Joshua McCracken on Nov 19, 2007 at 12:08 AM:

Read the article again. I said that what another person does is really none of your business, including abortion. And I will again say that until you can give me conclusive proof that a jumble of cells with the POTENTIAL to become a human being (one word: miscarriage) are self aware, then I will rethink these views. And your pet candidate, Ron Paul, has gone on record saying that while he personally does not support abortion, he believes that it is an issue that the STATES should decide, not the government. Frankly, I believe I also made clear my belief that third trimester abortion is not right, so your illustration is rendered void in light of this. Personally, I find even second trimester abortion appalling, and while I would never encourage anyone to have an abortion, I sure as hell wouldn't crucify them if they decided to do it. Compare it to murder all you like, however according to science, which is the voice that a person should be listening to in a country WHICH CLEARLY SEPARATES CHURCH FROM STATE, there is no reason to believe that a fetus is self aware in any way during the first and part of the second trimesters. End of story.

Joshua McCracken on Nov 19, 2007 at 12:27 AM:

After re-reading the original article, I realize that I did not mention third trimester abortion. Aside from being ILLEGAL (since many scientists do consider that a time in which a fetus is self aware), that can also be judged as immoral. I apologize for this error, but my beliefs still stand. And I'd also like to go on record as saying that if people cannot individually make choices for themselves, then the road to fascism is not a long one for this country.

Johanan Raatz on Nov 19, 2007 at 07:04 AM:

"Compare it to murder all you like, however according to science, which is the voice that a person should be listening to in a country WHICH CLEARLY SEPARATES CHURCH FROM STATE,"

No that's wrong. In as far as science is concerned a human life begins at fertilization. In so far as personhood is concerned it doesn't say anything as personhood is a philosophic rather than scientific concept. If you want a definition of personhood that it empiricially definable however you'll have to pick the one that says it starts at fertilization.

As for the separation of church and state thing. Let me tell you that my views opposing abortion and supporting fetal rights would not change in the slightist if I became a atheist of agnostic tommorrow.

And I'd also like to go on record as saying that if people cannot individually make choices for themselves, then the road to fascism is not a long one for this country.

If your going talk about abortion and fascism in the same context. I would suggest that abortion quantitatively speaking has killed more people than fascism has. If you take Hitler out of the mix this becomes even more evident. So it's silly scare fetal rights advocates out of opposing abortion because it might lead to so-called "fascism."

Johanan Raatz on Nov 19, 2007 at 07:09 AM:

Excellent article Zach. One thing I never quite understand is how anti-fetal rights proponents think they can come to an objective definition of personhood if they define as starting at arbitrary times that don't correspond to biology. Simply saying a baby isn't a baby because of a capricious legal or social definition doesn't make it so.

Johanan Raatz on Nov 19, 2007 at 09:06 AM:

"there is no reason to believe that a fetus is self aware in any way during the first and part of the second trimesters."

Your not aware during sleep, but your still a person when your sleeping.

Joshua McCracken on Nov 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM:

On that same note, claiming that a jumble of cells is a human being does not make it so. Any abortion within the first month after conception is merely that, a jumble of cells with the POTENTIAL for life. Finally, if you read the article again, I am supporting the right to CHOOSE, not the practice of abortion. Again, I would never encourage anyone to have an abortion, but I would never, ever say that they can't have one simply because I don't agree. And if you would like to talk about the ratio of aborted fetus deaths to fascist deaths, until you are able to come up with even a ballpark figure for either one I'm afraid that argument is null and void. Abortion has been happening since civilization began. Are you aware that when Columbus was on his reign of terror in America, an entire population of Indians purposely aborted every single pregnancy they had for 12 years so that the children would not have to live as slaves? Sometimes, as much as I hate to admit it, abortion is the only option to avoid further suffering for a potential human being, and again, while I may not personally support the idea of abortion, I will defend to the death the right of people to have them.

Johanan Raatz on Nov 19, 2007 at 08:21 PM:

"Finally, if you read the article again, I am supporting the right to CHOOSE, not the practice of abortion."

I understand and I am not suggesting you are saying this. My point is that by personally opposing abortion but being in favor of keeping it legal you are essentially supporting prenatal discrimination. It's like the moderates during the time of civil rights movement who were personally opposed to racial discrimination but didn't seem to have a problem with others discriminating. In a moral context if one views something as discriminatory one should oppose it.

"On that same note, claiming that a jumble of cells is a human being does not make it so. Any abortion within the first month after conception is merely that, a jumble of cells with the POTENTIAL for life."

Well the biology isn't quite how you describe.First of all it's not potential life. The biology is very clear on this. A leading scientist in genetics even pointed this out. Secondly by the time abortions are done in the first trimester (ie. not at the embryonal stage) the fetal child is still moderately well developed, and may even have rudimentary levels of awareness.

