The Political "Football" of Abortion

[The_Man]

With the many issues that seem to find their way into the political arena Abortion seems to be one that draws upon ones personal beliefs more than any I have seen. Where do you stand on the issue and why?

[nelson]

The_Man, I was wondering earlier today how to approach this topic on the forum, and now you have provided the opportunity. Thanks for asking.

I do not understand how any woman can look at images of an unborn child - literally the embodiment of the miracle of life - and, using modern technology as we can today, watch it eat, sleep, interact with its environment, urinate, and exhibit other normal human behavior, and after having seen all this, still justify the killing of her premature baby.

My mouth opens, but no words emerge to describe such a tragedy. It is beyond language, beyond imagination. After a few moments of horror, my mind settles, and I realize I know how all this happened; I already know how some women have come to believe that they have the right to kill. They have been sold a lie.

The actual story of the normalizing of abortion is a long, devious, deliberate campaign. For whomever may be interested, I'll recommend this book, written by an author much more knowledgable and articulate than I: The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian.

[The_Man]

Nelson,
This will no doubt be a topic of much contention and I too have felt the reluctance to bring it up for fear of polarizing the people that might wish to voice an opinion on the subject. That said I couldn’t keep silent on a subject that I think is an attack against the very foundations of the Country to which I owe allegiance. The basic tenants being Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are at conflict if the life of an innocent unborn child is given less import than that of the life of an individual who is willing to take the life of an individual by murder. I know that this may be a strong sounding statement but broken down to this most simple analogy where am I wrong?

["shazbat"]

Football? Is this a game? Then no one wins.
First of all we're all MEN commenting thus far and DO NOT have a stake in this. I don't want a woman or even another man deciding what I can or can't do with my own body.
Moral implications aside I support a WOMAN's "right to choose". She has the right to choose either direction, have or not to have.
If you want to combat the practise then start in your homes with what YOU teach your children. Don't place the responsibilty of their moral education in the hands of the schools, churches, gutters or anyone one else. If they are taught and believe it is wrong then they'll not make the choice to abort.
Roe-v-Wade was not specifically about abortion, it was a case decision about individual rights, which is why it has not successfully been overturned. When you start chipping away at our personal rights or relinquishing your personal rights then you start undermining our nations foundation. The resultant ramifications run far deeper than abortion.

[The_Man]

Football? Is this a game? Then no one wins.

By no means is this a game. It is literally a matter of life and death and if debated again in the Supreme Court should be addressed as such. I think that in the next months to a year that there is a good chance that the Court will readdress the subject.

When you start chipping away at our personal rights or relinquishing your personal rights then you start undermining our nations foundation.

I agree with the part about relinquishing your personal rights but have a hard time understanding how the basic foundations of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not compromised if the most important “Life” is not held as the first and most important tenant of the foundation. You can’t have the latter two if the first is not protected.

First of all we're all MEN commenting thus far and DO NOT have a stake in this. I don't want a woman or even another man deciding what I can or can't do with my own body.
Moral implications aside I support a WOMAN's "right to choose". She has the right to choose either direction, have or not to have.

I must disagree on the fact that a man has no stake in this debate in that it takes a man and a woman to effectually bring about the condition to which we are debating. If there is a choice to be made it is before the act that could bring about this condition, with the exception of rape.
In many States the murder or killing of a pregnant woman carry the penalty of double murder/homicide and in my opinion rightfully so. The basis being that two lives has been taken. How then can it be legally looked at differently just by changing who takes the life. I do agree that the mother has the right to choose when her own life or the life of her unborn child is at risk and think that it should be here right to choose under these circumstances.

[Teiwaz]

Ah, the hoary old chestnut. I feel differently about this topic from minute to minute, and in a discussion about it I can argue myself from one side of the debate to the other and back again.

I think, on balance, I take a hybrid view. I think a woman should be able to have an abortion UP TO a limit of in utero development. I do not think a zygote is a human being. I do not think that because an embryo reacts to it's enviroment that it is a human being or human life in the true sense. It has that potential certainly, but it isn't there yet. It is like a brain dead adult hooked up to life support - it has certain autonomic bodily functions and reacts unthinkingly to it's enviroment. An injured adult in this condition can have the life support terminated, as your Nation recently witnessed. Speak to a doctor about these things and the emotion is removed.

So for me, abortion up to some point of development is acceptable. You just can't force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, provided she acts in a timely fashion. If she does not terminate the pregnancy by the cut off date (here I think it is 12 or 18 weeks gestation) then abortion is illegal. Those dates, whatever they are, relate to the level of development of the foetus in utero. There is plenty of room for debate their of course, and different doctors seem to have different opinions, but the ones you usually hear from have a position on one side of the fence and seem to use their credentials to advance support for their chosen agenda. Fixing a date seems arbitrary, but with some allowance that can made in special circumstances, I think that is just what reality dictates. And I think that should apply to rape cases too. Rape related pregnancy is tragic for the victim, and more reason to act quickly.

