Bush and abortion

[FlaSoxxJim]

I also tend to lovingly refer  to each and every cute little spermie as "half my baby", but I still "spill it on the ground" on daily basis when push comes the shove.

 

I wouldn't want my future child to be aborted, but I have a luxury of not being a woman. 

 

It's all about compassion and understand of POV's that are foreign (to you or me).  YMMV.

 

Once again....you don't like early-stage pregnancy terminations?  DON'T HAVE THEM.

You're "half my baby" jab is technically 100% true. (Tecnhically, life began about 4.2 billion years ago, and still doesn't have much respect, most notably from many of the "life begins at..." arguers).

 

All the "life begins at..." arguments need to recall that sperm are all alive, and their haploid nature does not make them lees alive. Still the fact remains that eben in sexual unions ending in pregnancy, there were 3/4 BILLION lives lost to make it happen.

 

More than half of all successful fertilization events end in spontaneous natural termination, early on, often before implantation ior just after, and withouth the mother ever being aware of it. The body knew that something was not quite right with the environment in the uterus and took the appropriate corrective measures.

 

Women who consider abortion are vilified because they are actually considering the environment the child will live in beyond the uterus. And after hopefully much conscience-searching, she may decide that she is incapable of providing the environment that a child needs to survive.

 

For all the "adoption is an option" arguers, you are correct. I included my hope that there be a lot of thought and conscience-searching that goes into a decision as to whether to terminate the pregnancy. Hopefully the option to carry the child to term and then to put the child up for adoption has been seriously considered.

 

The point in all of this is that you cannot legislate morality. You can legislate that which is in gross violation to universal societal mores (murder, for instance), but morality is personal-subjective and that's why this issue is tricky.

 

While I'm strongly pro-choice, it doesn't mean I like abortion. That's why the position is called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Had I ever found myself in a position with a woman of having to decide to keep a pregnancy or not, I know the decision to have the baby, and either get married or put it up for adoption would have been strongly considered. But that hypothetical position, and all very real and difficult positions like it, are unique, involving different people with different family and community support networks. I can't tell them what is right for them. Neither can a government or anyone else. I strongly believe that painting the majority of abortions as being matters of convenience is an unbelievable oversimplification. I think it;s one of the hardest decisions you can make in your life. Had I married and had the baby in my hypothetical example, it would have changed everything in my life. My academic and professional career path, the person I eventually did meet, marry, and have kids with, etc. Again, not an aesy decision, because it's one that affects not only the 9 months throuh which the pregnancy is carried, but then your entire life (and that of many others) afterward. The morally superior "well you schouldn't have screwed up then" argument is frustrating because even if the people involved did screw up in getting pregnant, is it right to legally force them to continue to screw up their lives, their kids lives, etc., by forcing them to keep the pregncy?

 

It's already been said, if you are against abortions, great, don't have one. If you are against gay marriaages don't have one. But your morality is your own, as mine is my own.

[BrandoFan]

My prayers are with you.. 

I know you're kidding, but was it really that bad being a teenage girl?

 

I ask because I don't know, but would like to know.

 

"What iz eet l'aik to bee a voomn?"

[BrandoFan]

While I'm strongly pro-choice, it doesn't mean I like abortion

 

Is there anybody who DOES?!

 

 

(Such accusations come from the same insenstive, perverted mentality that among other things produces such gems as the implication that "welfare queens" are riding their ovaries all the way to the bank. I mean, do we really want to call that type of bill-to-bill ghetto existence "making out like a bandit"? And yet many do.)

[IlliniBob72]

"Out there" is damn right.

 

There is also "evidence" that Martians are stealing my thoughts.

 

For every book and scholarly article pushing the FDR-knew-and-let-it-happen thesis, there are 100 that soundly dismantle it.

 

CW is correct, 9/11 comparison is apt.

