@ Lauralee: it has nothing to do with you not copying and pasting. It has everything to do with science being a process. Your inability to place the DNA as belonging to the mother father or the child is why viability/personhood is a line in the sand. In science an egg and a sperm are both cells carrying DNA belonging to either the mother or the father AND they are cells carrying DNA belonging to a new person. I fully agree too– much needs to be done to reduce the number of abortions. I support all standard means aimed to reduce abortions. I also believe in reaching out to the thousands who struggle raising the children they chose to have, and the improvement of facilities that house children without a good home.

I respect your position and all who chimed in.

And Sarah Palin totally blows.

It seems to me that, in the end, Lauralee is pro-choice, since she understands that the whole thing is a “sticky issue” that “will never be agreed upon”. So, pro-choice, it is.

And, yes, a woman has her “life” after she has been raped. For a lot of rape victims, this is not much of a life. It is one filled with various emotional road blocks, and in some cases, pretty bad PTSD. I work with a lot of girls who have been raped and I still stand by my statement that forcing these girls to carryout one of the consesquences and reminders of their brutal attack (and it is brutal) is cruel and unusual punishment.

More women than you know have gotten abortions. Maybe some in your family, Maybe in your church. And it’s a hard personal decision. No one made it with ease, or without a lot of thought. And it is SO personal. I cannot stress that enough. I believe it is so much like the euthanasia argument, and it sickens me that it is so hyper politicized. You can cite whichever laws about personal property and all the tricky wording that is part of Roe V. Wade, these tough decisions that these girls’ make should not be exploited.

And those of us who are pro life, God bless you, and please focus on living your life that way and not trying to force other women to do the same. Instead we can work together on lowering abortions with proper sex education and access to contraception and birth control. We should not teach abstinence only and then act surprised when so many teens are pregnant.

So tell me then how do you, with a good conscience, vote Republican????

@jk: you rock! As a professor, I just cannot tolerate plagiarism of any sort, thanks for pointing out lauralee’s indiscretions.

Calling the child a HE was out of pure laziness on my part. The His/her, he/she stuff takes more time to type. lol

True, science is only as good as what is known which was exactly my point. The current laws have not yet caught up with current science. Laws are often based on scientific interpretation.

Vialibity used to be 26 weeks, now is 20, but not all laws refl;ect that. African Americans were once deemed medically inferior, and laws reflected that. The laws of course have been altered in part because scientifically, we know better.

My wording of the sperm and unfertilized eggs vs fertilized eggs was indeed clumsy. See what happens when I don’t copy and paste? lol Thank you for pointing that out.

Each contains the DNA of that person, but until the two are joined the DNA of that newly formed offspring has not been created. Oh sh*t, that sounds even worse. lol

As you stated very wisely, this issue is a sticky one and I don’t believe will ever be agreed upon. I think we can agree that much needs to be done not only to reduce the number of abortions, but to reach out to the thousands who struggle raising the children they chose to have. Your points were all fairly and intelligently expressed. I think everyone appreciates that.

.
Science is only as good as what it can prove–there is a lot that it still has to yet prove. The body of what we know is little to what we don’t know. “Current abortion laws take their CUES from science” is not strong enough to say science says life (individual) definitively begins at conception. The fact that the advancement of technology has moved around on the exact point of viability shows that science–clinical and distant– can not definitively pin point the exact moment at which life (individual) happens. It just might change tomorrow. In science, life begins with a live sperm cell (carrying individual traits) and a live egg cell (carrying individual traits) that forms another live cell (carrying individual traits). Conception in science is a PROCESS. Conception in a dictionary is defined as a PROCESS. Viability(science)/Person hood(law) is a line in the sand. Science(viability) changes these “facts” according to different criteria or new research. Law(person hood) takes “cues.” Existence(religion) is constant belief–soul enters at that time. So in different ways–in legal ways, in social ways, in moral ways, in personal ways, in scientific ways people take up the side that speaks to them and they mold how the feel about it. The only difference is the presumption of who should lead the call–the focus on the woman or the child.

“Alone, neither contains the DNA of a new human being.”

Every sperm and every egg contains DNA of a new human being.

I’ll let you have the last copy and paste on this. Good night.

Anything concerning specific quotes should be noted. Thank you.

I do not disregard your opinions and interpretations by the way as irrelevant or something to be dismissed as emotional garbage.

The reason Pro-lifers view abortion as THE issue is because it is the core of all problems concerning human life. If one cannot respect life at the most vulnerable state, certainly we cannot be expected to respect life at any other stage. We were warned long ago that legalized abortion would pave the way for legalized killing of disabled, elderly, terminally ill etc. No one believed it. But here we are with the so-called ‘right’ to die. Dying is an inevitibility, not a right, but there are laws on the books that currently make that legal claim.

Yes, I interpret, scientists interpret, lawmakers interpret. Many of our legal rights comes from these interpretations. I’m arguing that current laws do not reflect current medical science, and that Justice Blackmun’s interpretation of abortion as an issue of privacy was unconstitutional. Even Justice Ginsberg agrees Roe V Wade should have been decided differently, though she favors abortion rights.

There is a difference between spontaneous abortion or any situation where the death of a fertilized egg occurs naturally, and a pre-meditated attempt to destroy.

Accepting the idea that a fertilized egg is a person is not the same as saying that sperm and unfertilized eggs are people. Alone, neither contains the DNA of a new human being. Until they are joined, the DNA belongs to either the father or the mother. Afterward, yes, I’m saying personality traits constitute personhood.

No law will put an end to abortions, but a law recognizing their existence will restore the dignity that these children deserve and are currently denied. Women won’t be jailed for having abortions, but the doctors who perform them will likely be fined, possibly have their licenses suspended. They do take an oath after all to first, do no harm.

–Alan Guttemacher Institute,
–Dr. Bernard Nathanson (who used to perform abortions and was one of the founders of NARAL)
–Do no harm coaltion of Americans for research ethics
–Steven Ertelt–LifeNews.com Editor
–Carolyn Gargaro –Roe V Wade – The Unconstitutional Decision