Anti-abortion law

[Guest feef]

>>so if you used both, then the chances of getting pregnant is 8% of 14%...which is 1.12%<<

 

It must also be acknowledged that a single act of completely unprotected sex will more than likely not result in pregnancy, especially if sex is had during her non-fertile period.

 

That said, the best way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain. Control yourself. Living a hedonistic life where you live only to satisfy your every momentary desire is a recipe for disaster anyway. Moderation, like with most things in life, is a far more sensible and in the end rewarding approach.

 

As far as the pro-choice versus pro-life debate, I tend to look at things from a pragmatic vantage. What works, what doesn't work? I don't believe in natural rights, nor do I believe in inate value. The engine moving society forward is a process of "enlightened" self-interest. At least, that is the hope.

 

For pro-lifers, rather than looking at individual life as sacred, perhaps you should ask what the holistic effect of allowing abortions might be. Does it tend to undermine the perception that human life is precious and special? What are the consequences of that if so? What sort of psychological toll can it have on the mother (and even father, and other people that care for the would-be mother) down the road after her abortion?

 

Control of population growth is important. In fact, I think, given our current resources, the USA is overpopulated. That's bad for the enviroment, that's bad for our resources, and that's bad for our quality of life. This is a good argument for pro-choicers to make: quick and easy abortions will allow a more voluntary control of population growth. (I believe we need to reduce the size of the US population; a first step would be to lower immigration levels, and if that doesn't do it, stronger measures may need to be taken i.e. limits on the number of children a mother can have.)

[»dr uniburner]

just do oral...wait did i say that?

[madhaha]

Feef: American culture relies on the illusion of freedom. Abstaination from sex will obviously not become mainstream for many years to come, if only due to cultural inertia. America is far from "overpopulated", merely extremely badly managed and excessive. Size is a major status symbol in America. Big food is good! Big cars are good! Big roads are good! Big, wide housing and sprawling development is good! America can support at least triple its current population if it adopted more effecient practises. At the end of the day, abortion in America is not significant population control, nor is population control currently needed. This is not the case for other countries.

[Aileron]

Madhaha, that was the most bigoted and illogical arguement that I have ever seen that came to the correct conclusion. The US is not overpopulated, and you HAPPENED to be right.

 

Abortion never was nor ever will be a means to control population. Face it, you could simply abstain from sex. It was a means to keep babies out of families who are not prepared for them. While it could theorhetically be used for overpopulation, it simply is not good for the purpose.

[Silk]

You forget that harsh enforcement of China's one child policy has lead to many non-consensual abortions (regardless of how long the term of pregnancy has been). Also note that while they do not reserve the legal right to kill children, they didn't have the legal right to send tanks into Tiananmen. So what?

 

Atleast one country is taking measures against overpopulation, whats India doing? In response to the tanks, did the US really have the right to go into Iraq?

[madhaha]

Abortion never was nor ever will be a means to control population.  Face it, you could simply abstain from sex.  It was a means to keep babies out of families who are not prepared for them.  While it could theorhetically be used for overpopulation, it simply is not good for the purpose.

India and China have both used abortion (and sterilisation) for birth control. Both have managed to dramatically cut their population growth rate (in some areas of rural China, they've even found that they have cut the growth rate too much).

 

America cannot simply abstain from sex. Sex is a major industry in America. Sex is also a major part of American culture and free sex is needed to maintain the illusion of freewill that America is based on. To suddenly say "Hey folks, don't have sex and people won't get accidental pregnancies!" won't work. Besides, people often change their minds during pregnancy.

 

Atleast one country is taking measures against overpopulation, whats India doing? In response to the tanks, did the US really have the right to go into Iraq?

 

India is doing everything it can. Remember that India is not a rich country. It is on the verge of a major, possibly nuclear, conflict, has an incredibly dense population and its infrastructure has actually declined since the days of British conlonisation. Its government providides abortions and sterilisations for free whenever it can. Remember this is a country with water supply difficulties and little refrigiration. Performing abortions is not exactly easy.

 

Moving on to the second point, I was stating how China has an equal disregard for human rights as the US, if not more so. Manus said :"NOT EVEN CHINA DOES THAT, OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!" but the truth is that the Chinese equally have no qualms about killing children. To bring Iraq into the matter is irrelevant (strange how no-one mentions Afghanistan now isn't it?).

[Guest poop juice]

Today, policies regarding legal abortion in the U.S. are being debated everywhere from the halls of Congress to the street corners of our smallest towns. Many myths and misconceptions confuse the issue. A better understanding of the history of abortion in America can help provide a context for making sound policy for the future.

 

Although the history of abortion in the United States is far older than the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, that decision marked an important turning point in public health policy. It made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical prac!@#$%^&*ioners and therefore led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death.

 

The Roe case arose out of a Texas law that prohibited legal abortion except to save a woman's life. At that time, most other states had laws similar to the one in Texas. The effect of those laws was that large numbers of women resorted to illegal abortions that were dangerous because of poorly trained prac!@#$%^&*ioners or unsanitary conditions. Jane Roe, a 21 year-old pregnant woman, represented all women who wanted abortions but could not get them legally and safely because of these laws. Henry Wade was the Texas Attorney General who defended the law that made abortions illegal.

 

After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans' right to privacy included the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference.

 

The findings in Roe v. Wade

The Court attempted to balance the rights of women who want abortions and the states' interest in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus in the following way:

 

In the first third of a pregnancy (about the first 13 weeks), state laws and regulations may not interfere with a woman's right to end a pregnancy through abortion. This means that the decision whether or not to have an abortion is left to a woman and her physician.

 

During the second third of pregnancy (about 14 to 24 weeks), state laws may regulate abortion procedures in order to protect the woman's health. This means that women can be !@#$%^&*ured that clinics which offer abortion services are regulated to ensure that safe medical procedures are followed.

 

During the last part of pregnancy (after about 24 weeks), and after the fetus is viable (developed enough to survive outside the mother's womb), state laws may prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Most states (40 states and the District of Columbia) have passed laws to prohibit post-viability abortions under most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. In fact, there are only a few doctors nationwide who offer post-viability abortion care to women who need it to save their life or health.

