After holding a large public ceremony for the signing of the health care bill, President Barack Obama is barring cameras when he signs the executive order needed to secure the votes for the narrow passage: a ban on federal funding of abortion.
Rep. Bart Stupak and his colleagues will attend the signing but no cameras are going to be allowed by the White House. The thirteen members are all pro-life Democrats and the White House has decided that the public should not witness the event.
By the way, Stupak was suddenly given an over $720,000 grant for airports in this district shortly before his vote, here. This has led some to question whether the pro-life order was the only condition of his support.
For the full story, click here.
Related: New form of human life in Russia: not Homo sapiens or Neanderthal
Read more: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1543446.php/New-form-of-human-life-in-Russia-not-Homo-sapiens-or-Neanderthal#ixzz0j9MiOQUb
“Leipzig, Germany – A new species of human life has been discovered in Russia, thanks to DNA tests on a finger bone that was excavated in Siberia, scientists based in Germany said late Wednesday.
The person, estimated to have lived 30,000 years ago, did not belong to the Homo sapiens species, the only form of human life today, but also wasn`t a Neanderthal, a species that died out 35,000 years ago.”
Once again letting us know that, in the grand scheme of things, we have just scratched the surface.
Mike A. said “Thus we have such pro-life lunacies as the assertion that any abortion is the taking of a human life, unless that life is the result of rape or incest.”
Mike A., That just doesn’t make any sense. From a Pro-Life point of view, the determination of “human life” has nothing to do with the preceding act being consentual or not.
Can you provide us with a reference to a pro-life advocate who made such an assertion?
Mike A.,
You are correct about FFLEO and his analysis. I also agree with you regarding your take on the issue of Health Care and Abortion. Canadian Eh makes a valid point as well regarding “Ownership” of the body.
I was reading this, this morning and remembered that a “Saint” has said something about this matter but could not recall who. Thank you for illuminating me as to whom, St. Augustine of Hippo if I recall correctly.
I forgot to add that FFLEO has done an admirable job above at illustrating the problem and providing some much needed focus for rational discussion.
I have expressed my views on the abortion issue on several occasions previously. The debate on this thread suffers from the same deficiencies that have characterized the debate on health care reform, a failure to address first things first.
In the case of health care, the initial issue is one of public policy, specifically, whether health care should be afforded the status of a right. There are those who believe that health care is merely a market commodity, like high definition televisions, and that its availability is subject to supply and one’s ability to pay. If you subscribe to that view, that is all that needs to be said and the debate is at an end. There are others who believe that health care should be the right of every American, and for them the issue is the manner in which that right is to be implemented. The problem is that those opposed to health care reform generally do not wish to be publicly identified with the position that health care is not a right, so they avoid that philosophical issue by concentrating instead on objections to specific proposals by health care reform proponents. The arguments then become tendentious and frequently juvenile, producing idiocies like “death panels” and charges of Marxism.
The same phenomenon occurs in debates over abortion. Here again the fundamental question is one of public policy and is seldom addressed. It is at what stage in the development of a fertilized ovum should the product of conception be given the status of a person under the law? Early Catholic theology, as developed by Augustine and others, treated “quickening,” the point at which movement in the womb can be detected, as the beginnings of human life. Augustine in turn was greatly influenced by the Aristotelian concept of “ensoulment.” In other words, the beginnings of detectible movement meant that God had essentially breathed life into the fetus. Thus abortion prior to quickening was not subject to prosecution under the common law. Many of the early state abortion statutes continued this policy, at least partially because prior to movement by the fetus in the womb, physical proof of fetal life could not be ascertained. But serious discussion of this question has been largely confined to academics. Roe v. Wade didn’t resolve the dilemma due to its reliance on the right of privacy.
On this issue there are those who argue that we should recognize life as “human” from the moment that the unique genetic code is transmitted to the conceptus. Others argue that viability should be the touchstone, but improvements in medical technology make viability a moving target. And there are others who argue that life is only potential human life until a successful delivery occurs and that a woman’s right to privacy remains superior up to that moment. The point is that participants in these debates typically have differing understandings of what constitutes a “human life,” each assumes that his or her definition is the correct one, and the inevitable result is a replay of the Tower of Babel story. Thus we have such pro-life lunacies as the assertion that any abortion is the taking of a human life, unless that life is the result of rape or incest.
In short, the arguments are pointless unless we reach a consensus on first principles and are prepared to accept the implications of that consensus.
Duh,
It was actually meant in a very tongue-in-cheek way. I have to remind myself that not all people get the dry sarcasic sense of humour that we Canadians are known for. I was trying to point out how ridiculous it is for state to intervene in womens’ health issues.