All of that assumes there is no evidence of defects in the foetus. If there are indications of foetal defects, I think termination should be allowable at any time. I know, that seems harsh, but that is what I think. You can't force someone to take on that kind of additional responsibility. Of course, the mother can decide to proceed with the pregnancy, but in those circumstances it should definitely be her choice at any time.

Then I have another qualifier. If proceeding with the pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother, I think termination should be allowed. I think that should include mental health, under certain strict guidelines to minimise abuse of this as a "loophole".

This is a tough topic because people have passionate and inflexible views, largely based on moral ideals, religious teachings or emotional personal experience. I feel that the "Abortion is NEVER OK" lobby are unrealistic, and the "It is ALWAYS the woman's choice" equally blinded by their cause.

[Moondog]

Great comments to all especially on such a difficult subject. I am divided on the subject depending on the circumstances behind the need for the procedure. I would like to think that rape victims should have the given right to make the decision that was forced upon them. The other side of this however is the taking of life after a certain period of gestation. To mother a child through an unwanted pregnacy can't be good for the mother or the child. The child would face a high probability that he or she would end up in foster care or some other state ran agency with a diminished outlook on life at a very early age. We all know how cruel life can be so is it really fair to put two people in this position, as it pertains to rape in my mind. For those women that would use abortion as a means of birth control I dare say may not be fit to mother in the first place and should be forced to seek counsel as oppossed to taking a young life. There are no right answers with this messy subject.

[Sonrisa]

This is far more complicated than it appears on the surface. It is basically a religious question that has taken on a political cloak. I don't think anyone would say that using abortion for birth control is a good thing (I am omitting the words moral and immoral completely since they are different things to different people). Although it may appear that some do, my guess is that most women can certainly find easier and cheaper methods of birth control than abortion. Yes, abortions are free to indigent women from what I hear, but so is birth control at the same family planning clinic. A lot of factors to consider are:
1. Expecting drunk or high people to avoid "accidents is a lesson in futility".
2. The horrible life many, many unwanted children suffer at the hands of their parents. Read the book the story of "O". A friend of mine, a devout Catholic, said out of the blue one day, "You know I used to abhor abortion until I read The Story of "O", not any more", and she said it with tears streaming down her face.
3. Even sober, "so-called pillars of the community" people have reasons not to complete a pregnancy, i.e., they would die if they got pregnant, incest, rape, etc.
4. As far as respect for life, many pacifists would argue that killing people in battle is not respecting life, or the death penalty......it's all about where you draw the line, what you were brought up to believe and you own personal life history, and just plain observing people and events around you.
5. Many people who oppose abortion think nothing of blowing up a clinic with everyone in it.
6. The abortions will continue one way of another, in back alleys with coathangers, drinking horrible potions, but they will continue.

I used to attend a church, very, very strict, no abortions, no sirreee, but they despised poor people, the deacon one day while on that particular subject actually had spittle drooling down his face as he ranted and raved. I got the distinct feeling he and the other zealots would have been happy if they had a woman to stone for her sins. Don't ask them to help a scared little girl of 13 or 14 (nope, not me) who is terrified she will be thrown out on the street by her parents. Not their problem. Her fauilt for having sex, for not planning better, etc, etc. Shoulda, coulda, woulda....ah, if we only all so together all the time.

How about ranting from the pulpits about the fathers who take a powder at the first mention of a pregnancy ("well, it's not mine").

It is about civil liberty. We do have that right. Not everyone will choose to abort. We cannot know all the reasons why those who do, do. Married women who are pregnant by their lovers who have sterile husbands? Who knows. Maybe they just don't want children at all, and can't bear the thought. No, I am not the only who was not thrilled with being pregnant.

I wonder how some of these same sanctimonious men would behave if it were them. Just asking. All very diversely I would imagine.

If you are not a woman, particularly in the puritan society in the US you could not possibly imagine what it is like to be a woman. "My wife tells me,..."...whatever she said. We tell you what you want to hear. We have our own thoughts. Many women publically espouse antiabortion because they are afraid not to. When you are pregnant, that is the most alone you will ever be. You are the one with the pain. You are the one whose life is at risk. If he decides it is just not for him, you are the one who will be stuck with the results. If they overturn Roe vs Wade, they are in for the fight of their lives. That is the only part of all this I am 100% sure of. Sonrisa

[The_Man]

Sonrisa,
Thanks for your input on this most difficult of subjects. I will respond after considering your points tomorrow since it has been a long day and it is late for me. I hope to get more female input on the subject and discuss the merits from all opinions.

["shazbat"]

To stir the pot a bit,
If you consider abortion murder how does one support war and the death penalty? Is one form of murder acceptable and not others?
Seems to me that in addition to the Judaic scriptures the teachings of Jesus were those of non violence to the extreme to where he forfeit his own life for his principles.
Sorry Sonrisa, seems I've duplicated some of your comments.

