and she fears her husband finding out.
In general, I think that most women seek an abortion because they feel they have no choice but to. Perhaps it’s fear of no longer being loved and accepted, or looked down upon by one’s parents, etc. Or perhaps the woman thought that her partner would be happy and supportive if she by chance became pregnant – only to find out the baby dad wants nothing to do with her unless she gets an abortion. For women who are substance-addicted, they may feel their baby will be deformed or otherwise unhealthy anyway, so what choice do they have? Rape and incest are obvious ones, although I would guess that the rate of pregnancy resulting from these crimes is nowhere near as high as the rate of women having consentual sex with unplanned pregnancy resulting.
Then there are planned pregnancies for whom some women might seek an abortion. I’m not sure about the frequency rate for people in these circumstances either, but I know that hospitals sometimes offer to do an abortion in cases of multiples when it’s thought that a “selective reduction” will improve the mother’s chance for a safe delivery and also in cases where a severe genetic defect is detected prenatally. Another reason I could think of is the case of a woman nearing the end of her child-bearing years who thought she was no longer able to conceive and ends up with an unplanned pregnancy.
There are probably many, many more reasons than these, but you get the idea. I don’t think for a minute that little girls around the nation are picturing their abortion day the way they picture their wedding day.
And forgive me for being repetitive at the beginning. I’m in the middle of a hectic night so I’m knowingly failing to do a proper job of editing. I’ll come back to answer the rest of your question as best as I can in a bit.
Newcomer and Teacher, I am not being facetious when I ask how do you feel about the death penalty and the killing of Bin Laden?
Libdem,
OK, Part II – Ideas that our society could implement to give women actual choices instead of what we are doing to them now. As of now, we give her two lousy choices, which is no choice at all: suffer a life of poverty or financial turmoil, or abort her child. It’s a shameful statement about how little we truly value women in our society when we seem content to leave things the way they are.
Here are a couple of ideas to get us started, we can legally require lawyers in family law practices to devote “X” amount of hours per year to provide low and lower middle class women with free adoption services for private adoptions. This way, if a young girl and/or woman becomes pregnant and knows of someone whom she would like to adopt her child but neither she nor the potential adoptive parent can afford legal assistance, she has an avenue to pursue legal adoption of her child to a parent(s) of her choosing. Also, by not having to rely on an adoption agency, it opens adoption to both pregnant women and adoptive parents. Of course, hand-in-hand with such legislation, there would need to be strict penalties for lawyers conducting black market style adoptions.
Another idea for a woman who wants to keep her baby but has to work and cannot afford daycare would be to give generous tax breaks to businesses that either (a) create positions that can be done through telecommuting and offer those positions to stay-at-home moms, or (b) provide on-site daycare free to employees with availablity preference given to single moms and moms on the lower end of the business’ pay scale. These employees should be given preference, but then if a business can document that it is trying to attract moms as empoyees but is unable to, the company should not then be penalized for offering the daycare to other employees as well.
BTW the telecommuting idea would also work for people who have a physical disability that makes work outside of their home difficult (especially if their home has been adapted to accomodate their needs).
The kicker is that, these types of ideas sort of rely on allowing discrimination. In this case, it would be gender discrimination. In our politically over-correct society, we’ve become conditioned to view all discrimination as bad and demeaning. It needn’t be so if we are careful to discriminate in favor of an underserved segment of our society. And I feel that pregnant women are just such a segment.
That’s just a couple of quick things off the top of my head. Let’s hear yours.
John,
I think I’m already on record here at the Cafe as saying that I am opposed to the death penalty. That is equally as offensive to a pro-life morality as abortion is.
As for Bin Laden, I have no sympathy for him but I also wish we could have taken him alive. I don’t know enough about the mission to know if the Navy Seals could have done that safely or not. I think that the order given to the SEALS hopefully were to capture first, and if not, then kill. Hopefully they did not receive orders that were the other way around. I think we would have been able to get a lot of useful information out of Bin Laden that would have been valuable to us. I know it would have been messy and complicated to hold him as a prisoner, detainee, whatever the proper military terminology is, but I think our interrogators would have been skilled enough to break him and there would have been great value in doing so. As it stands now, we’ll never know if we missed an intelligence opportunity or not.
Regarding #24
“Every time I give scientific evidence, one of you pulls out another term.”
I assume you mean evidence that a fetus is a human being or person. Much of what you have presented as scientific evidence is scientific opinion. To be evidence, the information must have been presented and peer reviewed.
“I show it’s human life, so you use ‘human being’. I show it’s a ‘human being’, so you use person…”
The term “human life” is ambiguous because is can apply to clusters of human cells, a single cell, or an entire organism. “Human being” is good but applies only to homo sapiens. As such, human beings might be considered a subset of persons. However, in a discussion on human abortion, human being probably serves just as well as person.