That's funny. When I do an internet search of "FDR and Pearl Harbor" most every site is talking about how he knew. Anyway, originally I had only said that many historians have accused FDR of having prior knowledge, something that cannot be refuted. But after your statement that even mentioning what many have thought for years is "pathetic" I've done some more reading and the evidence sure is compelling. Perhaps you could recommend a few of those "100 that soundly dismantle" the theory. I could always use a new book to read.

[BrandoFan]

It's already been said, if you are against abortions, great, don't have one. If you are against gay marriaages don't have one. But your morality is your own, as mine is my own.

 

Moral relativist! Burn her! Burn the wench!

[cwsox]

That's funny. When I do an internet search of "FDR and Pearl Harbor" most every site is talking about how he knew. Anyway, originally I had only said that many historians have accused FDR of having prior knowledge, something that cannot be refuted. But after your statement that even mentioning what many have thought for years is "pathetic" I've done some more reading and the evidence sure is compelling. Perhaps you could recommend a few of those "100 that soundly dismantle" the theory. I could always use a new book to read.

Gordon Prange's book At Dawn We Slept

 

to me that is the definitive book

 

it concludes that American intelligence knew a Japanese attack was coming and in fact the bases closest to Japan were ready but no one - not even the Japanese Navy - thought they could actually launch an attack on Pearl Harbor because of the great distance and logistics - the Japanese Navy took a huge risk that most didn't think they could remotely pull off and that is why Pearl was surprised

 

I may have the author's name slightly spelled wrong - a few years I did a booked for lunch thing with a bunch of WW2 veterans at the local library and when we got out the maps and looked at the logistics, they convinced me that Prange was right on

 

 

as for the parallels with 911, remember that the callousness to American death that you find appalling when suggested to G W is just as appalling when applied to FDR and from what I have been able to gather, the same conclusion Prange reached on Pearl will be minimum same as on GW and 911

[IlliniBob72]

It's already been said, if you are against abortions, great, don't have one.  If you are against gay marriaages don't have one.  But your morality is your own, as mine is my own.

Rome, 150 A.D. : "You're against throwing Christians to the lions? Well, don't go to the Colliseum then."

 

American South, 1860 : "You're against slavery? Don't buy a slave then."

 

Germany, 1943: "You're against gassing Jews? Well, don't gas any then."

 

American South, 1960: "You're against lynching blacks? Well, don't lynch one."

 

You can't tell people who believe that abortion is murder to just not get an abortion. And before you say that owning a slave or the Holocaust is much worse than aborting a "fetus", that's not true to a lot of people. Being insulated from the act by the fact that we never see the fetus or see it meet its end has lessened the impact. For those who believe that it is killing a baby, it makes no difference if the baby is a week old or still in utero. And the argument outlawing abortion will really screw up the person who made a mistake's life really creates a slippery slope.

[IlliniBob72]

Gordon Prange's book At Dawn We Slept

 

to me that is the definitive book

 

it concludes that American intelligence knew a Japanese attack was coming and in fact the bases closest to Japan were ready but no one - not even the Japanese Navy - thought they could actually launch an attack on Pearl Harbor because of the great distance and logistics - the Japanese Navy took a huge risk that most didn't think they could remotely pull off and that is why Pearl was surprised

 

I may have the author's name slightly spelled wrong - a few years I did a booked for lunch thing with a bunch of WW2 veterans at the local library and when we got out the maps and looked at the logistics, they convinced me that Prange was right on

 

 

as for the parallels with 911, remember that the callousness to American death that you find appalling when suggested to G W is just as appalling when applied to FDR and from what I have been able to gather, the same conclusion Prange reached on Pearl will be minimum same as on GW and 911

I will check out the book. Thanks for the recommendation, cw.

[cwsox]

I will check out the book. Thanks for the recommendation, cw.

At Dawn We Slept at amazon

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Rome, 150 A.D. : "You're against throwing Christians to the lions? Well, don't go to the Colliseum then."

 

American South, 1860 : "You're against slavery? Don't buy a slave then."