[Sonrisa]

Even though we agree, none of the god stuff factored into it for me, since I do not believe in organized religion of any kind. The buddhists have a similar belief. Not to point out the obvious, all of these religions were founded by men (except Christian Scientist- Mary Baker Eddy), and wicca and Druids give women some status) and for the most part, though less now, run by men.

It used to be very common practice when a woman was in labor and the decision had to be made to forfeit either her life versus the baby's the doctor only asked the father and usually he said save the child. The woman had no say so.

On a more personal note I was in labor 36 hours and almost died having my one and only child and was told not to ever get pregnant again. That was not theory for me. I want to live. I am not religious. I got here first. When I was able to afford it I had a tubal ligation.

Another point on respect for life.....what about the old throwaway veterans who served their country and old people sleeping in doorways, and I am in particular thinking of when I lived in San Francisco. Suffering from dementia or what they used to call shell shock....wandering all day long. They cannot take care of themselves. They sit on the sidewalks with a tin cup and blank eyes. They are not mentally capable, but they were kicked out of San Francisco General or the VA hospital psych wards and other places. I felt so ashamed I could barely look at them. It's a dog eat dog world and if you doubt it, wander the streets of the seedy parts of big cities on foot alone and see how people treat people. I saw a quote that a society is judged on how it treats its children (once they are here, I assume), their old people and their animals. I don't think we are doing so well.

Of course programs to help with birth control, adoption agencies, and all the other things we can do to help are wonderful. If life means to much to everyone (and I do not for a minute doubt that you are all sincere) do something to help. People who are down and out don't want to be preached to they wanted to be treated like they count too. Most manipulaters and users are obvious, you can just avoid them. I don't have much but I have tried from time to time to take people into my house for various reasons (I've only been attacked twice), go to the county jail at Christmas and hand out goodies and cigarettes when they used to allow smoking. We took our Pom to nursing homes for pet therapy. We have both given AA talks in a prison and the state mental facilities. If you are not part of the solution, then don't complain. We can all do something. You don't have to believe in a "god" to have empathy for your fellow humans and the animals that inhabit our earth. My AA higher power and the golden rule works just fine for me. End of rant, sorry about that. Sonrisa

[The_Man]

This is far more complicated than it appears on the surface. It is basically a religious question that has taken on a political cloak. I don't think anyone would say that using abortion for birth control is a good thing (I am omitting the words moral and immoral completely since they are different things to different people). Although it may appear that some do, my guess is that most women can certainly find easier and cheaper methods of birth control than abortion. Yes, abortions are free to indigent women from what I hear, but so is birth control at the same family planning clinic. A lot of factors to consider are:
1. Expecting drunk or high people to avoid "accidents is a lesson in futility".
2. The horrible life many, many unwanted children suffer at the hands of their parents. Read the book the story of "O". A friend of mine, a devout Catholic, said out of the blue one day, "You know I used to abhor abortion until I read The Story of "O", not any more", and she said it with tears streaming down her face.
3. Even sober, "so-called pillars of the community" people have reasons not to complete a pregnancy, i.e., they would die if they got pregnant, incest, rape, etc.
4. As far as respect for life, many pacifists would argue that killing people in battle is not respecting life, or the death penalty......it's all about where you draw the line, what you were brought up to believe and you own personal life history, and just plain observing people and events around you.
5. Many people who oppose abortion think nothing of blowing up a clinic with everyone in it.
6. The abortions will continue one way of another, in back alleys with coathangers, drinking horrible potions, but they will continue.
This is far more complicated than it appears on the surface. This being your opening statement is one of the few that I can agree with and apply to the debate.

As for as the factors to consider….

1. Expecting drunk or high people to avoid "accidents is a lesson in futility".
I don’t expect anything good from a drunk or high person and don’t see the relevance to the legal debate.

2. The horrible life many, many unwanted children suffer at the hands of their parents. Read the book the story of "O". A friend of mine, a devout Catholic, said out of the blue one day, "You know I used to abhor abortion until I read The Story of "O", not any more", and she said it with tears streaming down her face.
Again although a terrible story and good analogy as to what can happen in a bad home I don’t see the relevance to the legal debate.

3. Even sober, "so-called pillars of the community" people have reasons not to complete a pregnancy, i.e., they would die if they got pregnant, incest, rape, etc.
Although the colorful wording at the beginning sets me back a bit I will agree that there needs to be provisions for risk of life of the mother, rape and incest.

4. As far as respect for life, many pacifists would argue that killing people in battle is not respecting life, or the death penalty......it's all about where you draw the line, what you were brought up to believe and you own personal life history, and just plain observing people and events around you.
The death penalty debate is a topic for perhaps it’s own thread.

