response 92 of 209:

Jul 31 17:22 UTC 2003

As I said, I do not believe in abortion because I do not believe you can state
the time and place when they become a human being.

zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, infant, child et al are just conventions we have
established to try and define when a human being reaches a certain stage. 
But the age of the stage varies from person to person.

Some people are still children developmentally even after they have reached
the age of majority.  some children are much more adult than some parents I
have known.

My wife, Twila, was born at a stage in the pregnancy when it would have been
legal to abort.  Yet she survived adn I am thankful for it.  I know some
people say that at cetain points, teh brain is not fully functional, but evn
some adults do not have fully functional brains, and to kill them would be
considered murder.

even if you have a person who is brain dead, adn you pull all life support,
sometimes the body will go on living.  and if you were to kill one of these
people, it would be murder.

So, if we cannot define a set of criteria that we all can agree on to say
"this is life and it is sacred"  How can we make the decision to end a life
because it is inconvenient for us?

response 94 of 209:

Jul 31 18:35 UTC 2003

Re #92: in fact, you would be completely oblivious of it if the fetus later
named Twila had been aborted. You would probably now have a wife anyway
about whom you might say the same thing, but it would be equally meaningless.

It is the human condition that we must make many choices of ages when
things are permitted or unpermitted. We choose the age 18 to vote and 21
to order alcohol (in Michigan) - although there is no instant at which a
person converts from should not be able to vote to should be able to vote
(or drink, or drive, or be president, or anything else for which we choose
specific ages). Doing the same for the right to abort a fetus is just as
necessary. Since you accept the right of abortion but only quibble about
the date at which it goes from permitted to unpermitted, the only recourse
is to have society make that choice - which is has done through the action
of the Supreme Court.

response 96 of 209:

Aug 1 04:07 UTC 2003

Re #92:  I can state the condition under which a human organism is
no longer a human being despite vital signs (brain death).  Given
that one can also measure the appearance of the neurological attributes
of humanity (much more accurately and reproducibly than their
disappearance), it's my opinion that your opinion is unsupported by
anything resembling a fact and deserving of no weight in public policy.

Defining "a set of criteria that we all can agree on" is impossible so
long as you have one holdout who refuses to accept them because they
fail to support their preconceived conclusion.  This is why we have
nonsense like the claim that a zygote is a human being from the moment
of fertilization; the people behind this wanted to justify their stand
against contraceptives which prevent implantation, so they argued
themselves into a stance which forces them to stand against in-vitro
fertilization as well; they want more babies, as long as you don't
make them THAT way!  Ironies abound.

response 98 of 209:

Aug 1 13:50 UTC 2003

A zygote outside the womb does not have a chance to become a baby. 
Whereas one in the womb does. So it's understandable that a woman 
would be able to make a decision regarding the zygote in her womb 
wihout getting the courts or anyone else for that matter involved. 
It's still part of her body. 

While it is bizarre to think that once the zygote leaves her womb, she 
has no say, I can see how they would argue that her rights were 
different now.

About the divorced woman wanting to use a zygote with her ex's sperm, 
would she have had to have the court involved if she wanted to destroy 
it, as opposed to using it?

response 100 of 209:

Aug 3 02:32 UTC 2003

WARNING:  The following post may be hazardous to the beliefs of pro- 
choice fanatics and to those who think President Bush's judicial 
nominees are out of the mainstream of American thought.  Proceed at your 
own risk.  Thank you.




"Progress and Perils:  How Gender Issues Unite and Divide Women"
Conducted for Center for Gender Equity by Princeton Survey Research 
Associates, Oct. 2001

. . . Women's opinions on the issue of abortion itself are sharply 
divided and entrenched.  Only one-third (34%) or women say abortion 
should be generally available to those who want it.  Forty-five percent 
held the opposite view and want access to abortion limited.  Thirty-one 
percent want it limited only to cases of rape, incest, and to save the 
woman's life. . . . 

response 102 of 209:

Aug 3 15:47 UTC 2003

That study may be found at
http://www.advancewomen.org/womens_research/PartOne.pdf

It's long and says many things.  Here's a quote:

  Of 12 issues investigated in this study as possible priorities for
  a women s movement, only abortion generates sharp differences of
  opinion.  Half of women (49%) say keeping abortion legal should be
  a top priority of the movement, but 24 percent assign it a lower
  priority, and 25 percent reject it outright as an issue that should
  concern a women s movement.