 

Germany, 1943: "You're against gassing Jews? Well, don't gas any then."

 

American South, 1960: "You're against lynching blacks? Well, don't lynch one."

 

You can't tell people who believe that abortion is murder to just not get an abortion. And before you say that owning a slave or the Holocaust is much worse than aborting a "fetus", that's not true to a lot of people. Being insulated from the act by the fact that we never see the fetus or see it meet its end has lessened the impact. For those who believe that it is killing a baby, it makes no difference if the baby is a week old or still in utero. And the argument outlawing abortion will really screw up the person who made a mistake's life really creates a slippery slope.

Having the government dictate what can be done with one's body is where it becomes a slippery slope. The government cannot legislate morality be it "Protection of Marriage" to the "War on Drugs" to the abolition of legal abortion.

 

When the make-up of pro life people dictating what can be done to a woman's body medically is like this:

 

There is a problem. There isn't a working uterus or ovary on the stage! Even though this legislation deals solely with the rights and options of a single gender- the female gender- the Bush team didn't include ONE SINGLE MEMBER of this gender, in the ceremony to sign the document.

 

When Clinton vetoed the same "partial birth abortion" bill, he had FIVE women there that had undergone the procedure. They were there to show the human side of the debate- the side that had to undergo the pain and suffering that accompanied their choice to terminate their pregnancy with this procedure.

 

Pro-choice simply dictates that the government has no right to dictate that a procedure that could save a woman's life cannot be performed. I'm not even going to touch the base irony of some pro-lifers murdering doctors either.

 

Personally, I think an open discussion on sex and sexuality be it in school or with parents...whatever the forum, as long as there is an open discussion about the topic, it can serve to take away the forbidden fruit aspect of sex and giving them protection and a full assessment of the risks involved (with none of the bulls*** propaganda) will drastically cut down on abortions being performed in the first place.

[IlliniBob72]

Even though this legislation deals solely with the rights and options of a single gender- the female gender- the Bush team didn't include ONE SINGLE MEMBER of this gender, in the ceremony to sign the document.

I hear what you're saying, but the quote above really is the rub. Pro-choice people make statements like this, where pro-life people feel that that's not true, that the rights of the baby are also an issue. I feel that if the terrible decision needs to be made between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, of course, save the mother. With my son my wife had some issues and she said to me to make sure the baby is OK. I told her flat out no, whatever they need to do to save her I'm letting them do. Thank God it never came to that. But what has been discussed here is not that case, but where a woman has made a mistake and shouldn't have the rest of her life screwed up. It's not just legislating morality, it's legislating against murder to those that believe life begins at conception.

 

I agree with your point about the picture. Looking at it made me cringe slightly.

[cwsox]

despite what I said earlier I will state this - I am a long time member of several religious coalitions and organizations comprised of churches and church bodies and church commissions as well as Jewish religious organizations and clergy and laity both Christian and Jewish who fight for choice.

 

IlliniBob and others, I have no doubt of your passion. Please do not doubt the passion on the other side nor the deep religious and faith convictions of those who fight for choice.

 

I have been physically attacked by anti choice people many times and I have stood vigil at clinics after bomb threats were made and in several cases after clinics were bombed. Every year it is a ritual in my community on the anniversary of Roe v Wade for someone to take verbal shots at me in the local paper for my pro chocie stance, usually with the worst name calling and denouncing me to hell, etc.

 

In prior threads I have said all I need to see about what I feel is the utter hypocrasy of the so called pro life movement. Someone can search that if they wish to.

 

I have also worked as an employee in the foster care department of Catholic Family Services. I did take the pro choice bumper sticker off the car while I worked there, that was only right, but my pro choice position was never a secret. And yet they loved me there because there was a dialogueof mutual respect. With those people, they knew that my commitment to life was very real and for me, so was theirs. We differed greatly at the question of when life began as opposed to potential life. But the people I worked with were actually doing something.