 

The aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision

The reaction to Roe was swift. Supporters of legal abortion rejoiced and generally felt their battle was won. However, others faulted the Court for a decision they viewed as immoral. Those opposed to legal abortion immediately began working at the grassroots and national level to prevent any federal or state funding for abortion and to undermine or limit the effect of the decision. Some turned to measures directly aimed at disrupting the sites where abortions were being performed. Their tactics have included demonstrating in front of abortion clinics, har!@#$%^&*ing people trying to enter, vandalizing clinic property, and blocking access to the clinics. As time passed, the level of anti-choice violence escalated. Increasingly, clinic bombings, physical attacks, and even murders endanger abortion providers and create a hostile environment for women seeking abortions.

 

Retreat from Roe v. Wade

Initially, the framework of Roe v. Wade served as the basis by which the cons!@#$%^&*utionality of state laws related to abortion was determined. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has begun to allow more restrictions on abortion. For instance, the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 established that states can restrict pre-viability abortions, even in the first trimester in ways that are not medically necessary, as long as such restrictions do not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion services. Thus many states now have restrictions in place such as requirements that young pregnant women involve their parents or a judge in their abortion decisions, that mandated waiting periods be observed between the time a woman first visits an abortion provider and when the abortion can be performed, and that scripts with information designed to frighten women and discourage women from having abortions be presented. Only the requirement that a woman involve her spouse in her decision was disallowed.

 

The Uncertain Future of Roe v. Wade

Right now, women's freedom of choice is hanging by a thread. Today the Supreme Court supports a woman's right to choose by a slim 5-4 margin. Over the next few years, the likelihood that two or more anti-choice Justices could be appointed is very high. If just one Justice who currently supports Roe is replaced by one who does not, Roe could be reversed. If this were to happen, women would be forced to return to the days of unsafe and illegal back-alley abortions. We must work to ensure that access to safe abortion care remains a legal right for all women before it is too late.

 

Common Myths About the History of Abortion in America

MYTH: In 1973, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal for the first time in American history.

 

FACT: Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived on our shores until the mid- to late 1800's, when states began passing laws that made it illegal. Although a few states had liberalized their abortion laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the right to have an abortion was finally made available to all American women when the Supreme Court ruling in 1973 struck down the remaining restrictive state laws.

 

MYTH: The founding fathers never intended for abortion to be allowed in the United States.

 

FACT: At the time the Cons!@#$%^&*ution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" (the stage of pregnancy when the mother can feel fetal movement in the womb) were openly advertised and commonly performed. Abortion was something that the founding fathers would have been aware of, and presumably, they would not have remained silent about it if they had intended for the government to involve itself in this aspect of the private lives of its citizens.

 

MYTH: In the 1800's, abortion was outlawed because it was so dangerous.

 

FACT: During this time in history, all surgical procedures, including abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive medical educations. Without the technology that we take for granted today, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other surgeries that were not outlawed.

 

As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care on the whole became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them from illegal prac!@#$%^&*ioners without these medical advances at their disposal. The "back-alley" abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved dramatically.

 

MYTH: Abortion was outlawed because it is immoral.

 

FACT: The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state, and included fears that soon the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. But the strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent "untrained" prac!@#$%^&*ioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees.

 

The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these compe!@#$%^&*ors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical !@#$%^&*ociation (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. This campaign was successful, and by 1910, all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor's judgment, to save the woman's life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a "physicians-only" practice.

 

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services. It is noteworthy that obscenity, abortion, and contraception should be so linked at a time when society deemed women incapable of making legally and socially responsible decisions and the law classified any attempts of women to make reproductive choices as unacceptable.

 

MYTH: During the period when abortion was illegal, abortion was effectively outlawed and the safety of pregnant women was ensured.

 

FACT: Criminalization of abortions did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year1, although, of course, no accurate records could be kept of illegal procedures. What is known is that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained prac!@#$%^&*ioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.

 

It should be noted that during this time some women obtained relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors.

 

This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. Later, the rate of reported abortions began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations.

 

Today, pro-choice advocates who fight for continued access to safe, legal abortion for all women often are motivated by their understanding of the consequences of criminalized abortion. We know from history that whenever abortion has been illegal, women have still attempted and succeeded in ending unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, they have often suffered serious health problems or died in the process. While the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was an important turning point in protecting women from unsafe abortion, an understanding of the pre-Roe v. Wade years is critical for making intelligent public policy decisions regarding reproductive health care in the future.

 

Timeline of Reproductive Rights Up to Roe v. Wade

1821: Connecticut passes the first law in the United States barring abortions after "quickening".

 

1860: Twenty states have laws limiting abortion.

 

1965: Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision strikes down a state law that prohibited giving married people information, instruction, or medical advice on contraception.

 

1968: Colorado, North Carolina, and California liberalize their abortion laws.

 

1970: Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington make abortion available at the request of a woman and her doctor.

 

1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives.

 

1973: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision strikes down state laws that made abortion illegal.

 

Compiled from:

Anderson, D.E. Newsroom Guide to Abortion and Family Planning, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The Communications Consortium Media Center, 1996.

 

Reproductive Freedom in the Courts: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Privacy and Reproductive Rights. New York: The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 1995.

 

A doctor describes her experience at a county hospital before Roe v. Wade:

 

"[Hospitals] had to have beds all up and down the hallways. They were always full [because of illegal abortions]. They must have had one hundred and forty beds in those wards...in [a twenty four hour] period, you'd get ten to twelve admissions. They walked into the emergency room bleeding. The first thing the doctor down there did was send them for an X-ray to see what was in their belly-to see if there were knitting needles, hooks, catheters up their belly." 2

 

A doctor describes a twenty-two year old patient whom he treated for septic shock following an illegal abortion in the 1950's:

"[T]he infection is so overwhelming, the bacteria produce toxins that lead to a collapse of the cardiovascular system...One of the tragedies of this septic shock is that people remain lucid until the end, and she was holding my hand, and saying, 'Doctor, help me, I'm dying.' And I knew she was, and I knew there was not a blessed other thing we could do for her...I have been haunted by that girl ever since." 2

 

 

Lets see if anybody actually reads all this -*BAD WORD*-...

[MonteZuma]

Today, policies regarding legal abortion in the U.S. are being debated everywhere from the halls of Congress to the street corners of our smallest towns. Many myths and misconceptions confuse the issue. A better understanding of the history of abortion in America can help provide a context for making sound policy for the future.

 

Although the history of abortion in the United States is far older than the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, that decision marked an important turning point in public health policy. It made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical prac!@#$%^&*ioners and therefore led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death.