“The point is, that there is not a ” men’s ” health issue that has ever been banned by law, or for that matter even threatened to be banned by law.”
As soon as you can provide me with one that’s applicable, I’ll make sure that it gets addressed. At this point, I don’t find that argument to be persuasive or germaine. This is about the termination of human life. Making it a “tit-for-tat” issue is not a rational argument.
“Men can freely have vasectomies, or use viagra without women being able to oppose that decsion.”
I’m sorry CE. I don’t mean to be mean, but that line of reasoning cannot be properly addressed without coming across as a jerk. I think I’ll bow out.
Duh,
My appologies for my delayed answer…..I needed to feed my sons…whom I continue to provide necessities for as teenagers because I CHOSE to give birth to them 😉
” That’s a bull crap argument. Other than when the woman is carrying an unborn human life, please provide one example of those same men (use me for example if you like) wanting to control the woman. “….Duh
I actually wasn’t referring to you as one of those men. How could I, in the short time that I have read and commented on this blawg you have never given me reason to think that you are disrespectful towards women. I stated ” many men ” and in that statement I was in fact referring to right winged bible thumping types. The point is, that there is not a ” men’s ” health issue that has ever been banned by law, or for that matter even threatened to be banned by law. Men can freely have vasectomies, or use viagra without women being able to oppose that decsion. Ultimately the abortion issue has to do with the state taking control over a womans’ body and taking choice away from her. Perhaps in the future science will develop a means of developing a fetus to full term without needing a womb in order to develop into a viable life. Until that happens we are talking about using a womans body to do something that she may not want, be mature enough, or risk her health to do.
***************
” And if it is abandoned after 9 months, it will still die. If the value of human life depends on survival without assistance (as you’re insinuating) I hope you never suffer a serious accident. “….Duh
You’re absolutely correct once born, a human life depends on others to continue life, this can be accomplished by any responsible adult. As stated above, up until 20 weeks gestation a fetus cannot continue to develop outside of a womans’ body, she is the only one able to assist in further development.
In terms of being in a serious accident, I hope that I never find myself in that situation either. If I do however I have already prepared a living will outlining the circumstances necessary to stop life support because there is no one to stop me from making that choice.
********
” Just because you close your eyes; plug your ears; and keep repeating “I can’t hear you”, that doesn’t mean the fetus is not alive. Nor does it mean that it is not human life. The science is on my side. ” Duh
I’ll defer response to this statement as FFLEO has given the scientific facts above.
*************
” Why such a tough decision if they don’t believe (at least in some way) that they are terminating a human life? You know that it is human life. You know that it is, biologically speaking, life, and you know that it is human. It just takes time to talk yourself into killing it. “…..Duh
Of course there is emotion involved in this decision, it is not socially acceptable in North America for a woman to not want to have babies. Trust me on this one, we have been reared in many ways from childhood to want to have children and be good mothers. Not all us Pro-choicers are Pro-abortion. It might even surprise you to know that I was actually given the option of a 2nd trimester labour induction at 6 months gestation during my second pregnancy. There was cause to believe that my youngest son, while a fetus, had a neuro tube defect and the option was given to me. I CHOSE to continue with the pregnancy. It was a pregnancy created with someone with whom I loved very much at one time, we had the maturity and financial ability to support him had he been born with a birth defect. It was however my choice to make, and that’s what I am arguing. My preference would be towards effective sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, an end to sex crimes, and better medicine to assist with the progression of pregnancies that cause risk to a woman’s life.
**************
” Then at least have the courage to state the facts. An abortion is the termination of a human life. That is a fact. “….Duh
I have courage beyond most peoples scope of understanding. Perhaps you can have the courage to admit that this is a womans’ health issue that laws need to stay out of.
FFLEO,
Thank you for providing us with such a well-reasoned knowledgeable post. You have given me something more to think about.
I often wonder how the Court would rule if Roe v. Wade were to be revisited today. I need to review the briefs and the Courts opinion to see how the current science would conflict with that which was presented.
Duh,
_________________________________
Former Federal LEO
1, June 3, 2009 at 4:16 pm
We humans are all hypocritically biased regarding human life such that Pro-lifers support the death penalty while death penalty opponents support Pro-choice, thus paradoxically sanctioning the taking of the most innocent and unprotected of all human life.