 

Abortion is not about "mistakes" and convenience and it angers me when that is said. Unless one has worked in the juvenile court world one may not be aware of the great numbers of rapes and incest that occur. And perhaps unless one is a pastor or a doctor one may not know the real life situations that happen, especially with medical issues, that make the cheap shot comments on "mistakes" and "convenience" a matter for which I do get angered.

 

And yet again I very easily worked with people on the other side of the fence - good Catholics paid my salary - because when the rhetotic is stripped away and one says, ok, here is real life, not glib comments - when it gets real - then real conversation begins and there can be dialogue.

 

When shoits get made on the Internet, I wonder if some fiolks think that clergy like me really get a kick out of killing babies. Do you really think that I would so something that I would consider killing a baby? Is there anything about me or anything I have ever posted that would say that I could countenance killing a baby?

 

Mr Eye and Illini Bob and others, thius is an issue on which there is a great divide. Yes, IBob, if I thought this emdical procedure of abortion was murder, I would have your passion. But I have my passion that every living human being must be able to make medical decisions for their own self between their conscience and their God and that the state should not be playing any role in pushing a particular religious belief held by some to deny others medical procedures that involve the health and life of a woman. Abortion is a medical procedure that sometimes is the best of a series of not so good alternatives. It is not about convenience. It is not about mistakes. That is an insult to women who are in situations which no man will ever face. Abortion is always a serious matter - it involves potential life - and again a sperm is a sperm and an egg is an egg and an embryo is an embryo and a fetus is a fetus and not until the point of vialbility do we have life, but rather only the potential for life. Glib comments otherwise, to not doubt the morality and the deep abiding faith in God that deeply takes into account the Scriptures and Christian teachings (which are not always what some think...) in coming to the fervent belief in the Name of God that choice must be preserved.

 

My question is, can that, will that be respected? If this forum is going to degrade itself into charges of baby killers and all the cliches being tossed, then nothing good has happened. Some verbal bombs have ben tossed my way. I may have tossed a few back because folks on my side get tired of being ripped into.

 

As baggio posted, between him and me, we just simply must agree to disagree and move onto something else. Bags and I could go back and forth forever but it solves nothing so we go on as friends and set some things aside. I hope we do that with all of us.

[BrandoFan]

Rome, 150 A.D. : "You're against throwing Christians to the lions? Well, don't go to the Colliseum then."

 

American South, 1860 : "You're against slavery? Don't buy a slave then."

 

Germany, 1943: "You're against gassing Jews? Well, don't gas any then."

 

American South, 1960: "You're against lynching blacks? Well, don't lynch one."

 

You can't tell people who believe that abortion is murder to just not get an abortion. And before you say that owning a slave or the Holocaust is much worse than aborting a "fetus", that's not true to a lot of people. Being insulated from the act by the fact that we never see the fetus or see it meet its end has lessened the impact. For those who believe that it is killing a baby, it makes no difference if the baby is a week old or still in utero. And the argument outlawing abortion will really screw up the person who made a mistake's life really creates a slippery slope.

Very important moral and scientific considerations touched upon by FSJ and CW aside, the difference between genocide, slavery, torture, etc...and abortion is:

 

 

THE LATTER DOES NOT INVOLVE ANOTHER LIVING HUMAN BEING!!

 

A woman is not aborting YOUR wife's fetus.

 

She is aborting HER fetus, something that's a part of HER, that grows inside of HER , depends on HER-- belongs to HER really-- until the very act of birth. Her life and future are at stake. Hello!

 

You may wax theological about the nature/origin of life, expressing your disgust at "infant-killers" and their liberal protectors until you're blue in the face.

 

You may place the "=" sign between "genocide" and "abortion", thinking that just because you've made a parallel, it's automatically valid.

 

You're entitled your opinion.

 

As I am entitled to my contempt for the sanctimonious ANTI-Choice/ANTI-woman's well-being/PRO-overpopulation-related poverty, disease and destruction crowd.