“As I said, pro-choice people continue to dehumanize the fetus because it allows them to continue supporting abortion…”
Pro-choice people do not support abortion; they support the right to have an abortion. Like those who are anti-choice, there is no one standard. Just as some anti-choice people do not consider a zygote or embryo a human being until it has implanted while others demand that every fertilized egg be considered a full humban being, there are pro-choice people who consider an abortion in the third trimester to be unacceptable except to save the life of the mother, some who feel even the second trimester is too late while some feel the choice should always be up to the mother and her doctor, regardless of the number of weeks of the pregnancy. This is not just semantics. Your being in favor of a person’s right to choose a course of action does not automatically mean that you approve of the action.
“1) Is the fetus a life form?
There are five criteria for life found in all scientific textbooks.
a. Living things are highly organized.
b. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
c. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
d. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
e. All living things have an ability to adapt.”
This is clearly a stock argument which wouldn’t be a problem except it is not true. All scientific textbooks do not have exactly the same, nice, pat little list of characteristics that define life. That definition is constantly being debated. There are many ways to define life and as I understand it, they are all limited and/or flawed,** not that people don’t try.***
“2) Is this new life human?
The new being is a member of the homo sapiens species. When humans procreate, they do not make non-humans…”
I have not read of anyone who proposes that a human fetus contains non-human DNA. The point of contention is whether or not the life form is sufficiently developed to qualify as a human being or person.
The quotations by Dr Jérôme Lejeune and Dr Hymie Gordon are statements of opinion, not the conclusions reached in a peer reviewed study. This is critical. No opinion, regardless of the genius of the one who offers it, is scientific proof of anything.
*http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire, Misattributed
These are 3 of the 10.6 billion hits when you google “what is life”:
**http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249616/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/what-exactly-life/
http://www.independent.com/news/2011/mar/27/what-life/
***http://www.panspermia.org/whatis2.htm
Thank you, Newcomer, for the links. I have not yet read Roe vs Wade but I did follow the other link.
As of April, 2012, there are 38 states which impose a greater penalty on the killing of a pregnant woman than for the killing of one who is not pregnant.
Some of those states limit their laws to “quick” or viable fetuses. I do not think these laws are hypocritical as such fetuses are not normally candidates for abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger.
Some of the states do not impose a penalty for killing the fetus but rather declare that the killing of a pregnant woman is more reprehensible and thus deserving of addtional punishment. A case could be made that this is a reasonable public policy, especially since these states qualify their laws to apply to those who knew or should have known that the woman was pregnant.
As for the remaining states that have laws criminalizing the killing of any fetus or embryo, from conception forward, I would agree their laws are hypocritical.
Note that according to the article, those who support fetal homicide laws are “often pro-life advocates”.
“Sigh… no it is not. Please cite a peer reviewed study that demonstrates that. This incorrect assertion has been repeated so often, one would think that even dead horses can feel pain.” – Diane
Some peer reviewed studies:
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
“The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum…. But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down.”
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
Diane,
I don’t know the scientific consensus on when life begins. I was conceding the point because I didn’t find that it mattered (in my mind) for the discussion. I’m sorry for the confusion.
Thanks,
Kevin
NC-
I think you are naive on a number of issues. The orders given to the commandos sent after Bin Laden is one of them. We can be very sure they were told to bring him back dead only.
If there is a scientific concensus among biologists and physicians, I would think it would be more along the lines of what I have been arguing. But I know of no reasonable survey of biologists and physicians. I think they would agree with Diane’s position as well. I worked and interacted with embryologists and a wide variety of other types of biologists and physicians from Johns Hopkins, to NIH, to Stanford/Palo Alto and had collaborators around the country and in Europe who I knew quite well. I know how they think.
Diane,
As to your post #24…I happen to agree with TPOV (surprise, surprise).
TPOV is pointing out to you in multiple articles, by multiple authors, and in multiple definitions that life has a beginning point. Instead of recognizing that or cedeing that point, you are choosing to fixate on what we call that beginning point, ie. its technical label. Is it human at the moment of fertilization? Is it a homo sapiens in progress? Does it meet any and all definitions of a person? Does it even faintly resemble anything akin to a human person? At what point does it acquire its personhood?
