To me, holding that a fetus of a month is the same as a fetus of 7 or

[cali]

8 or 9 months, is as illogical as saying that a fetus of a month is the same as a month old infant.

I don't support the late term abortion of a healthy fetus unless the health of the mother could be impacted negatively because I don't see a fetus that can exist outside of the womb in the same light as a fetus that can't. Yes, that's a blurry line, and no I don't see a fetus as a child.

[rfranklin]

1. Logic does not sway the fundamentalists...

They know what they believe and that's all they want to know.

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Which is why we either defeat them or fall under their rule

No compromise is possible.

[David__77]

2. What should be the criteria for imposing criminal penalties?

That's where things get tripped up... six months?

[Lasher]

3. Are you speaking legally?

or just expressing your opinion?

[cali]

4. uh, the "to me" should have clued you in.

[peacebird]

5. to me a fetus is just a parasite until it is capable of existing outside the womb

I called my beloved son "my little parasite" for the entire pregnancy.

[Lyric]

6. Since there's no such thing as a legal, frivolous, late-term abortion

I support the rights of women and their doctors to determine what's appropriate medical treatment and what isn't.

Saying that I oppose the late-term abortion of a healthy fetus is like saying that I oppose driving on the left side of a two-lane road. Having an opinion on it isn't necessary, because it's already both illegal and HIGHLY unlikely to happen except for emergencies.

[CTyankee]

OF COURSE!!!

I am so sick and tired of hearing about "partial birth abortion" from people who don't know sh*t about women's pregnancies...my daughter had a very serious pregnancy problem and would have died along with her fetus at 8 months gestation. They performed an emergency C-section and all was well. She had HELLP syndrome which causes the pregnant woman's liver to collapse.

A scary time for our family I can tell you...

[donheld]

18. +1000

[uppityperson]

22. +1000

[David__77]

7. And what should the criminal penalty be, and directed against whom?

I guess that's the real question I have. I just cannot fathom actually prosecuting someone for late term abortion. If the government should - then would the woman also be legally liable; if not, why not?

[REP]

8. Neat!

Thanks for sharing your "impactful" opinion. You DO know that third term abortions only happen in the case of fetal demise or threat to the woman's health, right? Oh, you didn't. Now you do.

[HereSince1628]

10. I'm pro-choice but, it depends on your ability to parse...it's psuedoscience to say

that _Homo sapiens_ fetuses at any number of weeks of development are not _Homo sapiens_. There is nothing on the planet that a _Homo sapiens_ fetus is biologically MORE like than a _Homo sapiens_.
So I'm sitting here contemplating how a PhD in Biology makes me think differently, how very unpopular this reply is about to be.

Humaness and personhood and the LEGAL distinctions belonging to these states of being are an entirely different matter. I'm pro-choice and I recognize the importance of those legal distinctions and accept them. Please don't get me wrong.

But I personally feel that using developmental differences in what are quintessentially legal arguments about humaness and personhood is merely a matter of convenience. The nature of what must be an arbitrary point of assignment of the rights to personhood and humaness will probably never adequately reflect scientific issues that would surround recognition of biological individuality.

I also think that Catholic argumentation that 'life' begins at conception is ridiculous, because it completely ignores the reality of the human life-cycle. Unfortunately that leaves me saying "Life" actually began 4ish billion years ago, and I absolutely refuse to NOT see human sperm and human ova as living cells descended from those origins. Yes, they are haploid but they certainly are not dead. No, they are not persons and they don't have the legal protections of persons.

[ZombieHorde]

11. Are finger nails homo sapeins?

What makes an arrangement of atoms a human?

[HereSince1628]

13. If you want to pursue THAT line you should check out

the notion of the role of the individual in biology and in particular you would want to read the ideas of Adanson.

[ZombieHorde]

20. How often can I speak to someone who has a Phd. in biology?

What exactly makes an arrangement of atoms a human? Is it merely the presence of human DNA?

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Are it a parasite, or a collection of cells?