  In a different context, 55 percent of women say "reproductive
  rights  is a public issue that is very important to them personally,
  ranking lowest out of eight public issues tested.

  Women s opinions on the issue of abortion itself are sharply divided,
  and entrenched.  Only one-third (34%) of women say abortion should
  be generally available to those who want it.  Forty-five percent
  hold the opposite view and want access to abortion limited: 31
  percent want it limited only to cases of rape, incest and to save
  the woman s life and 14 percent say abortion should never be
  permitted. Nineteen percent of women prefer a middle ground,
  saying abortion should be available, but under new limitations.
  These might include limitations, for example, on the timing of
  abortions, or on the steps that must be taken before a woman can
  have an abortion.  Overall, 81 percent of women say they never have
  second thoughts about their own position on the abortion issue.
  This percentage is up sharply from the 60 percent of women who said
  they never had doubts about their opinion on abortion when asked
  about this in a slightly different way in a 1988 Gallup Poll.

  Women are more likely to take the view that abortion should be 
  generally available as their level of education increases. Less
  than a quarter of women who did not complete high school (22%), 28
  percent of high school graduates, 35 percent of women who attended
  college but did not graduate, and 49 percent of college graduates
  support the general availability of abortion. The effect of education
  is particularly strong among older women. In fact, college
  graduates age 50 and older are the only demographic sub-group of
  women where a majority (54%) favors having abortion generally
  available to women who want it.

  Race and ethnicity also influence attitudes about the availability
  of abortion, with Hispanics most opposed and African-Americans most
  supportive. Overall, one in five Hispanic women (20%), 35 percent
  of white women and 40 percent of African-American women support
  the general availability of abortion. Since education affects these
  attitudes and African-American women attend college at lower rates
  than white women, the differences between whites and
  African-Americans are reduced when the two groups are compared in
  total. Half of African-American women who have attended college
  (50%), but only 42 percent of comparably-educated whites, support
  having abortion generally available.

response 104 of 209:

Aug 3 16:44 UTC 2003

That is quite interesting since if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it 
would mostly be young, poorly educated women who would have trouble 
obtaining abortions. 

response 106 of 209:

Aug 3 18:11 UTC 2003

The young poorly educated women can always go on welfare if they have unwanted
babies.

response 108 of 209:

Aug 3 20:13 UTC 2003

Re #100:  Regardless of what the mainstream is this week, the
Constitution prohibits the majority imposing its will on matters
religious without repealing the First Amendment.  (You may recall
that the Constitution is specifically designed to prevent transient
passions from changing the law of the land [aka mob rule].)

I also seem to recall that the "mainstream" view as propounded by
the radical right is built on half-truths and a number of outright
lies.  My sympathies for their agenda are diminished accordingly,
and I expect that the jurists who take their duty of impartiality
seriously feel likewise.  Right-wing ideologues are another matter.

response 110 of 209:

Aug 3 23:52 UTC 2003

Yup, I think that young people and less educated people generally know
less than old people and more educated people.  Such a snob I am.

The "golly, that's a shock" part is specifically about your strange
notion that these statistics are any big surprise to anyone.  The
specific numbers vary, and the interpretation is difficult, but everyone
knows there are lots of people on both sides of the issue.  If, like
you, I was interested in painted a oversimplified image that tended to
favor my side, I'd have quoted just the first of the paragraphs above.

response 114 of 209:

Aug 5 03:46 UTC 2003

There's a certain tendancy, when people argue passionately to support a
position, to throw in any argument that seems to support their cause, in the
vague hope that someone out there somewhere will be convinced by that one,
even if it's stupid.  So in any passionate argument, you tend to get lots of
stupid arguments for or against being floated.  Their existance should not
be taken as evidence that good arguments don't actually exist.

response 116 of 209:

Aug 5 22:05 UTC 2003

Re #114:  Except this isn't random people, Jan.  These are the major
organizations behind the cause, so far as I can tell.  The only thing
they accomplish with these things is to discredit themselves in the
eyes of anyone who cares about truth.

What really gets me is that most of the organizations opposed to
abortion have an explicit Christian affiliation, yet they do not
show any concern about these lies.  Which denominations teach that
it's okay to lie about people who differ?  Or are these people
hypocrites even by the teachings they claim to follow?  (I lean
toward the latter explanation.)