None of the answers to any of those questions negate the fact that TPOV claims that scientifically, every human life has a beginning – no matter what one chooses to call it or how one chooses to describe it. None of us began life as a zygote, embryo, or fetus without first being an oocyte or diploid nucleus, or whatever scientists like to call it. It is a fact that the moment of fertilization between human sperm and human egg marks the beginning of a life – even if you want to defer recognizing it as human until some later point in its development. There was a moment in time, right before your father’s sperm and mother’s egg conjoined when you (Diane) did not exist in space and time. And the next moment, at the completion of fertilization, you came into existence. Your cells divided and then more cells continued to divide, and so on. You had a beginning even if your mother had no idea at the time, and even though you had no recognizable features as a human. Even if you had not acquired your “personhood”, cognition, memory, or otherwise, you still had a beginning just as you will someday have an end to your life.
TPOV is correct that you are using the debate technique of moving the goalpost in order to repeatedly negate TPOV’s point. Kevin has done the intellectually honest thing by cedeing that he doesn’t care if one defines life as beginning at conception because that’s not the point at which he would recognize it as having any legal rights. I couldn’t disagree with Kevin more about that, but that’s a different discussion from this one entirely. It’s a discussion we’ll never get to if one just keeps moving the goalpost.
Cells divide in a culture dish also. And in vitro fertilization has produced hundreds of thousands cultured fertilized embryos that reside in liquid nitrogen tanks. A vast minority of these will be used for implantation, others will be donated to research, and others will be discarded probably by autoclaving. There are about 250 known Biobanks in the world according to a market report I looked at recently. Some of these exist to provide transplantable tissues and stem cells of all kinds including embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells (derived from fertilized eggs) are being used for “predictive toxicology” testing in drug development especially cardiac drugs. Today, I found three companies as a part of my work for a client that are using embryonic stem cells for predictive toxicology testing and I’m sure more conpanies will be doing this.
John,
I’m not disputing that cells divide. I’m also not disputing that they divide in a culture dish. In in vitro, the fertilization occurs in a petrie/culture dish too. That must be an amazing moment to witness.
I wonder what it must be like to see the exact moment in time when a cell from two distinct human beings unite to form a new, unique, and unrepeatable being.
Now, whether that being will be given an opportunity to be implanted in a uterus and develop further or not is up for grabs these days, I guess. But I bet it would be just incredible to witness the fertilization and then be able to follow the in vitro patient who is implanted with the same embryo you just watched being created and then be able to meet that embryo as a baby 9 months down the road, and as a toddler a couple of years later, and as a teen only a decade plus a couple of years later. I don’t know that techs in an in vitro lab would ever get to have any such opportunity but I think it would be so cool if they did.
Thanks Newcomer. My interjection was meant to sway the conversation toward something more tangible, something more pragmatic, solution based, and where consensus could perhaps be reached. The argument of when life begins is tedious, repetitive and, in my opinion, used as a distraction by those who want to claim moral superiority but don’t have the courage to do anything constructive about solving the problem.
We can agree that no one desires to have an abortion. It is a desperate last resort that is struggled over and is a source of great stress for woman. We can also agree that prevention of abortion is a good thing and that developing strategies and policies to slow the rates of abortion would be desirable. So why not focus on solutions to help prevent abortion rather than waste our time quibbling over embryology.
In 2007 a collaborative global study on abortion was done between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York
What they found was that law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.
The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available.
International comparisons show that the United States could do much better in improving teen pregnancy and birth rates. U.S. teen pregnancy and teen birth rates are the second highest among 46 countries in the developed world. In France, the abortion rate is 37% that of the US, Germany is 20%, and the Netherlands is 155. The data shows that U.S. teens’ sexual behavior is similar to teens of other developed countries in terms of when they start to have sex and how often they are having it. Yet, U.S. teens are less likely to use contraception or to consistently use more effective methods of contraception when compared to the teens of several other developed countries. Recent data show that 77% of the decline in teen pregnancy rates among U.S. teens aged 15 tp 17 years is because teens have increased their use of contraception and 23% of the decline is because teens are having less se
So considering this data, my approach to decreasing abortion rates would be the following (taken from this website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/pregadol.htm)
1- Assign a high priority to the reduction of unintended pregnancy, abortion and STDs.
2- Anticipate that youths will be sexually active and expect them to act responsibly.
3- Governments would base their policies primarily on research and not heavily influenced by political and religious advocacy groups.
4-Make condoms and other contraceptives readily available to young people at low or no cost.
5- Provide comprehensive sex education programs in the schools.
In addition:
1- Work towards countering the religious stigma that sex outside of marriage is bad. I believe that guilt and embarrassment leads to fear and anxiety which leads to desperate actions like abortion.
2- Make it more affordable for families to have children by:
* Extended maternity and paternity leaves
* Subsidized daycare for all
* Wages that would allow one parent to
stay home
* Free universal healthcare for children
* Free state university tuition for all
* Tax credits for grandparents helping to
raise their grandchildren
Of course all these measures would mean that we, as a country, were serious about preventing abortion, supporting families, protecting children, providing basic needs.