 

Andrea D says all intercourse is by default violence. She is "disgusted" by it. She "believes" the subjugation and sexual discrimination are immoral. She also thinks if just a single 'no-oo" is uttered during copulation, it creates grounds for rape charges. On some legalistic and philosophical level, she is technically correct in all respects. Just as woman-marginalizers are technically correct that early-stage fetus is "alive".

 

But so damn what! With some impressive abstract gymnastics, aided by logical extrapolation, you could make a case for almost anything being a crime/sin. Complete with analogies, historical examples, scientitifc research, the works. It's been done.

 

You talk about "dangerous slipping slopes". Using "but Bible says...." as your policy-shaping guide and abusing the highest executive priviliges to engineer homogeneous morality is as steep as it gets.

 

There are a lot of things I find unsavory or objectionable (abortion is one of them) but I don't dovetail the Constitution with basic rights-usurping amendments into fitting my narrow and hypocritical world-view.

 

I know you mean well, Bob. It's not directed at you personally.

[IlliniBob72]

The funny thing is, I only got dragged into this thing because Brando objected to my use of the words "killing unborn babies". I guess its semantics. I really just meant getting an abortion. Do I believe they're babies? Yes. Am I against it? Yes. Am I passionate about it? Not really. If my daughter or sister were to consider getting one, I'd advise against it. In fact, recently my sister thought she may be with child and talked about "getting it taken care of". My wife and I talked seriously about taking in her baby if we could convince her to carry it to term. She wasn't pregnant so it was moot. But like I said, I don't drive around with pro-life bumper stickers or protest clinics.

 

But really, I've got other things to worry about. I just disagreed with the line of thinking that in the debate as to whether it should or should not be legal that the increase in illegal abortions should be an incentive to keep it legal.

 

On another line that I'll probably be attacked for. The surest way for a political candidate to lose my vote is to run an ad saying "My opponent is so radical that he is against abortion EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST!". OK, that is a terrible situation, but if someone is against abortion because they believe it is killing an unborn child, how CAN he be for it in cases of rape and incest. The child isn't at fault in how he or she was conceived. How can you be against killing what you consider a child in one case but for it in another? The ad ought to just say "My opponent isn't a hypocrite, so vote for me".

[BrandoFan]

On another line that I'll probably be attacked for.

 

There is no attacking, just some heated arguements. Hehe.

 

Everyone knows you're a good guy who can think for himself. The rest is a technicality.

 

So we disagree, big deal.

[IlliniBob72]

Very important moral and scientific considerations touched upon by FSJ and CW aside, the difference between genocide, slavery, torture, etc...and abortion is:

 

 

THE LATTER DOES NOT INVOLVE ANOTHER LIVING HUMAN BEING!!

Brando, I'm just saying that to pro-life people you're asking them to ignore what is being done to what they consider another living human being. They/we believe that just because it needs the woman's placenta to survive doesn't make it not a living being.

 

People who are pro-life are not just being nosy. They are against aborting what they consider human beings.

[BrandoFan]

People who are pro-life are not just being nosy. They are against aborting what they consider human beings

.

 

Just for the record, where do you stand on contraception and pre-marital fornication?

[IlliniBob72]

.

 

Just for the record, where do you stand on contraception and pre-marital fornication?

I am all for both.

[Soxy]

You talk about "dangerous slipping slopes". Using "but Bible says...." as your policy-shaping guide and abusing the highest executive priviliges to engineer homogeneous morality is as steep as it gets.   

Brando, baby, I love you, but I'm afraid to a lot of people slippery slope of choice is definitely a reality. Let's look at the timeline:

 

1965: Horribly enough birth control becomes available to married couples (via Griswald v. Conneticut). It begins. Note: this is stuff like the pill, not condoms, but this that actually affect hormonal cycles.

 

1972: The slope continued to allow UNMARRIED women to gain access to birth control in a decision I believe was Eisenstad v. Baird.

