Redstate

that many democrats (including myself) would almost certainly agree with this sentiment:

"...all that is deplorable about our society [is reflected in] the glorification of selfishness...the deification of one's own personal agenda...the callous disregard for those in lower positions...never caring that the path is paved with the corpses of the defenseless and needy...callously and shamelessly profit[ing] from the misery of others...seek[ing] to take advantage of a system that will not or cannot punish them for their wrongdoing."

Many of us view that as a perfect summary of Republican economic/domestic policy.  

So we agree on many of the symptoms, we just have different views on the underlying cause, or of the underlying sickness if you will.  Or perhaps we see the same sickness, but see it reflected in different symptoms.  Anyway, just a thought.

You have exactly nailed why I included it in the post.

Now, putting aside for just a moment whether Republicans DO actually behave in that fashion, can you disagree that those sentiments are embodied in the pro-choice movement?

about the whole abortion issue (none the less after living with one who is very sincerely pro-life).  I see it as one of those fundamental conflicts without easy answers.  When does life begin? Where does potential life stack up in value to a breathing human being? Does the value of potential life outweigh the fundamental liberty interest of a person's ability to make their own decisions regarding their physical body (and not just their money, which I just can't see holding nearly the same value, despite any libertarian's labor and property rights arguments - the most basic unit of property is surely one's own body).  

I realize you probably see it as much more black-and-white, with you on the side of angels vs. PP, NARAL, et al on the side of the devils.  I'm no big fan of PP and NARAL, especially their political choices, and I find the "I had an abortion!" t-shirt/pro-abortion (as opposed to pro-choice) mentality reprehensible. But I understand their reason for being.

In short, I don't like the idea of having an abortion but take the cop-out position of it not being my place to tell another what to do with their own body, and I see the fundamental conflicts I noted above.  In an ideal world, it wouldn't be an issue, because nobody would have to make the choice - nobody would want or feel the need to have an abortion, for health or financial reasons (I know more "selfish" reasons exist, and that's probably the sentiment you'd most condemn, but outside the extreme examples I'm sure you could dig up, I find them usually more-or-less understandable if you dig deep enough - I simply doubt that people get abortions for fun and to fulfill selfish, hedonistic desires like greed).  

But we aren't yet in that world, so I'd like to think that working to reduce the demand for abortions would be the best route, rather than attempting to limit the supply (the same view I take toward drugs).  But nobody influential seems to want to take the demand route.  I wish more people would.

I have a 1 year old, so I can relate to a lot of your comments.  Many of them, I will be able to relate to as he grows up.  

 As far as the 1 million abortions a year in THIS country (if that number is accurate), what is the answer you reccomend?  Progressives always say that their goal is to make an abortion the LAST option, by providing birth control, The morning after pill, and education to everyone.  I never hear an answer from the conservatives.  Having 1 million MORE live births isn't the answer because of the burden that would put on society.

  I guess my personal belief is that this is a Personal decission.  If you had a child recently, and you are older (like me), you probably dealt with the whole "amniocentesis" question.  They can take a sample of the fluid and "possibly" tell you if your baby has a birth defect that's detectable.  You also find out that the chances of the "test" CAUSING a miscarriage, are greater than the chance they find something.  You really have to ask yourself, what would you do if your child will have birth defect ?  What if it's going to be a severe birth defect ?  For me, the answer was to NOT do the amnio, since we would never abort the baby, BUT I also understand the reasons why some else would decide to .  If I did the test, and found my baby would have some defect, and possible have a short horrible life, I would be torn up inside.  I understand why someone would want to abort the baby, even though I couldn't do it.

So what's the solution ???  I don't know, but judging others decisions isn't the answer.

This site needs some exterminators.

It's getting bad when a Democrat can come out, say he's ambivalent about abortion, and yet barge into an abortion thread and spout spiteful caricatures of Republican policy.

I'd like to know if someone has more information concerning what this influx of babies (obviously some parents might change their mind after having the baby and that would be GREAT!) would do the adoption system as it is now set up. Could it even handle it???

For the pro-lifers, what if some of these new children are forever stuck in the system? Are we doing them any favors if they're left to be raised without a family?