But we are not a serious country. Republicans and Churches love to claim moral superiority on the abortion issue, but are unwilling to actually support or implement policies to help prevent it as our more socialist secular European counterparts are.
So who really has the moral superiority? Those who provide lip service and love to debate embryology or those who take concrete pragmatic actions to actually decrease abortion rates?
Newcomer, the longer Diane continues to deny the science that indicates that the fetus is a human being, the better off we are in our argument. I have offered a ton of references, and evidence indicating that the fetus is technically a human being. Diane has responded with some interesting use of words, but no evidence or references. She has consistently called for me to produce a “peer reviewed study” to support my assertion, yet has yet to produce one of her own. I’ve posted many such articles. Diane, cite one “peer reviewed study” that supports your assertion that the fetus is NOT a human being.
I hope she continues on this same path, because I don’t think even most of her supporters are buying it. Even JTO, a pro-choicer, has said “I am pro- choice but the discussion is essentially a moral argument, not a medical one. I am surprised to be being persuaded to the other position by the arguments being presented on my side of it. No fetus, under normal circumstances, is headed for status as a tadpole, dead squirrwl, pettier dish experiment or tumorous medical waste – it is headed for life as a human being regardless of its status at any point in time.”
Maybe if we keep her down her current path of dehumanizing the fetus for another dozen threads or so, we’ll get JTO and others to completely come to our side instead of only considering it.
It’s rather fishy, Newcomer. The sperm looks like a tadpole and the egg, well an egg. It’s not sensual in any way, embryologist/OB/Gyns see this in a dish every day. This is not a religious or special experience. The sperm binds to the zona pellucida and injects its nucleus into the egg. The injection is peformed by actin filaments, the actin I cloned which is a motor protein.
Teacher – A scientific study is one first undertaken with the hope of proving a hypothesis. After setting forth the hypothesis, the researcher(s) collect data and/or do experiments, record the results, and then analyze the accumulated data to see if it supports the hypothesis, either in whole or in part. Conclusions, based on the evidence, are at the end of the paper. Even if the data does not support the original hypothesis, the study is usually published since the evidence, whether gathered or experimental, may give rise to other hypotheses and suggest new lines of research. A peer reviewed study is one where the original hypothesis was confirmed, at least in part, the paper published, and one or more (usually more) researchers review the study and attempt to duplicate its findings. If they are successful, this peer review lends tremendous credence to the original work. As you probably know, even at this stage, there is no absolute guarantee that the hypothesis was correct because it is never possible to PROVE a hypothesis, only to DISPROVE it. Nevertheless, the larger the body of evidence in support of a hypothesis, the greater the probability of it being true. Still, it takes just one verifiable fact to discredit any hypothesis, at least in part and new discoveries have a way of undoing past research. Newton’s Laws of Gravity seemed pretty rock solid, until a fellow by the name of Einstein came along.
So, any paper that has not walked the walk is not a “peer reviewed study”.
Moore, Keith L 1988 Essentials of Human Embryology
Langman, Jan 1975 Medical Embryology, 3rd edition
Considine, Douglas 1976 Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, 5th edition
Sadler, T W 1995 Newer edition (7th) of Langman’s book
Van Blerkom, Jonathan 1994 Witness testimony before NIH Human Embryo Research Panel
Moore & Persaud, T.V.N. 1993 Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects; rewrite of Moore book (4th edition)
Larsen, William J 1997 Human Embryology, 2nd edition
O’Rahily, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola
1996 Human Embryology & Teratology, 2nd edition
Eight citations: six are textbooks, one is an entry in an encyclopedia and one is from a transcript of an NIH hearing. NONE are peer reviewed studies. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that at least some of these writers based their statements on such studies. Before going to the effort of tracking down these citations, I took note of what they actually said.
First, “human development” is not synonomous with “human being” any more than “house construction” is synonomous with “completed house”. I certainly agree that human development begins with the union of sperm and ovum but that is not the question at hand. The question is whether or not a zygote or an embryo or an early stage fetus is a human being. If I am mistaken here, if in fact anti-choice proponents are really arguing that even the development of a human, not necessarily a human being itself, should be protected by law, then either I missed something or the anti-choice advocates have fallen woefully short in explaining their position. Two of the eight citations define when the development of a human begins.
I believe we are all in agreement that after fertilization and extending to approximately 8-12 weeks, the organism is an embryo. Three of the citations define embryo, not human being.
One citation (O’Rahilly & Müller) defines embryo as a “human organism” but the quotation fails to define “human organism”.
And finally, there are two citations for Moore, Keith L, which appear to be different editions of the same work. Moore’s contribution was that human development begins with fertilization and then he added that the fertilized ovum is “the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
I googled the Moore and O’Rahilly citations in the hopes of finding the underlying sources for those quotations but failed. When I get the time, I’ll hit the libs but until then, about all I can do is repeat that none of the citations are peer reviewed studies.