 

The Roe case arose out of a Texas law that prohibited legal abortion except to save a woman's life. At that time, most other states had laws similar to the one in Texas. The effect of those laws was that large numbers of women resorted to illegal abortions that were dangerous because of poorly trained prac!@#$%^&*ioners or unsanitary conditions. Jane Roe, a 21 year-old pregnant woman, represented all women who wanted abortions but could not get them legally and safely because of these laws. Henry Wade was the Texas Attorney General who defended the law that made abortions illegal.

 

After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans' right to privacy included the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference.

 

The findings in Roe v. Wade

The Court attempted to balance the rights of women who want abortions and the states' interest in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus in the following way:

 

In the first third of a pregnancy (about the first 13 weeks), state laws and regulations may not interfere with a woman's right to end a pregnancy through abortion. This means that the decision whether or not to have an abortion is left to a woman and her physician.

 

During the second third of pregnancy (about 14 to 24 weeks), state laws may regulate abortion procedures in order to protect the woman's health. This means that women can be !@#$%^&*ured that clinics which offer abortion services are regulated to ensure that safe medical procedures are followed.

 

During the last part of pregnancy (after about 24 weeks), and after the fetus is viable (developed enough to survive outside the mother's womb), state laws may prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Most states (40 states and the District of Columbia) have passed laws to prohibit post-viability abortions under most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. In fact, there are only a few doctors nationwide who offer post-viability abortion care to women who need it to save their life or health.

 

The aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision

The reaction to Roe was swift. Supporters of legal abortion rejoiced and generally felt their battle was won. However, others faulted the Court for a decision they viewed as immoral. Those opposed to legal abortion immediately began working at the grassroots and national level to prevent any federal or state funding for abortion and to undermine or limit the effect of the decision. Some turned to measures directly aimed at disrupting the sites where abortions were being performed. Their tactics have included demonstrating in front of abortion clinics, har!@#$%^&*ing people trying to enter, vandalizing clinic property, and blocking access to the clinics. As time passed, the level of anti-choice violence escalated. Increasingly, clinic bombings, physical attacks, and even murders endanger abortion providers and create a hostile environment for women seeking abortions.

 

Retreat from Roe v. Wade

Initially, the framework of Roe v. Wade served as the basis by which the cons!@#$%^&*utionality of state laws related to abortion was determined. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has begun to allow more restrictions on abortion. For instance, the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 established that states can restrict pre-viability abortions, even in the first trimester in ways that are not medically necessary, as long as such restrictions do not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion services. Thus many states now have restrictions in place such as requirements that young pregnant women involve their parents or a judge in their abortion decisions, that mandated waiting periods be observed between the time a woman first visits an abortion provider and when the abortion can be performed, and that scripts with information designed to frighten women and discourage women from having abortions be presented. Only the requirement that a woman involve her spouse in her decision was disallowed.

 

The Uncertain Future of Roe v. Wade

Right now, women's freedom of choice is hanging by a thread. Today the Supreme Court supports a woman's right to choose by a slim 5-4 margin. Over the next few years, the likelihood that two or more anti-choice Justices could be appointed is very high. If just one Justice who currently supports Roe is replaced by one who does not, Roe could be reversed. If this were to happen, women would be forced to return to the days of unsafe and illegal back-alley abortions. We must work to ensure that access to safe abortion care remains a legal right for all women before it is too late.

 

Common Myths About the History of Abortion in America

MYTH: In 1973, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal for the first time in American history.

 

FACT: Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived on our shores until the mid- to late 1800's, when states began passing laws that made it illegal. Although a few states had liberalized their abortion laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the right to have an abortion was finally made available to all American women when the Supreme Court ruling in 1973 struck down the remaining restrictive state laws.

 

MYTH: The founding fathers never intended for abortion to be allowed in the United States.

 

FACT: At the time the Cons!@#$%^&*ution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" (the stage of pregnancy when the mother can feel fetal movement in the womb) were openly advertised and commonly performed. Abortion was something that the founding fathers would have been aware of, and presumably, they would not have remained silent about it if they had intended for the government to involve itself in this aspect of the private lives of its citizens.

 

MYTH: In the 1800's, abortion was outlawed because it was so dangerous.

 

FACT: During this time in history, all surgical procedures, including abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive medical educations. Without the technology that we take for granted today, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other surgeries that were not outlawed.

 

As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care on the whole became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them from illegal prac!@#$%^&*ioners without these medical advances at their disposal. The "back-alley" abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved dramatically.

 

MYTH: Abortion was outlawed because it is immoral.

 

FACT: The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state, and included fears that soon the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. But the strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent "untrained" prac!@#$%^&*ioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees.

 

The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these compe!@#$%^&*ors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical !@#$%^&*ociation (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. This campaign was successful, and by 1910, all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor's judgment, to save the woman's life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a "physicians-only" practice.

 

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services. It is noteworthy that obscenity, abortion, and contraception should be so linked at a time when society deemed women incapable of making legally and socially responsible decisions and the law classified any attempts of women to make reproductive choices as unacceptable.

 

MYTH: During the period when abortion was illegal, abortion was effectively outlawed and the safety of pregnant women was ensured.

 

FACT: Criminalization of abortions did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year1, although, of course, no accurate records could be kept of illegal procedures. What is known is that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained prac!@#$%^&*ioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.

 

It should be noted that during this time some women obtained relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors.

 

This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. Later, the rate of reported abortions began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations.

 

Today, pro-choice advocates who fight for continued access to safe, legal abortion for all women often are motivated by their understanding of the consequences of criminalized abortion. We know from history that whenever abortion has been illegal, women have still attempted and succeeded in ending unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, they have often suffered serious health problems or died in the process. While the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was an important turning point in protecting women from unsafe abortion, an understanding of the pre-Roe v. Wade years is critical for making intelligent public policy decisions regarding reproductive health care in the future.

 

Timeline of Reproductive Rights Up to Roe v. Wade

1821: Connecticut passes the first law in the United States barring abortions after "quickening".

 

1860: Twenty states have laws limiting abortion.

 

1965: Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision strikes down a state law that prohibited giving married people information, instruction, or medical advice on contraception.

 

1968: Colorado, North Carolina, and California liberalize their abortion laws.

 

1970: Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington make abortion available at the request of a woman and her doctor.

 

1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives.

 

1973: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision strikes down state laws that made abortion illegal.

 

Compiled from:

Anderson, D.E. Newsroom Guide to Abortion and Family Planning, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The Communications Consortium Media Center, 1996.

 

Reproductive Freedom in the Courts: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Privacy and Reproductive Rights. New York: The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 1995.