As a retired biological scientist and a 40-year atheist—who is also Pro-choice and a proponent of the death penalty—I think that there should be little substantive scientific disagreement that human life begins in about 8-10 days after the formation of the zygote *once* an embryo attaches to the uterine wall. Forget about unscientifically misusing the continuum of the embryonic developmental process—including gastrulation of the 3 germ layers—for any disingenuous argument regarding the formation of the ‘soul’ or ‘personhood’. Any speculation or preferences of defining human life past the initial stage of pregnancy, beginning with the embryo/uterine interface, becomes strictly philosophical and outside the realm of scientific argument.
Pro-choice people want to ‘make themselves feel good’ by prolonging the definition of human life to the latest stages (28 weeks) of the pregnancy possible to fool themselves into “believing” that they are not “baby killers,” to use the strongest term possible, if they decide to abort their fetus. Pro-life people are more factually correct that human life begins early in the developmental cycle following fertilization. I disagree with them by only 7 to 10 days.
Therefore, the philosophically—not scientifically based—question becomes one of how far society wants its government involved in making private decisions for its citizenry. While I cannot imagine any situation where I would want anyone I love to choose abortion—outside of disease, rape, incest, the health of the mother, etc.—I do *not* want government bureaucrats, who cannot even run their own lives properly, telling a woman that she cannot abort her embryo or fetus at any stage before birth. However, once the placenta forms within 2 weeks—post zygotic fusion—the prospective mother is clearly making a decision to end a potentially viable human life, she should honestly admit that fact, and the current laws give her that right—which I fully support.
In law—as with life in general—there are no perpetuities. As philosophies change, so do the laws that govern our lives. I am often amazed with the potential for perpetuity of our U.S. Constitution, having survived thus far for over 2 centuries. However, the abortion rights ‘decision’ under the right to privacy/ Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment through Roe v. Wade, which I strongly support, is based on hypocritical philosophies, not on scientific fact. As such, the Roe ‘decision’ might unlikely stand the tests of time as well as our other fundamental Bill of Rights have endured because of the scientifically challengeable nature of this definition of viable:
{Quote: Roe v. Wade held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes viable. The Court defined viable as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. End Quote}.
The viability threshold the court references is 28 weeks (7 months) when I think they missed viability by up to 27 weeks too long, disregarding the phrase “…live outside the mother’s womb”. Again, this gives the false impression of validity to the expectant mother who might want to abort her pregnancy before that timeline/threshold, that the baby in her womb is unviable at the stages of a several weeks-old embryo or at the milestone of a recognizable fetus, representing a 2-month-old human. She is actually lying to herself based on precedent law but *not* on sound embryonic science.
Therefore—whether Pro-life or Pro-choice—the fundamental, underlying reasons and claims are hypocritical and neither side has much standing to condemn the others’ ‘beliefs’. I simply think that we must disallow the government and/or religious fanaticism the rights to decide the abortion decision for any woman. However, I will say that even though most Pro-life proponents use religious beliefs instead of science to bolster their claims, the science is ironically on their side of the augment; instead, the so-called moral majority is too blinded by religion to ‘see the light’ of the error of their ways (i.e., their methods of abortion dissent).
For this particular thread and using others’ hyperbolic terms, Dr. Tiller was legally justified in his duties as a “baby killer doctor” and Mr. Roeder deserves the death penalty for murder, which might serve somewhat as a deterrent against future ‘baby killer doctor killers’ and abortion clinic bombers.
Four basic milestones of human embryonic/fetal development providing attribution to my brief essay:
1-week to 10 days: the trophoblastic embryo attaches to the uterus through the placenta initiating a pregnancy. (This is the critical, initializing point I think that establishes human life because the fertilized zygote is *not* a potential viable human if it does not successfully attach to the uterine wall; that is, ectopic pregnancies are unequivocally unviable and are naturally aborted or by physician-assisted means).
3-weeks: the embryo has a primitive heart
2-months: the human *fetus* with recognizable structural features
3-months: the final formation of all vital organs and the compact baby is essentially complete.
” I am just wondering what the difference is between a child 1 week before birth and 1 week after birth, both need the mother to survive. “…..Byron
Actually Byron,
A fetus born at 39 weeks will usually survive birth quite nicely and without future complications ( I have a now 13 yo baby at home as proof ). That being said, abortion is not typically performed after 20 weeks. After 20 weeks gestation OB/GYN’s can perform induced labour & delivery in cases where there are medical complications. The fetus does not usually survive in these cases and their death is treated as in any other death situation….autopcy if necessary and burial.
vlf2112 said “Oh, let me guess – you’re a ‘god-fearing’ christian, aren’t ya?”
Maybe you should start reading from the top.
vlf2112,
I already said that I can accept abortion when a woman is raped. She should not have to accept responsibility for an action that was beyond her control. I respect the right of self-defense.