*http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33809
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/primordium, 6 sources: Dorland’s, Amer Heritage Med Dict, Mosby’s(2), Miller-Keane, Saunders
There are no peer reviewed studies that determine when personhood begins because this is not a scientific question, it’s a philosophical question. So, Diane, don’t bother. So, the so called ‘science’ you quote is not science. Your “ton of references” are worthless for this reason. JTO said it right, its not a medical (or scientific) question but I would not call it a moral decision, although it could be. It’s purely philosophical.
LibDem, I agree with literally every action step you outlined. The only one I would add to it is to make abortion illegal. Why? Not to make them less common, but because they end the life of a human being, I don’t think the life of an innocent human being should be taken.
If the government implemented every plan you outlined above, would you then support making abortion illegal?
I wonder who O’Rahilly quotes to back up his wording. He can’t back it up, though.
The woman has her individual right to make this decision (you, Newcomer, and Diane) and “human being” is usually not being aborted under this circumstance.
John, once again, i’m not talking about the subjective, unscientific, philosophical term, “personhood”. I’m talking about whether the fetus is scientifically a human being or not.
Diane, if the fetus is a developing human, then it’s a human! A three day old baby is a developing human as well. They didn’t say it would develop ‘into’ a human, they said it was a developing human.
“I can speak to you with authority that from a pure, unadulterated biological and embryological standpoint, there is no greater pivotal moment in our growth and development than when 23 chromosomes from our father join with 23 chromosomes from our mother to form a unique, new biologic entity who heretofore simply had not existed.
This new biological individual is complete, has a gender, and is fully and uniquely programmed and equipped to grow and develop and change until death. All he or she needs is nutrition and a warm place to grow. To say that an embryo has the “potential” to become a human being is biologically and technically imprecise – and dangerous.
Perhaps even more dangerous is the concept that it is not a precise moment, but a gradation of human worth. With this model, a preborn baby at 3 months is somewhat of a human being, but a newborn is more of a human being.
So — is a 10-year-old boy or girl more a human being than a 1-year-old? Is a politician or athlete more a human being than a wheelchair-bound paraplegic? Can we really stratify intrinsic human dignity and worth? Is human equality a myth? This sort of thinking forms the basis for demeaning entire classes of people. Ultimately, it denies them their humanity. The 20th century gave ample evidence of the depravity of such thinking.
It is not “potential to become a person” that entitles a human embryo to legal and moral status. It is part of the fabric of natural and biological law that the human embryo’s actuality of being human entitles him or her to legal and moral status”
“There is no point from fertilization until death when, biologically, the human nature of that human being is altered. That human being continuously creates specifically human enzymes and, once formed, is on a path to grow and develop in the natural course of human growth. As we’ve said, all he or she needs is nutrition and a warm place to grow.
The bottom line is that in terms of biology and human embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a “potential” human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact.”
Baumgartner F. Human embryos: potential humans? Science 296:1967-8; 2002.
There is nothing scientific about what you are talking about TOPV. No, the potential to become…doesn’t make a person! Every sperm and egg by itself has that potential.
John, based on what you wrote, I’m not sure that you read the entire quote. The author quite clearly stated that the fetus does NOT have the ‘potential to become’, but actually IS already human.
It becomes repetitive after a while. It’s tiresome reading you reporting of other peoples thoughts but not your own. I would rather know your original thoughts.
John, I’ve shared those, but they’re not getting through. I thought I’d share some thoughts of professional in the medical field. I feel he explained it very well, which is why I shared the quote. His thoughts mirror my own, but are articulated more clearly. Do you content that anything posted in the quote is scientifically false?
Regarding # 36:
“TPOV is pointing out to you in multiple articles, by multiple authors, and in multiple definitions that life has a beginning point. Instead of recognizing that or cedeing that point…”
I am absolutely willing to agree with Teacher IF his point is that “life has a beginning point”, as you state. However, it was my sense that he is NOT saying that life has a beginning point but that a human being exists at that point. There is a big difference, not to you, nor I suspect to Teacher, but to me. And that is MY point. We disagree about something that we have not and, at this point in our technology, cannot prove. It’s your belief against my belief. I think we should each be allowed to follow our own consciences until one belief is proven to be true while you think yours trumps mine and I should abide by your belief.
I went back over Teacher’s posts and discovered that he did NOT state that an embryo is a human being. He did say, “My view is that the fetus is a human being at its earliest stages” and I took that to mean including an embryo. If am mistaken, then I apologize for misinterpreting what he wrote.