As for the clump of cells assertion. Yes embryos look more like soccer balls than humans but that is tangential to their personhood. Personhood is a philosophic concept and depending on ones defintion it can include human embryos or it might not, but cases can be made on philosophic not religious grounds for these defintions.

"And if you would like to talk about the ratio of aborted fetus deaths to fascist deaths, until you are able to come up with even a ballpark figure for either one I'm afraid that argument is null and void."

Alright, 48 million in the US so far for abortion, and about 40 million for the worst case of fascism. If you exclude Nazism as a statistical aberration the average for fascism is usually well under a million.

"Abortion has been happening since civilization began. Are you aware that when Columbus was on his reign of terror in America, an entire population of Indians purposely aborted every single pregnancy they had for 12 years so that the children would not have to live as slaves?"

Yes I know. But until fairly recently (in historical terms) it's been considered barbaric by enlightened Western societies, and the current support for it does not seem to originate from the Western enlightenment tradition but from an influx of post-modern influence into society.

"Sometimes, as much as I hate to admit it, abortion is the only option to avoid further suffering for a potential human being, and again,"

I understand it might do that, but future suffering is not a good reason to kill people. Everyone deserves a shot at life even if it is a crappy one.

"while I may not personally support the idea of abortion, I will defend to the death the right of people to have them."

Why though? I mean I don't see it as a religious issue, and the current arguments I have seen for legal abortion are not convincing. I just don't see how it is a natural right. If it were I would be all for defending it but to me it seems like a fetal rights violation and not a natural right.

Respectfully ~Johanan Raatz

Joshua McCracken on Nov 20, 2007 at 09:18 PM:

I very much respect your views, and your presentation of them gave me a lot of pause for thought, however I still feel that it is a natural right. It may be cruel from the fetus's point of view, but we must also factor in the horrific overpopulation of human beings in this world, and while it is a flimsy excuse for abortion, it is still an excuse. You speak of the post-modern influence in society as if it were a bad thing. While I agree that things are not the way that most of us would like them to be, things do change as time goes on. Who knows Maybe one day abortion will be illegalized again. While I personally do not feel that women who did not think to make their partner's wear a condom should not have abortions to my mind, it is a conflicted issue for me because if they are "forced" to have the child based on the circumstances surrounding conception it seems more like a punishment to the mother than a defense of life, at least in those terms. Personally, while I sincerely doubt that anyone who has debated on this issue in this forum is the type to blow up an abortion clinic or kill an abortion doctor, there has been a great deal of hypocrisy attached to the right to life campaign. Are the right to life people wrong simply because of the extreme tactics taken by some in their numbers? No, of course not. However I do feel that there are much more constructive ways of pushing a point--after seeing 'Jesus Camp' and their horrific manipulation of children for the campaign, I sincerely hoped that this was not the rule for those who disagree with the practice. My entire argument rests on the fact that if I were a gay man, for example, I would not want Jerry Falwell walking in on me with a partner and telling me that what I was doing was a sin against God. He may not personally want to participate, and that is his right, but he does not have a right to stop another person from doing so simply because he doesn't like it. I understand the arguments of those who are pro-life and respect them, however I simply don't agree because I have not only been a victim of the psychological effects of having a point of view forced on me but I have seen the sufferings of others from these views. If anyone in the personal lives of any pro-life proponent is considering abortion, then yes, I encourage them to talk this person out of doing it, because it shows genuine concern for both the child and for the mother. However, I feel that when the problem is applied to people that one doesn't even know, it simply isn't their business. As you said yourself, the moment in which life, as defined by human standards, is purely theory at this point, we have no way of knowing exactly when "life" as defined by a human begins. I would be personally disgusted with anyone who would consider an abortion after 3.5 months, not only because it shows a horrific lack of initiative or concern on the part of the mother but also because after the first trimester I begin to consider a fetus as being self-aware. But again, it is none of my business. Your points are very well made, and much appreciated, but my views remain the same: lack of desire to tell others what to do does not mean that I don't care, it simply means that I do not believe that it is my place to tell them what to do.

Julie Tenpas on Nov 25, 2007 at 02:38 PM:

Guy. you are stupid. You are putting the rights of a fetus above the rights of a living, breathing, human being. I would put some more into this, but you are ridiculous in your thinking. It's a woman's RIGHT because everyone should have a right over their own body. Women, NOT MEN, are constantly susceptible to losing rights over their bodies. It is because we are the ones who have to carry the children. You cannot make a woman have a child she does not want. Plain simple, it is an invasion of someone's privacy and their rights.