If it's a parasite, what species is it?

If a collection of cells, obviously at some point it transitions into something more.

[Mojeoux]

12. If Your going to call yourself Christian, Fundamentalists Don't Get GOD loves Women as Much as Men

If your God is some scary guy smoting and smiting and turning people into pillars of salt, or a fearful entity that demands human (females) sacrifice, you totally miss the best point of the Christ story.

He said God is Love. Following the logic of love, God would not make Women have a built-in booby trap, a reproductive ticking time bomb.

It is misogynist thinking in the end. Part of the good old days was women being ashamed about having un-married sex. That kept women alone and in her place.


Note how they dissed pregnant unmarried Natalie Portman as she won her Oscar for best actress!
The obvious retort was, "well Duh! Should she have gotten an Abortion?"

The thing is, the RW Teabags want it all. They want women back in what they see as the
"the Women's Place." They want control of the reproduction of humans.


The Chinese Government does it with Chinese humans.

[ZombieHorde]

15. What makes your opinions on God's feelings more credible than fundamentalists' opinions? nt

[Mojeoux]

19. Good Q ZombieHorde

I would say it is the logic of love. The same book that say they believe every word of and that they pick and pull answers to suit their needs has a huge proviso in the New Testament.
The Christ story, whether He was a "HE" or just a "he", was and is the most clearly articulated expression of the Love of a God.
Over the past 100 years, science has compounded the evidence that love is essential to humans.
They've proved that all mammals have this need for affection and attention to thrive.

If they base their attempted manipulations of our laws on the Bible, then they are hiding or missing the point. This may be because of some of the misogynist parts of the Old Testament.

I was brought up Catholic and I know that until the 1970s, the Catholic part of Ireland did not start giving women pain medication in childbirth, because they interpreted the holy book to say that women should suffer.


Love, that is the reason I am right and they are wrong.

[Kceres]

16. Technically there is no such thing as a one-month fetus.

Unless you're talking about the end of the first semester. It is a embryo from conception until eight weeks of development. Just saying...

[On the Road]

17. You Wouldn't Know it from Either Pro- or Anti-Abortion People

Anti-abortion groups routinely use photos of third trimester fetuses in advertising, when they are pretty much fully developed -- ignoring the fact that abortions at this stage are not even protected under Roe v Wade unless the mother's life is in danger. Planned Parenthood actually has a reasonable argument that a fetus near the end of the second trimester is not yet human and should not have a standing that outweighs the right to privacy -- but it's buried in their web page, and you would never know unless you specifically looked for it. The anti-abortion arguments themselves could apply just as well to any stage of pregnancy.

The question in my mind is not whether abortion should be legal -- of course it should. It's a question of when. The anti-abortion folks IMO are asking the right question when they say it's a child, not a choice -- they're just giving the wrong answer.

The Supreme Court held that abortions were protected until the fetus was viable outside the womb, at the end of the second trimester. That is a strange standard, since it ignores the question of when a fetus becomes human, and is dependent on medical technology. If in the future a fetus were able to be kept alive after six *weeks*, would it make sense to protect abortions only up to six weeks? Or should abortions be protected until a baby *was* able to survive outside the womb based on 1970-era technology?

Once a fetus grows into a human being, IMO it should be protected. Abortions need to take place before that point. But a lot of people shy away from that question -- it's a matter of judgement and interpretation, and no matter what your viewpoint, there *is* no clear guideline. That's why it's uncomfortable.

Death is usually defined by the death of brain function, so perhaps the beginning of life should be, too. Before the fourth month at least, brain function probably isn't well developed enough to define a human being. But by the sixth month, babies can be born prematurely and survive. So the cutoff for conitutional protection should probably be somewhere during the second trimester. I understand that some European countries use the midpoint. Maybe that's better; in any case, it should be decided by science, not belief or demagoguery.

[immoderate]

21. I don't think science knows the exact date.

A woman with her doctor's advice really knows better.

--imm

[uppityperson]

23. What is "pro-abortion..people"?