Canadian Eh said “the root really goes to their need to continue to have control over women.”
That’s a bull crap argument. Other than when the woman is carrying an unborn human life, please provide one example of those same men (use me for example if you like) wanting to control the woman.
“Nature, and the medical community has proven time and time again that a fetus is unable to survive outside of the womb prior to 20 weeks gestation…It is dependant on its host until that time in order to develop into a Life form.”
And if it is abandoned after 9 months, it will still die. If the value of human life depends on survival without assistance (as you’re insinuating) I hope you never suffer a serious accident.
“How then can one “murder” something that is not alive.”
Just because you close your eyes; plug your ears; and keep repeating “I can’t hear you”, that doesn’t mean the fetus is not alive. Nor does it mean that it is not human life. The science is on my side.
“Woman faced with the decision to terminate a pregnancy rarely come to a conclusion easily.”
Why such a tough decision if they don’t believe (at least in some way) that they are terminating a human life? You know that it is human life. You know that it is, biologically speaking, life, and you know that it is human. It just takes time to talk yourself into killing it.
“This is certainly not a black and white issue, and needs to be considered with facts and not emotion.”
Then at least have the courage to state the facts. An abortion is the termination of a human life. That is a fact.
“The ending of human life for personal convenience”
Interesting take. I’ll be sure to tell that to the women I help counsel at the local rape crisis center.
Oh, let me guess – you’re a ‘god-fearing’ christian, aren’t ya? I can tell – your post is just dripping with compassion …
Yet one more example of Obama’s hypocrisy and political/financial bribery (the airport money connection).
Duh,
” The ladies want all the choice; they should have all of the responsibility. ”
I have no problems with this actually…none at all. I absolutely believe that a woman needs to take responsibility for her body at all times. Depending on a man to use birth control effectively is plain and simply stupid. In cases of rape and or incest, who else is going to cover the cost? I would assume that in cases where health of woman or fetus is in danger during a planned pregnancy there would be a partner involved in the decision making process and costs associated with.
Wootsie said “I don’t see where the societal pressures that screamed for the passage of Roe v. Wade have abated…they are still there.”
Only 21% believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. That’s where it is today, and that’s where it was in 1975.
“Procurement of illegal abortions was wreaking more damage by way of infections, increasing black market and other gross things which added danger to the dilemma.”
Are there any other crimes that you want to make legal, just because performing the illegal activity is dangerous?
“Rape and Incest are extremes just as ‘convenience’ is an extreme…and these are probably the least likely scenarios.”
Other than rape/incest or health of the mother, how can you not call it convenience? Yes. Because ‘my mommy will be made’, or ‘because my husband will find out that I cheated’ is convenience.
“Once a woman is pregnant the choices are not simply to have or not to have.”
Please elaborate.
“Much depends on the father of the child”
Except when the father says he doesn’t want to become a father and the woman disagrees.
Who will join me in creating a law that permits the potential father to mitigate his damages by signing away all parental rights, in favor of abortion? He would then only be responsible for half the cost of an abortion should the woman decide to continue the pregnancy. The ladies want all the choice; they should have all of the responsibility.
Looks like at least a couple reporters and photographers were there.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/24/obama.abortion/index.html?hpt=T1
Seems to me the language in HR3590 is the same as in Hyde Amendment..as is the language in the executive order, from what I’ve heard so far.
But..Stupak gets his airtime.
I always find it interesting when men partake in a debate over abortion rights, especially those who are so staunchly against it. They claim ” murder ” and “unGodly ” as the reasons for their opinions, however the root really goes to their need to continue to have control over women. It’s been my experience that these people are the same people who speak out against social welfare systems, and preach abstinence to their children rather than birth control.
Nature, and the medical community has proven time and time again that a fetus is unable to survive outside of the womb prior to 20 weeks gestation, and even at that point the survival rate is incredibly low. It is dependant on its host until that time in order to develop into a Life form. How then can one “murder” something that is not alive.
Woman faced with the decision to terminate a pregnancy rarely come to a conclusion easily. Most women do not use abortion as a form of birth control. The decision is often based on their belief that the quality of future life for the fetus will be substandard at most. There are also health related issues which sometimes need to be considered during a pregnancy, both for the woman and for the fetus.
This is certainly not a black and white issue, and needs to be considered with facts and not emotion.
Personally I am glad that Obamma is trying to keep his terrible decsion out of the public eye because I certainly hope as few people as possible are witness to it. I would hate to see this stance become contagious in countries that continue to value the rights of women.