 

1973: Roe v. Wade

 

So, for many people this could actually be considered a slope downward.

 

Of course, many pro-choice people would argue that since Roe v. Wade the pro-choice movement has lost very important ground as well...

[FlaSoxxJim]

There's not much more to add.

 

Bob, I think the big difference for me between the cases you cited and abortion is that there were thinking, feeling, self-aware victims in all cases you mentioned. Embryos, fetuses, eggs, sperm - are ALL alive. But the issue then becomes more focused/split, what is a human? what is a viable human? what is a person? etc. Heck, cancer is alive, and for that mater it's human too if your definition of human is living cells containing a human genome (cancer cells are just out of control).

 

The potential for human life resides within the haploid germ cells (egg and sperm), but they are not a person. An incipient human life begins when fertilization yields a diploid cell condition, but that's not a person. My earlier note about the high number of natural terminations is meant to diffuse the argument that the most likely outcome of the fertilization event is a baby, because statistically it is not (happens less than half of the time). An incipiebt life is terminated in abortions, but it is not the equivalent of any of the things you listed Unless you are considering the existence of souls of the unborn, sins against a divine agent, etc. That cannot enter into the equation if there is to be aby kind of effective SECULAR answers, because those beliefs are not universally shared.

 

(Also, there then is the question of when the sould is formed, and if the answer is at conception, then is it God's Will that 50+% of those soul-bearing embryos be terminated naturally? The ways of the God are not to be understood by us, right?)

 

But back to the secular realm, even the argument of viability (20 weks? 28 weeks? etc.), is problematin in that the definition of viability is not set in stone. A newborn is not viable in the sense that they are self-sustaining, because obviously they are not.

 

I think very sound scientific arguments can be made defending the ethics of early abortions. Any abortions performed before the invagination of a neural tube from te ectodermal germ tissue can not be said to cause teh embryo/early fetus any pain, because there is no sensory mechanism to register it. The time of the formation of pain-sensing nerve endings being formed is well documented, so should abortions before that point be allowed? Not if the argument is about souls and God, I know, but what about on a secular level? What about 'medical' abortions versus 'surgical' abortions? The former are typical in first trimester abortions and they are chemically induced - no crushing, cutting or suctioning of live fetuses. There is a real slippery slope issue with the banning of the "partial birth" procedures, but that argument will continue.

 

There is no real direction here other than to suggest that if there is no difference in a person's mind about aborting a pregnancy and killing/enslaving etc., a realized, self-aware human, then that mindset has to come from a religious background. I don't think a sound secular argument can be made that the chemical termination of a non-self-aware, non-pain-feeling mass of cells with the potential to be a person is the moral equivalent of killing/enslaving/torturing thinking, feeling, sentient people. If such an argument can be made, I do respectfully wish to hear it.

[IlliniBob72]

There's not much more to add.

 

Bob, I think the big difference for me between the cases you cited and abortion is that there were thinking, feeling, self-aware victims in all cases you mentioned.  Embryos, fetuses, eggs, sperm - are ALL alive.  But the issue then becomes more focused/split, what is a human? what is a viable human? what is a person? etc.  Heck, cancer is alive, and for that mater it's human too if your definition of human is living cells containing a human genome (cancer cells are just out of control).

 

The potential for human life resides within the haploid germ cells (egg and sperm), but they are not a person.  An incipient human life begins when fertilization yields a diploid cell condition, but that's not a person.  My earlier note about the high number of natural terminations is meant to diffuse the argument that the most likely outcome of the fertilization event is a baby, because statistically it is not (happens less than half of the time).  An incipiebt life is terminated in abortions, but it is not the equivalent of any of the things you listed Unless you are considering the existence of souls of the unborn, sins against a divine agent, etc.  That cannot enter into the equation if there is to be aby kind of effective SECULAR answers, because those beliefs are not universally shared.

 

(Also, there then is the question of when the sould is formed, and if the answer is at conception, then is it God's Will that 50+% of those soul-bearing embryos be terminated naturally?  The ways of the God are not to be understood by us, right?)