“TPOV is correct that you are using the debate technique of moving the goalpost in order to repeatedly negate TPOV’s point.”
I believe that the only thing I said that might seem to be “moving the goalpost” is that I asked for direct quotations from scientists instead of third party quotations. My intention was to look up the direct quotation and discover the referenced source data. The quotations he provided weren’t papers; they were opinions. In retrospect, instead of asking for a peer reviewed study, I should have just said that opinions weren’t proof.
Libdem,
I have a feeling you’re not gonna like what I have to say…
For the sake of this discussion, we’ll stipulate to accept the statistics that you cited, although I question statistics in general because they can be skewed. But just so we can actually get to the discussion part, let’s go with them.
Next, your steps to your approach to reducing abortion.
Agreed on #1.
Agreed on #2, excepting that we’ll again likely encounter definition problems with the word “expect”. My expectations in this area may be very different from yours and your’s may be very different from John’s, etc.
We part ways starting with #3. Our form of government wasn’t designed to run as an automaton operating based only on research. It’s supposed to be “of the people, for the people, and by the people”. Some of those people are religious, perhaps much to your chagrin. I agree with the founding fathers that our government should “establish no religion”. I’m actually grateful to them for including the establishment clause because without it, our government could have long ago established a national religion that is not the one I practice and I could have been persecuted legally along with many others. We’ve seen that happen before throughout history. But there’s a flipside to the coin of the establishment clause that bears mentioning in this day and age of the HHS mandate of the Obama Administration. The flipside is that while our government cannot choose to establish any particular religion as the “official” religion of the U.S., it also cannot choose to make atheism, nor agnosticism as the official position of the government either. The Constitution does allow for anyone so inclined to practice their religion freely. This is commonly referred to as the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.
The moral of that story is that while you and some others may view religion as the problem, there are yet others who may not. Because there may be others who wish to continue to practice their religion by teaching their children that sex is a sin outside of marriage, any plan that you would like the government to use necessarily has to accomodate BOTH believers and non-believers alike.
That being said, I feel that people who call themselves religious, ought to be capable of treating sinners (which we all are if we’re being honest) with love and compassion rather than judgement and condemnation. That is, of course, easier said than done, but something to always be strived toward nevertheless.
So, in order to properly accomodate both religious and non-religious families as pertains the remainder of your suggestions…
If you’re going to ask the government to make condoms and contraceptives readily available to young people, then you have to allow religious parents to opt their kids out of it. And I’ll just throw in one more anti-HHS mandate plug here and further stipulate that I would only favor such a thing assuming that the HHS mandate is struck down and people of faith cannot be FORCED by the government to pay for things that are against the practice of their religion like contraceptives, abortifacients, abortions, etc. There needs to be some sort of exemption (a REAL one) or opt-out for this too.
Same for sex-ed programs in school. It’s only Constitutional if religious parents will be given an opt-out for their kids. If you don’t want religion forced on you and your kids, then you can’t expect to force your secular ideas on me and my kids either.
Now for your additional program suggestions:
Tax credits for grandparents – I’m with you all the way. I will always come down on the side of tax breaks for citizens before entire industries or multi-national mega corporations.
For the extended maternity/paternity leave, I would like to see this as well, but not as a government program. I would rather see it look more like a compromise arrangement between employers, employees, and government. So maybe it could be something like government offers tax breaks to companies who allow employees to work from home (if their position allows such a thing) or a compromise wherein the employee continues to receive a salary, but they have to pay the full cost of their health insurance and other benefits from that so the company can at least save its matching contributions. Also, for such a program, it would need to be for a fixed, finite period of time. The daycare suggestion that I made yesterday could also be part of this arrangement in some way as well. I would prefer something like this over subsidized daycare for all because we simply can’t afford it.
Wages that would allow one parent to stay home? You mean either overpay them or pay them money for nothing? Talk about wishful thinking. And they say I’m naive – geesh!!!
How about getting the cost of goods and services down and then keeping them there so that families can make it just fine on the one income they have already (assuming they’ve managed to hang onto their job somehow).
Free universal healthcare for children? Name me a state in the U.S. that doesn’t have that already for those who cannot afford it. Are you saying that you want the evil, mean rich people’s kids to have free healthcare too?
Free State University tuition for all. Better yet, how about terminating federal subsidies to colleges and universities so that market competition can do its things and the cost of tuition can come down. If we agree to try that first and then it still doesn’t bring the cost of tuition down low enough, then we can talk about other ideas.
Even though I would go about implementing these ideas maybe differently from the way you would, I still see a lot of common ground here and the beginnings of a good conversation.
Thanks!
John, I agree that this can get a bit tiresome. We need to look for common ground for the debate to move forward. Otherwise, we are at an impasse. You will never agree that science shows that the fetus is a human being. I will never agree that the fetus is not, scientifically, a human being. So can we come up with something all three of us agree on to move this debate forward? If not, I would declare it over.