5. Many people who oppose abortion think nothing of blowing up a clinic with everyone in it.
I can’t agree that many are a correct term to use here. Although the few who do are not justified in thought or action, we are a nation of laws and breaking the law to stop something that you think is wrong is the wrong response and should be denounced by all law-abiding citizens.

6. The abortions will continue one way of another, in back alleys with coathangers, drinking horrible potions, but they will continue.
Terrorism is illegal also but the fact that someone will commit it at some point does not justify making it legal.


Continued....

[The_Man]

It is about civil liberty. We do have that right. Not everyone will choose to abort. We cannot know all the reasons why those who do, do. Married women who are pregnant by their lovers who have sterile husbands? Who knows. Maybe they just don't want children at all, and can't bear the thought. No, I am not the only who was not thrilled with being pregnant.
You are correct it is about civil liberties as ruled by the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973 but there have been times in the past that the court has reversed or changed it’s mind on a particular issue.

If they overturn Roe vs Wade, they are in for the fight of their lives. That is the only part of all this I am 100% sure of. Sonrisa
I agree 100% with this and belive that the issue will come before the court again very soon.

My own opinions have changed much over the last 15-20 years and mostly due to some personal situation involving friends of mine. It has been only in recent times that I have
Become so opposed to abortion rights as they now stand.
Nelson has brought it up before about the technology that exist today to really see the development of the unborn child. Let me offer a link that has an IMHO a good presentation of the debate and some good facts simply stated.
http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.htm

[The G]

The prez ran on the Abortion issue and has control over both house for his term. WHY hasn't he done anything ?? These are what I call buz words to get the right to vote for these clowns. If your going to say it do it !!!

[The_Man]

He cannot change the law but he can appoint justices that have a more conservative view and did. Time will tell if his appointments live up to his expectations.
I would be curious to know how you feel on this issue that you seem all too happy to criticize the President’s method for dealing with it. His record and statements have not changed on this issue by the way.

[The G]

He can't...... but having both houses they can !!!!!! But you won't see it happen, majority of the American's don't really care. Again these are buz words and jestures to keep the right happy.

Its up to the women, its her body !!! What are they going to do with these kids. How many here are going to take these kids in there homes ?

[nelson]

Great comments to all especially on such a difficult subject. I am divided on the subject depending on the circumstances behind the need for the procedure. I would like to think that rape victims should have the given right to make the decision that was forced upon them. The other side of this however is the taking of life after a certain period of gestation. To mother a child through an unwanted pregnacy can't be good for the mother or the child. The child would face a high probability that he or she would end up in foster care or some other state ran agency with a diminished outlook on life at a very early age. We all know how cruel life can be so is it really fair to put two people in this position, as it pertains to rape in my mind. For those women that would use abortion as a means of birth control I dare say may not be fit to mother in the first place and should be forced to seek counsel as oppossed to taking a young life. There are no right answers with this messy subject.Moondog, you fairly bring up some tough scenarios. And I admit sometimes there are no right answers. But there is almost always a best answer, even if it is simply choosing the lesser of two evils.

I am with The Man 100% and could not have said anything better than he did.

[nelson]

Laptop enter key pressed accidentally, before finishing my post. :rolleyes:

I do have a thought to add about the majority of abortions, which are performed on voluntary pregnancies:

I think a woman certainly has the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant. She has complete control over her body prior to conception. If a woman fails to exercise that control, and allows conception to take place, permitting her egg to be fertilized inside her womb, at that point she is no longer the only life dependent upon herself, and I think it is then her obligation to deliver the innocent life inside her. I really don't understand how anyone can disagree with that.

But if you do... please consider this:

A man only donates a single zygote. Fertilization takes place entirely inside the female. Inside her womb the fertilized egg grows into a sack of flesh (according to abortionists), and later that sack of flesh develops into an embryo and eventually a living baby (after it has been delivered, again, according to abortionists). Now if a woman's "right to choose" relieves her responsibility and obligation to deliver this child, why then should the man be held responsible for the baby when he had absolutely no say in the development? What about the man's right to choose? This baby has nothing to do with him. It took him 15 minutes to donate a half a cell, and besides, he may have been raped, he may have been molested by his teacher. Also, he may decide he does not want the baby.

Sounds pretty absurd to me. This is the ridiculous precedent we have set with unlimited abortion.

I think Roe vs. Wade will be challenged. And I think it ought to be.

[Teiwaz]

There is no point whining about where is the man's right to choose. The bilogical facts are that the woman is the incubator, not the man, and his wishes being imposed upon the woman is not feasible or right for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with abortion. That's life, we need to just deal with it and move on. Characterising foetal development as "according to the abortionists" strikes me as odd. There is plenty of objective scientific evidence on fetal development, it does not need to be ascribed to one side of the debate or the other.

Nelson, you said "permitting her egg to be fertilized inside her womb, at that point she is no longer the only life dependent upon herself, and I think it is then her obligation to deliver the innocent life inside her. I really don't understand how anyone can disagree with that."