 

A doctor describes her experience at a county hospital before Roe v. Wade:

 

"[Hospitals]had to have beds all up and down the hallways. They were always full [because of illegal abortions]. They must have had one hundred and forty beds in those wards...in [a twenty four hour] period, you'd get ten to twelve admissions. They walked into the emergency room bleeding. The first thing the doctor down there did was send them for an X-ray to see what was in their belly-to see if there were knitting needles, hooks, catheters up their belly." 2

 

A doctor describes a twenty-two year old patient whom he treated for septic shock following an illegal abortion in the 1950's:  

"[T]he infection is so overwhelming, the bacteria produce toxins that lead to a collapse of the cardiovascular system...One of the tragedies of this septic shock is that people remain lucid until the end, and she was holding my hand, and saying, 'Doctor, help me, I'm dying.' And I knew she was, and I knew there was not a blessed other thing we could do for her...I have been haunted by that girl ever since." 2

 

 

Lets see if anybody actually reads all this -*BAD WORD*-...

I agree. However you ignore one important fact:

 

In 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical surgeons, and therefore led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death (“abortion”). Now there is a new proposal to close abortion clinics. This proposal takes away the privacy rights of American women that are guaranteed by our Cons!@#$%^&*ution. By closing abortion clinics the government is not only taking away women’s rights, but is also punishing those whom want to exercise their right of a pro-choice woman.

 

Abortion clinics allow thousands of women every year to have abortions. Having the abortion should be woman’s personal choice. By closing these clinics, there will be no providers to perform the operation, so the choice has already been made for them. Closing the clinics will increase the barriers of having an abortion. When there are too many obstacles, the right to make their own choice is taken away from them. In 1973 the American Supreme Court ruled that Americans’ right to privacy included: “the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference” (“abortion”). The Cons!@#$%^&*ution says we have a right to privacy, so taking away a woman’s chance to make decisions about her own body violates that right.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union defends the Cons!@#$%^&*ution and peoples’ rights.

 

ACLU has protected the rights of abortion for women, and in recent years has argued mayor cases opposing restrictions that deny woman access to reproductive health care (“ACLU”). Policy 263 states: “The ACLU holds that every woman, as a matter of her right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and privacy, should be free to determine whether and when to bear children.”(The American Civil Liberties Union)

 

The closure of abortion clinics will be done with the purpose to reduce the number of abortions. This raises the question whether this will be an effective method or not. Before 1973 abortions were illegal yet the number of women who sought abortions did not decrease (“abortion”). Before 1973 many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to perform their own abortions, or going to untrained doctors who performed cheap abortions with uncivilized methods or in unsanitary conditions (The Abortion Law Homepage.). If clinics are closed, women will still continue to attempt, and succeed, in ending unwanted pregnancies just like before 1973. Women will risk their health and possibly even their lives. By keeping these abortions clinics open it ensures a higher probability that the women who do have abortions will be in a safe, sanitary environment, and therefore injuries will be fewer in number.

 

If clinics are shut, the waiting lists of abortion clinics in other countries will be much longer. Women will have to wait longer to get an abortion, and will be treated later in their pregnancy which is much more dangerous for the pregnant women.

Pro-life activists claim that the unborn baby is alive and has feelings when the heart begins beating. But, the heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day (“Fetus”). They also say that women who have abortions are “murderers”. This problem could be solved by keeping abortion clinics open, because then the woman can be treated before the twenty fifth day when the fetus is not yet a living baby. She will not have to wait because of long waiting lists, but instead will have the abortion as soon as possible with as less psychological pain.

 

If a woman has to travel to another country to have a legal abortion, she will have to pay more money. She will now not only have to pay for the abortion itself, but also the traveling costs and that does not include the psychological costs as well. Not all people can afford these costs. So by keeping clinics open more women will have the chance to exercise their right and have their desired abortion. If a working woman or student suddenly has to leave the country, this means she will have to think of excuses and lies for an explanation. This is not fair to the woman, she should not have to explain herself to anyone, it is her body and therefore she can do what she wants, she does not need other people’s consult.

Abortion clinics are not a “butcher’s place” where young babies are murdered. They provide a choice for women whether or not to bring a child into this world.

 

What is worse: taking away the life of an unborn child that is not even aware of life itself yet, or a mother bringing an unwanted child into this world, knowing that she will not be able to take care of it, and that her child will have to suffer from the poor cir-*BAD WORD*-stances in which she lives. As of now the woman has the ability to make that choice and save the child from poor, possibly abusive or hate filled environment. Personally I feel that living in a cir-*BAD WORD*-stance such as abuse is worse than the abortion of the fetus. Rape victims should also be able to have an abortion because they know that if they were to keep the child, they would cringe when she thought about whom contributed to the other half of the child. The offspring will be a painful reminder to the rape victim. She did not choose to take the responsibility of a child and therefore should not have to pay the consequences. A woman who cannot love her child has no right to have a baby in the first place.

 

One option for women who are not able to take care of their baby is adoption. Yet she will have to carry the baby for nine months and then give it up. Not all women are able to do this physically or psychologically. After the pregnancy she will have to hope that their baby will find a good and loving home. And this is not always the case. The child will possibly have to suffer from living in orphanages waiting to get adopted. Adoption can not always be seen as a good solution to unwanted pregnancies.

The advantage of closing abortion clinics could be that woman will be forced to take the responsibility over their baby, and give their unborn child the right to life. But it can not be seen as something entirely positive. The mother will always regard the child as a “mistake” and will never love it the way she would have if she had wanted to keep the child. Getting an abortion does not always mean that the woman is only thinking of herself, she also thinks on behalf of her baby. Abortion clinics do not make the choice easier, nor do they force the woman into the surgery. People who are against abortion having the choice not to have one. It is not fair to take away the choice of people who do want one.

[Guest poop juice]

Today, policies regarding legal abortion in the U.S. are being debated everywhere from the halls of Congress to the street corners of our smallest towns. Many myths and misconceptions confuse the issue. A better understanding of the history of abortion in America can help provide a context for making sound policy for the future.

 

Although the history of abortion in the United States is far older than the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, that decision marked an important turning point in public health policy. It made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical prac!@#$%^&*ioners and therefore led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death.

 

The Roe case arose out of a Texas law that prohibited legal abortion except to save a woman's life. At that time, most other states had laws similar to the one in Texas. The effect of those laws was that large numbers of women resorted to illegal abortions that were dangerous because of poorly trained prac!@#$%^&*ioners or unsanitary conditions. Jane Roe, a 21 year-old pregnant woman, represented all women who wanted abortions but could not get them legally and safely because of these laws. Henry Wade was the Texas Attorney General who defended the law that made abortions illegal.