I will agree to not refer to the fetus as a human being, since it doesn’t meet your definition of personhood. However you have to agree to the following:
The fetus is a human life form that is a new, biologically complete individual. It has a gender, and is fully and uniquely programmed and equipped to grow and develop and change until death. There is no point from fertilization until death when, biologically, the human nature of that human life form is naturally altered. That ‘human life form’ continuously creates specifically human enzymes and, once formed, is on a path to grow and develop in the natural course of human growth.
In the spirit of compromise, I will admit that we are not yet aware of this fetus’s cognitive ability, or its status as a self-aware, rational person.
Do we want to agree on this and move forward, or declare this debate to be at a stalemate?
John,
I finally just read the profile of Diane on your Rowayton Kids blog. Very interesting. Just out of curiosity though, who are the “activists” that you say that you and Diane have been debating here?
All of us, Newcomer.
Newcomer,
I’m glad we can agree on some things.
1- Making contraception widely available and expanding sex education in schools. Students can opt out for religious reasons, but of course they won’t be having abortions for religious reasons, right?? (wink, wink).
2- Support policies and measures that would make child rearing more affordable and less stressful: (some examples)
*Expanded tax credits for grandparents and parents.
*Extended maternity and paternity leaves
*Subsidized daycare for all
*Greater market control of commodity prices to ensure stability (housing, energy)
* Free universal healthcare for all children (for all classes)
* Subsidized public university tuition and the ending of tax payer subsidies to colleges and universities
* expanded and improved public housing
* expanded and improved public transportation
Newcomer, I think that these measures would either prevent pregnancy or give individuals and families the ability to afford children and raise them with a basic standard of health care and education. In doing so I believe that the abortion rate would decline tremendously. Individuals and families would be less stressed.
So tell me, which political platform works towards these ends: The anti-abortion Republican platform or the liberal Progressive platform? If you are as serious as I think you are about preventing abortion, which political platform do you support and what kind of actions will you and your church take in helping achieve these initiatives? Or is it all about lip service rather than action?
What would Jesus do?
Newcomer-
As far as religions that teach sex before marriage, or contraception, is a sin, how is that working out? My anecdotal observation is that not only is morality unrelated to how religious one is, so is sex before marriage. It appears that some talk a good game, but in private…
I think we are all aware of each others views and that none of us are homocidal maniacs or mysogenistic fascists. I believe our disagreement centers on one question. Is the fertilized ovum, the zygote, a human being? I say no and I believe Kevin and John would agree. Teacher, Newcomer and many others say yes. We all agree that the zygote can develop into a viable baby. We all acknowledge that not all living human tissue is a human being. We all believe that the life of a human being is deserving of respect and protection when it is at its most vulnerable. We also have minor differences that might be resolved through research but none of us, despite honest, cogent arguments have wavered from our deeply held beliefs. On one side are those of us who see a human being from the moment of conception, like an idea that lies in ones mind, full and whole, needing only the sunlight of time, experience and wisdom to blossom and on the other are those of us who see at conception the promise of humanity but not yet the human being itself, a growing organism readying itself for the burdens and joys of self-awareness.
Doubtful,
If a person decides to discontinue practicing their religion or decides they only agree with some parts of the teachings of their religion but not others, then it might not work out so well. I liken the practice of one’s faith to the AA program. What is one of the things they say in AA about the program? “It works if you work it.” I feel it’s the same for faith. There’s a perceptible difference between talking the talk and walking the walk.
Libdem,
Don’t get too excited, we have common ground, yes, but not complete and total agreement. I notice that you added back a few of your original ideas and even added a new one or two. I guess we could hash it out between us just for fun, but since neither of us is an elected legislator, I seriously doubt that anyone will care if you and I are able to solve the country’s problems.
I would add in to your sex education program the concept of abstinence. It can easily be taught in a public school without any mention of God. Even if you and everyone else will snicker and think that no kid has enough self-control and discipline to abstain from sex, I think you’d be incorrect. Some kids can and do abstain. It helps when you inform them that abstaining shows that they respect their own body enough to refuse to allow themselves to be used by another. When they abstain, they also show how much they really love their boyfriend/girlfriend because they are showing respect for the person they claim to love as well as for themselves. It also helps when they hear that it is the only 100% sure-fire way to guard against both unintended pregnancy and STD’s. To me, there’s something very romantic about the idea of waiting for your one, true love and if that person has also waited, imagine how deep your bond will be when you realize that the love you share between you is only for the two of you. I would think there’s something very powerful in knowing you’re the first, rather than 10th in line.