I take issue with that. A fertislized egg is not a life, it is a fertilised egg, a zygote. A zygote (Greek: ζυγωτόν) is a cell that is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually (but not always) an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote (or zygocyte).

Animal zygotes undergo mitotic cell divisions to become an embryo. Other organisms may undergo meiotic cell division at this time (for more information refer to biological life cycles).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

Until the second trimester the zygote is really just a bundle of dividing and differentiating cells. Sure, left to it's own devices, it should become life, but at that point I don't think most medical doctors would be calling it human. That is the basis, as I understand it, for abortion laws in this country having cutoff dates around this time. Plus, consider that current research suggests that fertilised embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried in the first two to three weeks after pregnancy can be detected. Are we supposed to issue death certificates for non-viable cell clusters? If the soul was implanted at fertilisation as the Catholic Church suggests (and I don't believe there is nothing in that designed to make sure people wouldn't terminate pregnancies that create more Catholics), what happens to those souls upon a spontaneous miscarriage and as individuals, what rites should they be afforded in the religious context? I'm no expert, but I fail to see how a human soul can be said to inhabit a zygote that still has a vestigial tail, no sexual differentiation etc etc.

So, lets cut and paste a good summary right here, which can be viewd at Wikipedia as well, search fetal development. My comments are in capitals.

When semen is deposited in the vagina, the spermatozoa travel through the cervix and body of the uterus and into the Fallopian tubes. Fertilization of the ovum (egg cell) usually takes place in the Fallopian tube. Many sperm must cooperate to penetrate the thick protective shell-like barrier that surrounds the ovum. The first sperm that penetrates fully into the egg donates its genetic material (DNA). The resulting combination is called a zygote. The term "conception" refers variably to either fertilization or to formation of the conceptus, which occurs after uterine implantation.

WHICH IS THE ONE THAT IMPLANTS THE CATHOLIC SOUL?

Like every cell in the body, the zygote contains all of the genetic information unique to an individual. THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A GARAGE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION TO EBAY AND THE SHOP MANUAL FOR CONSTRUCTING THE CAR, NOT A 2007 PORCHE' CAREERA. Half of the genetic information came from the mother's egg, and the other half from a single sperm. The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube. Meanwhile it divides several times to form a ball of cells called a morula. Further cellular division is accompanied by the formation of a small cavity between the cells. This stage is called a blastocyst. Up to this point there is no growth in the overall size of the embryo, so each division produces successively smaller cells.

The blastocyst reaches the uterus at roughly the fifth day after fertilization. The embryo "hatches" from its zona pellucida, a glycoprotein shell. It then adheres to the uterine lining and becomes embedded in the endometrial cell layer. This process is also called "implantation". In most successful human pregnancies, the conceptus implants 8 to 10 days after ovulation (Wilcox et al 1999). The inner cell mass forms the embryo, while the outer cell layers form the membranes and placenta. Together, the embryo and its membranes are referred to as a conceptus, or the "products of conception".

Rapid growth occurs and the embryo's main external features begin to take form. This process is called differentiation, which produces the varied cell types (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells). A spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, in the first trimester of pregancy is usually due to major genetic mistakes or abnormalities in the developing embryo. During this critical period (most of the first trimester), the developing fetus is also susceptible to toxic exposures, such as:

Alcohol, certain drugs, and other toxins that cause birth defects
Infection (such as rubella or cytomegalovirus)
Radiation from x-rays or radiation therapy
Nutritional deficiencies such as lack of folate which contributes to spina bifida

DO ANTI-ABORTIONISTS ALSO SAY THAT WE SHOULD CHARGE MOTHERS WITH CRIMES IF THEY DON'T EAT PROPERLY, DO DRUGS, DRINK ALCOHOL ETC OR SMOKE? THEY SHOULD IF THEY FOLLOW THEIR OWN LOGIC TO IT'S LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

Fetal Development

From the 9th week until birth (around 38 weeks), the developing human is called a fetus. The fetus is not as sensitive to damage from environmental exposures as the embryo. The majority of structures are already formed in the fetus, but they continue to grow and become functional.


Changes by weeks of age (and weeks of pregnancy)

The following list describes specific changes in human development by week. "Weeks of pregnancy" are dated by obstetricians from the start of the last menstrual period which means that ovulation occurs at the end of the 2nd week.


Pre-implantation
Toxic exposures may cause prenatal death but do not cause developmental defects

Week 1 (3rd week of pregnancy)
Fertilization of the ovum to form a zygote which undergoes mitotic cellular division, but does not increase in size. A hollow cavity forms marking the blastocyst stage.
The blastocyst contains only a thin rim of trophoblast cells and a clump of cells at one end known as the "embryonic pole" which include embryonic stem cells.
The blastocyst hatches from its protein shell (zona pellucida) and implants onto the endometrial lining of the mother's uterus.
Week 2 (4th week of pregnancy)
Trophoblast cells surrounding the embryonic cells proliferate and invade deeper into the uterine lining. They will eventually form the placenta and embryonic membranes.
Formation of the yolk sac.
The embryonic cells flatten into a disk, two-cells thick.