 

After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans' right to privacy included the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference.

 

The findings in Roe v. Wade

The Court attempted to balance the rights of women who want abortions and the states' interest in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus in the following way:

 

In the first third of a pregnancy (about the first 13 weeks), state laws and regulations may not interfere with a woman's right to end a pregnancy through abortion. This means that the decision whether or not to have an abortion is left to a woman and her physician.

 

During the second third of pregnancy (about 14 to 24 weeks), state laws may regulate abortion procedures in order to protect the woman's health. This means that women can be !@#$%^&*ured that clinics which offer abortion services are regulated to ensure that safe medical procedures are followed.

 

During the last part of pregnancy (after about 24 weeks), and after the fetus is viable (developed enough to survive outside the mother's womb), state laws may prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Most states (40 states and the District of Columbia) have passed laws to prohibit post-viability abortions under most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. In fact, there are only a few doctors nationwide who offer post-viability abortion care to women who need it to save their life or health.

 

The aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision

The reaction to Roe was swift. Supporters of legal abortion rejoiced and generally felt their battle was won. However, others faulted the Court for a decision they viewed as immoral. Those opposed to legal abortion immediately began working at the grassroots and national level to prevent any federal or state funding for abortion and to undermine or limit the effect of the decision. Some turned to measures directly aimed at disrupting the sites where abortions were being performed. Their tactics have included demonstrating in front of abortion clinics, har!@#$%^&*ing people trying to enter, vandalizing clinic property, and blocking access to the clinics. As time passed, the level of anti-choice violence escalated. Increasingly, clinic bombings, physical attacks, and even murders endanger abortion providers and create a hostile environment for women seeking abortions.

 

Retreat from Roe v. Wade

Initially, the framework of Roe v. Wade served as the basis by which the cons!@#$%^&*utionality of state laws related to abortion was determined. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has begun to allow more restrictions on abortion. For instance, the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 established that states can restrict pre-viability abortions, even in the first trimester in ways that are not medically necessary, as long as such restrictions do not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion services. Thus many states now have restrictions in place such as requirements that young pregnant women involve their parents or a judge in their abortion decisions, that mandated waiting periods be observed between the time a woman first visits an abortion provider and when the abortion can be performed, and that scripts with information designed to frighten women and discourage women from having abortions be presented. Only the requirement that a woman involve her spouse in her decision was disallowed.

 

The Uncertain Future of Roe v. Wade

Right now, women's freedom of choice is hanging by a thread. Today the Supreme Court supports a woman's right to choose by a slim 5-4 margin. Over the next few years, the likelihood that two or more anti-choice Justices could be appointed is very high. If just one Justice who currently supports Roe is replaced by one who does not, Roe could be reversed. If this were to happen, women would be forced to return to the days of unsafe and illegal back-alley abortions. We must work to ensure that access to safe abortion care remains a legal right for all women before it is too late.

 

Common Myths About the History of Abortion in America

MYTH: In 1973, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal for the first time in American history.

 

FACT: Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived on our shores until the mid- to late 1800's, when states began passing laws that made it illegal. Although a few states had liberalized their abortion laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the right to have an abortion was finally made available to all American women when the Supreme Court ruling in 1973 struck down the remaining restrictive state laws.

 

MYTH: The founding fathers never intended for abortion to be allowed in the United States.

 

FACT: At the time the Cons!@#$%^&*ution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" (the stage of pregnancy when the mother can feel fetal movement in the womb) were openly advertised and commonly performed. Abortion was something that the founding fathers would have been aware of, and presumably, they would not have remained silent about it if they had intended for the government to involve itself in this aspect of the private lives of its citizens.

 

MYTH: In the 1800's, abortion was outlawed because it was so dangerous.

 

FACT: During this time in history, all surgical procedures, including abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive medical educations. Without the technology that we take for granted today, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other surgeries that were not outlawed.

 

As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care on the whole became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them from illegal prac!@#$%^&*ioners without these medical advances at their disposal. The "back-alley" abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved dramatically.

 

MYTH: Abortion was outlawed because it is immoral.

 

FACT: The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state, and included fears that soon the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. But the strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent "untrained" prac!@#$%^&*ioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees.

 

The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these compe!@#$%^&*ors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical !@#$%^&*ociation (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. This campaign was successful, and by 1910, all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor's judgment, to save the woman's life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a "physicians-only" practice.

 

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services. It is noteworthy that obscenity, abortion, and contraception should be so linked at a time when society deemed women incapable of making legally and socially responsible decisions and the law classified any attempts of women to make reproductive choices as unacceptable.

 

MYTH: During the period when abortion was illegal, abortion was effectively outlawed and the safety of pregnant women was ensured.

 

FACT: Criminalization of abortions did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year1, although, of course, no accurate records could be kept of illegal procedures. What is known is that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained prac!@#$%^&*ioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.

 

It should be noted that during this time some women obtained relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors.

 

This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. Later, the rate of reported abortions began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations.

 

Today, pro-choice advocates who fight for continued access to safe, legal abortion for all women often are motivated by their understanding of the consequences of criminalized abortion. We know from history that whenever abortion has been illegal, women have still attempted and succeeded in ending unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, they have often suffered serious health problems or died in the process. While the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was an important turning point in protecting women from unsafe abortion, an understanding of the pre-Roe v. Wade years is critical for making intelligent public policy decisions regarding reproductive health care in the future.

 

Timeline of Reproductive Rights Up to Roe v. Wade

1821: Connecticut passes the first law in the United States barring abortions after "quickening".

 

1860: Twenty states have laws limiting abortion.

 

1965: Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision strikes down a state law that prohibited giving married people information, instruction, or medical advice on contraception.

 

1968: Colorado, North Carolina, and California liberalize their abortion laws.

 

1970: Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington make abortion available at the request of a woman and her doctor.

 

1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives.

 

1973: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision strikes down state laws that made abortion illegal.

 

Compiled from:

Anderson, D.E. Newsroom Guide to Abortion and Family Planning, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The Communications Consortium Media Center, 1996.

 

Reproductive Freedom in the Courts: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Privacy and Reproductive Rights. New York: The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 1995.