 

But back to the secular realm, even the argument of viability (20 weks?  28 weeks? etc.), is problematin in that the definition of viability is not set in stone.  A newborn is not viable in the sense that they are self-sustaining, because obviously they are not.

 

I think very sound scientific arguments can be made defending the ethics of early abortions.  Any abortions performed before the invagination of a neural tube from te ectodermal germ tissue can not be said to cause teh embryo/early fetus any pain, because there is no sensory mechanism to register it.  The time of the formation of pain-sensing nerve endings being formed is well documented, so should abortions before that point be allowed?  Not if the argument is about souls and God, I know, but what about on a secular level?  What about 'medical' abortions versus 'surgical' abortions?  The former are typical in first trimester abortions and they are chemically induced - no crushing, cutting or suctioning of live fetuses.  There is a real slippery slope issue with the banning of the "partial birth" procedures, but that argument will continue.

 

There is no real direction here other than to suggest that if there is no difference in a person's mind about aborting a pregnancy and killing/enslaving etc., a realized, self-aware human, then that mindset has to come from a religious background.  I don't think a sound secular argument can be made that the chemical termination of a non-self-aware, non-pain-feeling mass of cells with the potential to be a person is the moral equivalent of killing/enslaving/torturing thinking, feeling, sentient people.  If such an argument can be made, I do respectfully wish to hear it.

The question is does the fetus feel pain as it is aborted. Having gone to Catholic school, I've been shown the films that claim that it does and it seemed that way to me while watching it. I do feel that at a fairly early stage of development the fetus is cognizant of things around it and does feel pain.

 

I don't mourn a miscarriage a week after conception the same way I might a miscarriage at 3 months. I don't have a major issue with the "morning after pill", which I guess is a form of abortion. Some may find that hypocritical, but I guess it is no different than feeling worse about a 6 year old murdered on the street than I would about a person in a vegetative state passing away. They are tragedies on different levels.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I do feel that at a fairly early stage of development the fetus is cognizant of things around it and does feel pain.

That complete nervous system threshold is one of the defining boundaries between first and second trimester. Prior to that, the nervous system is nut sufficiently formed to feel pain in the sense we know it. But, yes, by 12 weeks a lot of organ systems are in place.

 

By ascribing cognizance (sp?) to the early fetus, are you implying mere responses of a living system to its surroundings? If so, I would agree. Microscopic protistan life can chemically sense and respond to environmental cues without any nerve system or any tissues or organs for that matter. Bacteria and Archaea, the simplest/oldest extant life, sense their environment and direct reproduction, growth, etc., in response to it.

 

But if the suggestion is one of cognitive self-awareness and awareness of the environment, I don't think there is any peer-reviewed scientific data to back that up.

 

You are correct, there are different levels of tragedy as far as when development is terminated – 6 weeks versus 6 year, etc.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Speaking about abortion and stuff...it's weird that most hardline Republicans are pro-life in abortion but also pro-death penalty. Then most hardline Democrats are pro-choice in abortion and anti-death penalty.

 

If any group is going to have the sanctity of life on their side, then they better f***ing love people of all ages and apply it to people of all ages or they can shut the f*** up. (more Bill Hicks just for Brando, haha)

[BrandoFan]

Can we all agree that William Buckley vs Gore Vidal smackdown was off da hook HI-LARIOUS?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Speaking about abortion and stuff...it's weird that most hardline Republicans are pro-life in abortion but also pro-death penalty.

Hit is right on the head! If all human life – even the unborn – are sacred and equal in the eyes of the Divinity, then capital punishent should be seen by the thumpers as murder and sin and in direct violation of the 10 Commandments. Let the Divinity judge what is His to judge and let the laws of man and the laws of God remain separate.

 

If a secular lout like me can grasp it, why can't the conservative religiosos who want to beat me on the head with the bible they so often selectively quote get it?