Embryonic Period
Toxic exposures often cause major congenital malformations

Week 3 (5th week of pregnancy - first missed menstrual period)
A notochord forms in the center of the embryonic disk.
A neural groove (future spinal cord) forms over the notochord with a brain bulge at one end.
Heart tubes begin to fuse.
Week 4 (6th week of pregnancy)
The embryo measures 4 mm (1/8 inch) in length and begins to curve into a C shape.
Somites, the divisions of the future vertebra, form.
The heart bulges, further develops, and begins to beat in a regular rhythm.
Branchial arches, grooves which will form structures of the face and neck, form.
The neural tube closes.
The ears begin to form as otic pits.
Arm buds and a tail are visible.
Week 5 (7th week of pregnancy)
The embryo measures 8 mm (1/4 inch) in length.
Lens pits and optic cups form the start of the developing eye.
A primitive mouth and nasal pits form.
The brain divides into 5 vesicles, including the early telencephalon.
Leg buds form and hands form as flat paddles on the arms.
Rudimentary blood moves through primitive vessels connecting to the yolk sac and chorionic membranes.
Week 6 (8th week of pregnancy)
The embryo measures 13 mm (1/2 inch) in length.
Lungs begin to form.
The brain continues to develop.
Arms and legs have lengthened with foot and hand areas distinguishable.
The hands and feet have digits, but may still be webbed.
Week 7 (9th week of pregnancy)
The embryo measures 18 mm (3/4 inch) in length.
Nipples and hair follicles begin to form.
Location of the elbows and toes are visible.
Spontaneous limb movements may be detected by ultrasound.
All essential organs have at least begun formation.
Week 8 (10th week of pregnancy)
Embryo measures 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length.
Intestines rotate.
Facial features continue to develop.
the eyelids are more developed.
the external features of the ear begin to take their final shape.

[Teiwaz]

Fetal Period
During the fetal period, toxic exposures often cause physiological abnormalities or minor congenital malformation

Weeks 9 to 12 (11th to 14th week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of 8 cm (3.2 inches).
The head comprises nearly half of the fetus' size.
The face is well formed and develops a human appearance.
The eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week.
Tooth buds, which will form the baby teeth, appear.
The limbs are long and thin.
The fetus can make a fist with its fingers.
Genitals appear well differentiated.
Red blood cells are produced in the liver.
Weeks 13 to 16 (15th to 18th week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of about 15 cm (6 inches).
A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head.
Fetal skin is almost transparent.
More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder.
The fetus makes active movements.
Sucking motions are made with the mouth.
Meconium is made in the intestinal tract.
The liver and pancreas produce fluid secretions.
Week 18 (20th week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of 20 cm (8 inches).
Lanugo covers the entire body.
Eyebrows and eyelashes appear.
Nails appear on fingers and toes.
The fetus is more active with increased muscle development.
"Quickening" usually occurs (the mother can feel the fetus moving).
The fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope.
Week 22 (24th week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of 28 cm (11.2 inches).
The fetus weighs about 725 g (1 lb 10 oz).
Eyebrows and eyelashes are well formed.
All of the eye components are developed.
The fetus has a hand and startle reflex.
Footprints and fingerprints continue forming.
Alveoli (air sacs) are forming in lungs.
Weeks 23 to 26 (25th to 28th week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of 38 cm (15 inches).
The fetus weighs about 1.2 kg (2 lb 11 oz).
The brain develops rapidly.
The nervous system develops enough to control some body functions.
The eyelids open and close.
The respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible.
A baby born prematurely at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high.
Weeks 27 to 31 (29th to 33rd week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of about 38-43 cm (15-17 inches).
The fetus weighs about 2 kg (4 lb 6 oz).
The amount of body fat rapidly increases.
Rhythmic breathing movements occur, but lungs are not fully mature.
Thalamic brain connections, which mediate sensory input, form.
Bones are fully developed, but are still soft and pliable.
The fetus begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus.
Week 34 (36th week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of about 40-48 cm (16-19 inches).
The fetus weighs about 2.5 to 3 kg (5 lb 12 oz to 6 lb 12 oz).
Lanugo begins to disappear.
Body fat increases.
Fingernails reach the end of the fingertips.
a baby born at 36 weeks has a high chance of survival, but may require medical interventions.
Weeks 35 to 38 (37th to 40th week of preganancy)
The fetus is considered full-term at the 37th week of pregnancy.
It may be 48 to 53 cm (19 to 21 inches) in length.
The lanugo is gone except on the upper arms and shoulders.
Fingernails extend beyond fingertips.
Small breast buds are present on both sexes.
Head hair is now coarse and thicker

ANALYSIS


This tends to support, in my opinion, the position for abortion before the end of the first trimester being about as objectively acceptable as you get in this debate. By that I mean - saying "no - abortion is never ok", is one end of the extreme, and the "do it whenever you want for any reason" at the other, and both are equally unacceptable and illogical. I actually do not agree with the tests applied in the US in Roe -v- Wade. It permits far later abortion than I think, on objective and scientific data on fetal development, should be permitted.