 

A doctor describes her experience at a county hospital before Roe v. Wade:

 

"[Hospitals] had to have beds all up and down the hallways. They were always full [because of illegal abortions]. They must have had one hundred and forty beds in those wards...in [a twenty four hour] period, you'd get ten to twelve admissions. They walked into the emergency room bleeding. The first thing the doctor down there did was send them for an X-ray to see what was in their belly-to see if there were knitting needles, hooks, catheters up their belly." 2

 

A doctor describes a twenty-two year old patient whom he treated for septic shock following an illegal abortion in the 1950's:  

"[T]he infection is so overwhelming, the bacteria produce toxins that lead to a collapse of the cardiovascular system...One of the tragedies of this septic shock is that people remain lucid until the end, and she was holding my hand, and saying, 'Doctor, help me, I'm dying.' And I knew she was, and I knew there was not a blessed other thing we could do for her...I have been haunted by that girl ever since." 2

 

 

Lets see if anybody actually reads all this -*BAD WORD*-...

I agree. However you ignore one important fact:

 

In 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical surgeons, and therefore led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death (“abortionâ€). Now there is a new proposal to close abortion clinics. This proposal takes away the privacy rights of American women that are guaranteed by our Cons!@#$%^&*ution. By closing abortion clinics the government is not only taking away women’s rights, but is also punishing those whom want to exercise their right of a pro-choice woman.

Abortion clinics allow thousands of women every year to have abortions. Having the abortion should be woman’s personal choice. By closing these clinics, there will be no providers to perform the operation, so the choice has already been made for them. Closing the clinics will increase the barriers of having an abortion. When there are too many obstacles, the right to make their own choice is taken away from them. In 1973 the American Supreme Court ruled that Americans’ right to privacy included: “the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference†(“abortionâ€). The Cons!@#$%^&*ution says we have a right to privacy, so taking away a woman’s chance to make decisions about her own body violates that right.

The American Civil Liberties Union defends the Cons!@#$%^&*ution and peoples’ rights.

ACLU has protected the rights of abortion for women, and in recent years has argued mayor cases opposing restrictions that deny woman access to reproductive health care (“ACLUâ€). Policy 263 states: “The ACLU holds that every woman, as a matter of her right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and privacy, should be free to determine whether and when to bear children.â€(The American Civil Liberties Union)

The closure of abortion clinics will be done with the purpose to reduce the number of abortions. This raises the question whether this will be an effective method or not. Before 1973 abortions were illegal yet the number of women who sought abortions did not decrease (“abortionâ€). Before 1973 many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to perform their own abortions, or going to untrained doctors who performed cheap abortions with uncivilized methods or in unsanitary conditions (The Abortion Law Homepage.). If clinics are closed, women will still continue to attempt, and succeed, in ending unwanted pregnancies just like before 1973. Women will risk their health and possibly even their lives. By keeping these abortions clinics open it ensures a higher probability that the women who do have abortions will be in a safe, sanitary environment, and therefore injuries will be fewer in number.

If clinics are shut, the waiting lists of abortion clinics in other countries will be much longer. Women will have to wait longer to get an abortion, and will be treated later in their pregnancy which is much more dangerous for the pregnant women.

Pro-life activists claim that the unborn baby is alive and has feelings when the heart begins beating. But, the heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day (“Fetusâ€). They also say that women who have abortions are “murderersâ€. This problem could be solved by keeping abortion clinics open, because then the woman can be treated before the twenty fifth day when the fetus is not yet a living baby. She will not have to wait because of long waiting lists, but instead will have the abortion as soon as possible with as less psychological pain.

If a woman has to travel to another country to have a legal abortion, she will have to pay more money. She will now not only have to pay for the abortion itself, but also the traveling costs and that does not include the psychological costs as well. Not all people can afford these costs. So by keeping clinics open more women will have the chance to exercise their right and have their desired abortion. If a working woman or student suddenly has to leave the country, this means she will have to think of excuses and lies for an explanation. This is not fair to the woman, she should not have to explain herself to anyone, it is her body and therefore she can do what she wants, she does not need other people’s consult.

Abortion clinics are not a “butcher’s place†where young babies are murdered. They provide a choice for women whether or not to bring a child into this world.

What is worse: taking away the life of an unborn child that is not even aware of life itself yet, or a mother bringing an unwanted child into this world, knowing that she will not be able to take care of it, and that her child will have to suffer from the poor cir-*BAD WORD*-stances in which she lives. As of now the woman has the ability to make that choice and save the child from poor, possibly abusive or hate filled environment. Personally I feel that living in a cir-*BAD WORD*-stance such as abuse is worse than the abortion of the fetus. Rape victims

should also be able to have an abortion because they know that if they were to keep the child, they would cringe when she thought about whom contributed to the other half of the child. The offspring will be a painful reminder to the rape victim. She did not choose to take the responsibility of a child and therefore should not have to pay the consequences. A woman who cannot love her child has no right to have a baby in the first place.

One option for women who are not able to take care of their baby is adoption. Yet she will have to carry the baby for nine months and then give it up. Not all women are able to do this physically or psychologically. After the pregnancy she will have to hope that their baby will find a good and loving home. And this is not always the case. The child will possibly have to suffer from living in orphanages waiting to get adopted. Adoption can not always be seen as a good solution to unwanted pregnancies.

The advantage of closing abortion clinics could be that woman will be forced to take the responsibility over their baby, and give their unborn child the right to life. But it can not be seen as something entirely positive. The mother will always regard the child as a “mistake†and will never love it the way she would have if she had wanted to keep the child. Getting an abortion does not always mean that the woman is only thinking of herself, she also thinks on behalf of her baby. Abortion clinics do not make the choice easier, nor do they force the woman into the surgery. People who are against abortion having the choice not to have one. It is not fair to take away the choice of people who do want one.

Quotation:

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) !@#$%^&*umptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos 7

 

 

 

Overview:

The press, religious leaders, and others often emphasize uncompromising differences between pro-life and pro-choice beliefs. But, in reality, the two sides agree on almost everything: An ovum is alive and contains human DNA. Thus, it is a form of human life.

An ovum is not a human person.

Similarly a spermatozoa is a form of life.

A spermatozoa is not a human person.

At or shortly after conception, a fertilized ovum is a form of human life.

An embryo is a form of human life.

A fetus is a form of human life.

A newborn baby is a form of human life.

A newborn baby is a human person.

Somewhere during the nine months between the ovum-spermatozoa stage and the newborn baby, human personhood begins.

When human personhood begins, an abortion should not be allowed, except under very unusual cir-*BAD WORD*-stances, such as to save the life of the woman, or perhaps to avoid serious long-term injury to the woman.