As for which party’s platform do I support? That’s easy. Neither. There’s a reason why I have never spent even a minute of my life as a member of a political party.
The Catholic church is very active in the area of social justice. I’ll gather up a few links and get back to you.
Libdem,
Here are a few quick links for starters. The first is for girls who become pregant in college and those who would like to volunteer in the program. College girls are another underserved population in my mind. I don’t have any idea why campus health centers are quick to give contraceptives and abortion info, yet they seem to have little-to-no ideas for how to assist a young girl who might want to consider keeping her baby. Here’s the link:
http://studentsforlife.org/
The next is for Catholic Charities. When you get to the home page, if you click on the “programs” link, you’ll find sub-pages for more info on some of their assistance programs and policy initiatives. Some of them are: human sex trafficking, climate change, adoption, race and diversity, among others. Here’s the link for the national organization:
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/
And here’s the link for the Catholic Charities office in Norwich, which services Windham County, among others. I believe that the Norwich office provides housing counseling and immigration assistance among their other services.
http://www.ccfsn.org/#
This week, my daughter Christina told Becki and me that she was pregnant and heard a robust heartbeat. She and her husband, Brad, are thrilled and I’m sure they have fully conceptualized their kid in the womb as a human being with personhood. This is good enough for me.
Diane, very well put. I definitely do not see any of you as lacking compassion for human life. It has truly been an honor having this conversation with people who did not play the “war against women” card. While I do not completely agree with your opinion, I do have great respect for it. I also appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue without getting personal or taking things personally.
Thanks!
Diane,
Perhaps you may be interested in reading this:
http://www.aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html
Good article Newcomer. I agree with the last paragraph completely.
Thanks, TPOV.
Like you and Diane have expressed, I’m glad that we’ve been able to discuss this without demonizing each other. Kevin asked me earlier on to try to see the logic and consistency in the opposing point-of-view. I have tried, but unfortunately, I still can’t see it. I want to make it clear though that I don’t judge or condemn those who hold such an opposing view as bad people or anything along those lines. As the last link shows (at least to me), since the 1960′s, there has been a deliberate effort to make such views commonplace and natural in the conscience of America. The movement seems to have succeeded to a great extent. In response, I can offer the pro-life view as best as I grasp it myself, but I can’t force-feed it to anyone. In the end, we are all, each one of us, responsible for examining both the available facts and our own conscience in our pursuit of the truth.
I know I am late back to this but I have followed this entire string with interest. I think Diane’s summary #59 is good but leaves an important question unanswered, which is what IS the status of a first trimester fetus? I have to say that the medical analogies, like all analogies, fall apart, precisely because they are analogies, and thus are a distraction from the central question. I also have to say that the burden of proof, it seems to me, is on those who do NOT believe the fetus is a human being, not on those who believe it is, given the obvious biological evidence of conception.
So I think the conclusion has to be that the first trimester fetus has special and unique status as a human life in process of developing, regardless of medical or biological particulars. But I believe this leads to a conclusion that this is a moral issue, and that each person should consider it in good conscience. Thus I oppose restriction by the state on the right to choose after the first trimester. This may seem inconsistent to those who believe in moral “absolutes” but that is where I have always ended up on the legal issue.
This was a very good discussion – hopefully the Cafe administrator will use his technical capacity to help insure future discussion is equally informative and civil.
Newcomer-
All this talk of a failure in morality among those who don’t share your view on abortion, and then you say you don’t judge or condemn those who hold opposing views. Please!
I meant BEFORE the first trimester.
Doubtful,
If you can find an example (in any of the 3 articles where we’ve recently discussed this issue) of a statement I’ve made that accuses anyone who disagrees with me of having a “failure in morality”, please re-post it for me. I would appreciate it because if I actually did that as you claim, then I owe someone an apology. I normally do not treat people that way.
The only offense I am aware of committing is the judgement I made about John writing his own definition. I didn’t judge John personally, but I did judge his one action in that regard. I also expressed my surprise that he composed his own definition (which I believe I’m on record as disagreeing with). I have a feeling (based on not just the tone of your comments, but also from others in the past that have been similar to it) that I’ll get skewered if I ever try to submit a definition of my own composition for any subject matter at the Cafe. Now maybe there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. John is a highly regarded scientist on a National level and his work ranks among the elites in his field. I can boast of no such acomplishments and I likely never will. But if I ever should be tempted to compose my own definition of anything, you can bet I’ll keep it to myself.
So, other than insulting John (which I have already owned up to and apologized for as soon as he made it known that I had offended him) I stand ready to take responsibility for wrongly judging anyone as failing in their morality.
If you can’t prove that I’ve treated someone so harshly, then kindly don’t accuse me of such a thing. I regard such an accusation to be quite a serious one indeed.