Once again quoting from wikipedia, U.S. courts have upheld abortion, which may only be limited by the states in certain specific ways, such as restrictions on later term abortions, requiring parental notification for minors, or right to know laws which require the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to treatment.

Much of the ensuing debate has been in determining when the fetus is "viable" outside the womb as a measure of when the "life" of the fetus is its own (and thereby requiring protection of the state), or under the control of the woman. In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade, viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the woman's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." When the court ruled in 1973, the current medical technology suggested the viability could occur as early as 24 weeks. Advances over the past three decades have allowed fetuses that are less than 24 weeks old to survive outside the woman's womb. These scientific achievements, while life saving for premature babies, have made the determination of being "viable" somewhat more complicated.

Though abortion is legal in many Western European countries, the procedure is more widely available in the United States. U.S. abortion law, in terms of how late an abortion may take place, is far more permissive than that of other nations such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, for example. For instance, in France, unless the fetus is severely deformed or the woman's health is at risk, any abortion after the first trimester is illegal. Canada is more permissive, granting abortion on demand, while Australia places heavier restrictions on the procedure.

To my mind, the US legal focus on the rights of the individual mother is not unexpected, and the opposition from what we think of as your "bible belt" is equally predictable. If motorcycle helmet and car seatbelt laws had religious implications they would be even more controversial than they already are. Anything that can be viewed, even on a paranoid interpretation, to impact on personal freedoms always cops a walloping.

My position on abortion is unchanged. If a woman decides to terminate in the first trimester, it should be her choice. After that health of the mother, deformity etc should be requisite considerations

[nelson]

Teiwaz, I find your analysis interesting and very worth reading. As usual you are articulate and convincing. You must know that I do not expect to change your position on abortion. But I enjoy the exchange, and here is my response.

There is no point whining about where is the man's right to choose. The bilogical facts are that the woman is the incubator, not the man, and his wishes being imposed upon the woman is not feasible or right for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with abortion. That's life, we need to just deal with it and move on. I desire no such right. My facetious whine about a man's right to choose sounds ridiculous because it exposes the fallacy of a woman's right to choose. According to your response, I think it works. The biological facts also reveal that is life developing inside the womb; it's equally wrong to give a woman the ability to "choose" to impose her wishes upon another innocent life.

As you state, currently many abortions are performed after the first trimester in the United States. I want to be clear that you - a man, who cannot experience pregnancy - have just argued to restrict women's rights. In justification, you point to the court ruling and concur with it, arguing that "viability" outside the womb should decide how early a mother may abort her child. But also according to you, the point of viability has actually changed.

When the court ruled in 1973, the current medical technology suggested the viability could occur as early as 24 weeks. Advances over the past three decades have allowed fetuses that are less than 24 weeks old to survive outside the woman's womb.Do you think the point of viability will continue to evolve? Will this further reduce what you believe is a woman's right? Has viability already evolved to the point of conception? When new technology allows a fertilized egg to be removed from the womb yet continue to develop, should that eliminate the abortion of all voluntary pregnancies? As for eggs that fertilize and babies who develop outside of the womb - does the fact that they are technically viable and outside the womb from the moment of fertilization affect your argument in any way? Or is viability achieved only when certain (some but not all) support systems are removed? Another individual or group (or court) may rule, with equal or more convincing scientific support, that viability is different today than it was in 1973 or even last year, and that the moment when life is achieved must be updated annually, monthly, or weekly to reflect the current medical technology. Another, again with equal or more convincing scientific support, may decide that life exists the moment cells in the womb are dependent upon the mother.

I think that these questions expose "viability" as a subjective and misguided interpretation of when life actually begins. This is understandable even of the Supreme Court - human beings do make mistakes. There is only one safe answer, one answer that is not relative and does not change with medical technology. One true answer to when does life begin - the moment of conception.

My position on abortion is unchanged. If a woman decides to terminate in the first trimester, it should be her choice.Is not the "choice" advocated by the "pro choice" position actually whether a woman may choose to deal with the consequences of her actions? Does she have no choice up until the moment of her abortion?

To my mind, the US legal focus on the rights of the individual mother is not unexpected, and the opposition from what we think of as your "bible belt" is equally predictable. If motorcycle helmet and car seatbelt laws had religious implications they would be even more controversial than they already are. Some would like to paint the issue as the evil bible belt seeking to impose their morality; this may aid them in rallying the troops. But to my mind, this issue is about respect for, and the sanctity of, the miracle of life. Granted that a religious person may be more likely to, but one does not have to be religious to believe in these concepts.