 

 

The only real difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers involves the question when does human personhood begins. Most pro-lifers believe it happens at conception. Most pro-choicers say that it happens later in pregnancy.

 

This essay describes various beliefs about the start of human personhood.

 

 

 

Background:

Life and personhood are two very different matters. The human ovum (egg) is already clearly alive when it enters the fallopian tubes, many hours or days before it has the opportunity to be fertilized. Women release one about each month between puberty and menopause - a few hundred in a lifetime. Almost all of these are destined to die and be ejected from the body. Unless a couple is having difficulty conceiving, very little thought is given to these hundreds of deaths. Although the ovum is a form of life, there is a consensus that it is not a human person. They are not even considered by scientists to be human organisms.

 

Hundreds of millions of male sperm are liberated during a typical sexual encounter. A few week's worth of ejaculations from a single male would theoretically provide sufficient sperm to double the earth's human population, if each were used to fertilize a separate ovum. Sperm are also clearly alive. Viewing them under a microscope reveals them to be energetic swimmers. Essentially all of these will die within days. Again, unless infertility is a problem, little attention is given to these deaths. An average man produces thousands of sperm a second. At most, a very few during his lifetime will contribute to the formation of a baby. The rest will die. Few men are consciously aware of the loss. Although sperm are very much alive and kicking, there is a consensus that they are not human persons; they are not human organisms.

 

The meeting of sperm and ovum often causes conception. When the first spermatozoa penetrates the wall of the ovum, a barrier is set up which almost inevitably prevents additional spermatozoa from entering. A microphotograph of a typical, just-fertilized ovum is shown here. It has formed a new DNA sequence from the DNA contained in the original sperm and ovum. This also is a form of human life. It is considered by scientists to be the start of a new human organism.

 

If all goes well, the single cell divides in two. This process of division continues.

 

About 72 hours after conception, the embryo has reached the 7 cell-stage, shown here. (The embryo is in the center of the microphotograph, being held between two micro-pipettes.)

 

Among women without an IUD, about 50% of fertilized ovum develop into a baby which is born some nine months later. Some of the rest are aborted. Others, because of genetic imperfections or other reasons, are lost by a miscarriage. Although the exact mechanism by which an IUD functions is not fully known, it seems that the device does not inhibit fertilization, but does prevent pregnancy from beginning by preventing the organism from being implanted in the womb. Thus, for women who use an IUD, almost all of the fertilized ova are expelled from the woman's body.

 

A consensus exists that an infant is the most precious form of life on earth, and needs to be protected under law. The philosophical and religious principle behind the pro-choice/pro-life argument is: when does human personhood begin?. After that event occurs, terminating life is a form of murder which many people believe can only be justified to prevent the death of the mother, to prevent permanent disability, or to prevent extremely serious injury. Some would also allow an abortion in cases of rape or incest.

 

Unfortunately, there is no consensus of when human personhood starts.

 

Science can tell us, with increasing detail, the processes that start with a sperm and ovum and end up with a newborn baby. But it cannot tell us:

 

Does the fetus have a soul?

When do the products of conception become a person?

Does a zygote have a full set of human rights?

Is an ovum and sperm a person?

Is abortion murder?

 

These are questions with philosophical, religious and political aspects. Science cannot contribute a great deal towards resolving them. And because these questions have a religious component, there will always be a wide variety of beliefs among persons in different faith groups.

 

Some indication of the lack of consensus is listed below:

 

Most people in the pro-life camp believe that human personhood happens at conception. That is, a just-fertilized egg (as shown in the image above) is a full human being and should be protected as such. The reasons for this belief vary: Some pro-lifers hold this belief because of their religious faith. Their denomination or religion teaches that a soul enters the just-fertilized egg at the instant of conception. The cell becomes a human person at that time because of the presence of the soul. The concept of a soul is a religious one; it cannot be located, weighed, seen, smelled, felt, measured, or otherwise detected by any known instrument. This argument is not particularly convincing to almost all Atheists, Humanists and others who do not believe that souls exist. It is also not convincing to those religious folk who believe that a soul enters the body later in gestation or even after birth.

Other pro-lifers point out that shortly after conception, a unique DNA code is formed which will remain unchanged through the life of the fetus, and throughout the potential life after birth. Scientists define this event as the start of a human organism. They might define all human organisms as human persons. Specifically, they might believe that the presence of a unique DNA code converts the egg into a human person. But others disagree. A skin scraping of a child or adult contains a very large number of living, single cells; each has the same unique human DNA code as does the human from which it came. Scottish scientists have been able to start with a cell removed from the mammary tissue of a sheep, inject it into a sheep ovum whose DNA has been removed, and produce "Dolly," a new sheep who is genetically identical to her "parent." This same procedure has been replicated for many other mammals. It is likely that the same procedure can be used to clone a human. DNA from skin scraping, or a swab of the inside of the mouth, or a hair follicle could be used to produce exact twins of the donor human. Wired Magazine for 2001-JAN predicted that human cloning would happen during the year 2001, even though it violates the medical ethic regulations of many countries. Since a just-fertilized egg contains human DNA information as does a hair follicle, they presumably should both be given the same status. We don't consider hair follicles, skin scrapings or swabs from mouths to be a human person. Skeptics might argue that we should not look upon fertilized ova as persons either.

Almost everyone agrees that a newborn child is a human person. [The original version of this essay said that "everyone agreed." However, the author had overlooked Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton University, who believes that personhood only comes weeks after birth. He seems to be alone in this belief among professionals, although some aboriginal religious share his belief.] One can work backwards in time through the birth process, fetal development, embryo growth, and finally end up at the just-fertilized ovum: the start of a human organism. Prior to that point, there was no human organism; there was just an ovum and one very lucky sperm. Conception is the first point where a single, living human organism exists that has a good chance to grow and become a newborn. The just-conceived ovum is simply the earliest stage of human development; it is what human persons look like about 9 months before we are born. Again, skeptics would disagree. They would say that the DNA strand is the beginning of the process. One merely needs to extract one from a hair follicle or skin scraping, place it in the right environment (an ovum which is free of genetic material), implant it in a womb and watch it develop into a newborn. They would argue that a just-fertilized ovum consists of a DNA strand (which makes it human) inside a replicating machine. If it is considered a human person because of its DNA strand, then hair follicles and cells from skin scrapings should also be considered to be human persons.

Other pro-lifers are reluctant to define the advent of personhood at a later point than conception, because this might lead to a "slippery slope" situation in which abortions would be legal at progressively later times in gestation.

 

Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote in one of his biological treatises 1 that the male embryo develops a human soul about 40 days after conception, whereas a female fetus acquires its soul at about 90 days. For much of its history, the Christian Church believed in this, delayed-ensoulment principle and allowed abortions up to 90 days into pregnancy.

Some pro-choicers believe that this transition to personhood does not happen at conception. They state that the just-fertilized ovum has no limbs; no head; no brain; no ability to see, hear, smell, taste or touch; no internal organs, no self-consciousness, no ability to think, reason, sense its environment, etc. Even at the age of one month, it cannot be distinguished from the embryo of a cat or dog. Some different beliefs about when personhood begins are: A few hours after conception when the ovum splits into two cells. Some regard human personhood as being defined by the first act of cell splitting.

About 12 days from conception when pregnancy begins. i.e. when the fertilized ovum has developed to the blastocyst stage and has attached itself to the lining of the uterus.

About two weeks from conception when a yellow streak develops in the embryo. This will later become the neural tube which will be protected by the backbone. Once this develops, it is impossible for the embryo to split into a pair of identical twins. The concept of personhood implies a single en!@#$%^&*y; twins would be two persons. Before this stage of development, the embryo may still split and become two persons.

3 weeks from conception when the embryo is about 2 mm long and has started to develop visible external body parts.

4 weeks when its heart starts to beat.

6 weeks from conception, when brain waves can be first sensed.

2 months, when the fetus has lost its neck structures which resemble gill slits, and its tail. Its face resembles that of a primate.

3 months the fetus begins to "look like" a baby. The recent development of high resolution 3-D ultrasound equipment provides incredibly detailed pictures of the fetus at this stage. These photographs are convincing many people that the fetus is a human person at this stage because it looks like one. 9

4 months when the fetus' face has developed to the point where one can tell one fetus from another.

About 24 weeks, when the fetus becomes viable, (i.e. able to live outside the womb). When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered: "If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn’t happen with an embryo." 8

6 months or later, when the fetal brain's higher functions become operational. Scientists have: " measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming at 8 months gestation." 2 Carl Sagan discusses this point in his final book. He suggests that the one factor that is uniquely human is our ability to think. Thus we become persons when the cerebral cortex is in place and "large-scale linking up of neurons" begins. This does not start until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy -- the sixth month.

Judaism has traditionally taught that the fetus becomes a person when it half-emerges from its mother's body during childbirth.

 

A few pro-choicers believe that the fetus becomes a human person only after it has been delivered and is breathing on its own as a separate individual. There is some Biblical justification for this belief. Genesis 2:7 states that God made Adam's body from the dust of the ground. But it was only after God "breathed into it the breath of life" that "man became a living person." They may be reluctant to consider a fetus that is about to be delivered as human, because that might result in a "slippery slope" argument that would criminalize abortions at gradually earlier gestational ages. Pro-lifers would reject these arguments totally. An about-to-be-delivered fetus is fully capable of living on its own as an independent human; it is thus a person.

 

No consensus and no compromise appears possible:

 

To a person who believes that a human person is created at conception, abortion is a form of murder. Some pro-life individuals and organizations have suggested that an abortion clinic is the ethical equivalent to a Nazi death camp. They have suggested that embryo research is the equivalent of the fabrication of lampshades made from human skin in those same death camps. Some pro-lifers suggest that delaying personhood beyond conception is analogous to the thought processes of slave owners. Afro-American slaves were once recognized as forms of human life, but not regarded as full persons. Similarly, during the Shoah -- the Holocaust -- Jews were considered as sub-human.

To a person who believes that human personhood begins at the start of the second trimester or later, a first trimester abortion (i.e. during the three months following conception) is a regrettable option, but often the most ethical choice for a pregnant woman who does not wish to continue pregnancy for emotional, mental, physical or economic reasons.

 

The medical profession appears to follow the viability criteria. Medical societies enforce regulations prohibiting essentially all abortions after (typically) 20 or 21 weeks of pregnancy. The US Supreme Court also seems to have used fetal viability as a significant event; it allows states to prohibit abortions after viability for a wide range of reasons.

 

Public opinion surveys give conflicting results, depending upon the exact questions asked. It would appear that a significant majority of adults in the US and Canada agree that a woman should have free access to a safe abortion in at least the first trimester.

 

 

 

Legislative action:

In the each year from 1999 to 2002, an Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) passed the House with a substantial majority, but was defeated in the senate. The law defines a fertilized ovum, an embryo, and a fetus as a full human person at any stage of development from conception to birth. The law is concern about damage or death to the products of conception as a result of violence. In 2003, the law was introduced into the Senate and is expected to become law.

 

 

Ha ha I can write more -*BAD WORD*- than you

[Bacchus]

ok, i have one more question:

 

Wtf were waiting for posting this -*BAD WORD*-!? thk you both (poop particularly) for all this input, this is very edifying. I read all this -*BAD WORD*- and the chronology (read history...contingency...) helped a lot.

 

 

note: Plz refrain from quoting each other...quotes aren't legal in -*BAD WORD*- posting contests. tks.

 

seriously though, i'd like links and backgrounds on those posts...some sources (for personal curiosity) would be great. Thks in advance.

 

Bacc

[Guest feef]

I appreciate the history lesson, but do a search and you'll be presented with very different interpretations. And they all claim to have the facts. As a neutral party, I saw right through your attempts to demonize the other side.

 

And, btw, whoever mentioned the ACLU: I like the work they do on copyright and other issues, but they're less interested in Civil Liberties and more interested in imposing a secular ideology. I'm an atheist and I live a very secular life, but I'm not blinded by ideology either. The ACLU is. I consider them to be as dangerous as the Christian Coalition.

[madhaha]

Points of consideration:

 

Formatting on this forum is minimal.

Linking on this forum is easy.

Deliberately quoting vast chunks of text unnecessarily is considered rude.

[MonteZuma]

ok, i have one more question:

 

Wtf were waiting for posting this -*BAD WORD*-!?  thk you both (poop particularly) for all this input, this is very edifying.   I read all this -*BAD WORD*- and the chronology (read history...contingency...) helped a lot.

 

 

note:  Plz refrain from quoting each other...quotes aren't legal in -*BAD WORD*- posting contests.  tks.

 

seriously though, i'd like links and backgrounds on those posts...some sources (for personal curiosity) would be great.  Thks in advance.

 

Bacc

Do a google phrase search. I think mine was a plagiarism/school essay site. Not an authoritative souce by any means.

 

Monte.

 

PS. Are the -*BAD WORD*--posting rules posted anywhere?