[Teiwaz]

I do not advocate "viability ex utero" as any sort of test - Roe v Wade did, and I disagree with it's reasoning. I actually think it is incredibly dumb reasoning. It seems you do too.

You did say There is only one safe answer, one answer that is not relative and does not change with medical technology. One true answer to when does life begin - the moment of conception. and I think that is too simple, and wrong. It is seductive in it's simplicity, but it ignores a whole range of important considerations.

If a zygote is "alive" then what about an adult in a totally vegetative state as the result of massive brain injury? Such an individual may respond to crude stimuli and be able to exist independently provided someone provides nutrients through a tube and other basic support functions. That person is more alive than a zygote, and arguably more "human", but neither the church or the government or the courts have a problem with turning off life support. So in balance to the question of when life begins, I have another question - when does life end? The "person" was extinguished when all but basic autonomic brain function, heart beat and respiration ceased. Isn't that what we all consider death?

Mere biological function by a group of cells with a humanoid resemblance does not constitute human life. A mother's womb is simply the bodies own life support system for a fetus. Maybe it is life if we are talking about a bacteria, or a single celled organism, or a plant - but we're not. We are talking about human beings. Some people have suggested that we aren't truly human until we are self aware, which happens about 3 months AFTER birth, for whatever that is worth as a concept.

A zygote is just a bundle of dividing cells, not human life. It is just cellular activity in the womb of the mother. Up to 60% of fertilised eggs, zygotes, won't even implant in the uterine wall. 25% of those are lost in the first few weeks. Those are the facts. To say those all are the deaths of human beings creates a ridiculous scenario.

I have my own reasons, based on fetal development in utero as scientifically known and evaluated, for deciding when I think a human embryo should not be terminated on the whim of the mother. It is no more arbitrary than choosing to adopt the position that human life begins at the point of fertilisation, and I think far more justified on the known facts. For example, how can a pre implantation blastocyst that doesn't even have a yolk sack be human life?

What "pro-choice" see as their position seems unclear to me. Depends which faction you mean. My position is as stated - that you should not try to interfere in the woman's decision to terminate in the first trimester. After that, there should be health, deformity, rape etc considerations applied.

In that I suppose I am sort of pro-choice with qualifications, and nothing in my reasoning has anything to do with the bible, or sanctity, or believing pregnancy is a miracle. I actually think the creation of life is pretty cool, but a perfectly normal, if incredibly complex, biological function, not a miracle.

I agree the religious groups seek to impose their own morality, which harks back to my comments on religion in politics in another thread. They can preach what they want in their churches and literature, but I think the church, any church, has no place seeking to influence government policy or laws on their pet subjects. (for flames on that comment we should go back to the other thread! lol)

[nelson]

I like your "when does life end" question and the illustration about a person on life support. It is a fair question. You inferred we (collectively) have no problem turning off life support, but I think in reality there is a lot of debate on this issue as well. President Bush took a stand when he said that in most scenarios we as a society ought to err on the side of life. I agree with him. I concede that, in part, this answer is an admission that we do not fully understand life or what makes one 'alive.' This is a good topic for a thread.

how can a pre implantation blastocyst that doesn't even have a yolk sack be human life?You were this, so how can it be anything but?

I know your basis is firmly in science, but even presuming I agreed with you, I still can't quite get my mind around the transition from 'at this moment I say there are only cells in this womb which will develop into a life' ... to ... 'at this moment I now deem that life exists in this womb.' I think this is a precarious and subjective determination.

They can preach what they want in their churches and literature, but I think the church, any church, has no place seeking to influence government policy or laws on their pet subjects. (for flames on that comment we should go back to the other thread! lol)We'll agree to disagree again, because it is my view that such a position would have prevented most nations from ever beginning. But even if we do disagree on this, abortion, whether or not life is a miracle, or any other issue, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it with you.

[Teiwaz]

Nelson, you are always polite and well reasoned, that's for sure!

As a minor clarification - I don't pretend to say "at this MOMENT" life exists, and at this one it doesn't. I am happy in myself however to say that the end of the 1st trimester is as close as I would comfortably get to it before I had issues with the level of development of the foetus and the implications of that level of development. I think the facts support it, and it is objectively about the best you can do. Remember I think the 2 extremes are illogical and unsupported, so I guess it is the point on the timeline of fetal development where I say "enough, this is as close to full gestation as we should go with elective termination without cause".

[nelson]

Senate Passes Interstate Abortion Bill
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INTERSTATE_ABORTION

[The_Man]

It is one step to rational policy to provide for parental notification for the minor children to whom parents are responsible and provide for penalties for those who wish to circumvent this basic parental right. I just love, LOL, the response of the honorable, LOL, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy "Congress ought to have higher priorities than turning grandparents into criminals,"