In the end my belief in the right to privacy requires me to be pro-choice. I think any rational person on either side of the debate believes a world without abortions is a better world, but unfortunately I don't think our world is there yet.

kevin romp.

Having 1 million MORE live births isn't the answer because of the burden that would put on society

By that logic, there is no society which cannot be improved by reducing its population. Therefore, by induction, the optimum society has zero people in it.

It's either that, or "every mouth comes with two hands."

Does the value of potential life outweigh the fundamental liberty interest of a person's ability to make their own decisions regarding their physical body (and not just their money, which I just can't see holding nearly the same value, despite any libertarian's labor and property rights arguments - the most basic unit of property is surely one's own body).

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the fundamental crux of the issue - it isn't solely one's physical body involved. It's a nascent human life as well. Arguing on those grounds presupposes a lack of humanity on the part of the fetus, which is not a ground that any pro-lifer would agree to.

The fact is that every woman has the choice to become pregnant or not. Women (and men for that matter) do not have the "right" to sex without consequences. It's an attempt at a cop-out - trying to brush aside the consequences of what should be a very consequential act.

That's why the vast majority of pro-abortion arguments are nothing more than arguments from the basest form of selfishness - putting one's sexuality over the value of life.

Out of the 1 million babies there would probably be lots of groups.

-- some would go up for adoption as healthy babies.

-- Teenage girls would would eithor quit school, and go on welfare, OR they would stay home, and put off their future plans.

--  Some would be in the position to have the baby, and raise it in a loving family (maybe earlier than expected, or later).

--  Some would be single moms who would raise the child themselves.

-- A certain portion of these babies would have problems.  Maybe the mother was an alcoholic who drank throughout her pregnanacy ? Maybe the baby has genetic problems, and the parents won't or can't take care of the baby??

In any case, by not having the "last resort" an abortion, available, the number of single moms, and un-adoptable children would increase significantly.

I meant to say.

"having another 1 million UNWANTED children a year would put a burden on society".

You can't argue with that.

the pro-choice movement panders to all that is deplorable about our society

All?  All is a lot.  In fact, if I think of one counterexample to this statement, then it becomes false.  Such as "the pro-choice movement panders to armed robbers."

Living in a region of the country that wouldn't ever consider banning abortion, I'm exposed on a daily basis to people who are pro-choice.  In fact, everyone I know is pro-choice.  And none of them are pro-abortion.

People who are pro-choice are normal everyday people... they are the movement.  I think a good first step would be to understand how they can be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time.

No one thinks abortion alone is a good thing.

Let me draw a parallel.  No one (well, most Americans) thinks sending American troops to their deaths is a good thing.

But when they are killed in the line of duty in Iraq, we accept it and in fact encourage them to stay in the line of fire.  We say, "Yes, stay and fight, and maybe die, sacrificing your life and devastating your family."

Why would we support such a thing?

We have two camps: one says it's worth the cost, and the other says it's not.  (And rarely, if ever, the twain shall meet.)

You will say of abortion, flabbergasted, "How could it be worth the cost of all these innocent lives?!  What possible gain will there be?"

But other people will say the exact same words about the soldiers in Iraq.

And it is unfortunate that there are so many places in the country geographically that feel very differently about the issue, and yet we are all bound by the same law.  Leave it up to the states, I say.

But if it is banned, I sincerely hope institute some very serious sex-and-birth control education... I fear the cost to society would be quite high without it.  Look at the teen pregnancy rate--I don't trust these kids to be responsible parents.

On the abortion issue, both sides preach to the choir.  There is very little crossover.

comments like the ones you make about refraining from judging others, especially those who have had, or simply differ with us on the subject of, abortions are among the reasons why some of us on the right have little patience and little respect for certain of our interlocutors.  I mean, seriously.  Civilization itself depends upon moral judgment, if for no other reason than that most law of any importance is the embodiment of moral judgments about certain undesirable behaviours.  Try to imagine the course of American history in the absence of moral judgment: "I'm not saying that it's wrong to hold slaves, or that, insofar as you hold slaves or support the holding of slaves, you are a bad person, only that the holding of slaves is socially inutile." really fails to capture the import of the debates surrounding the institution.

Let's leave the "judge not" meme out of this debate.

To paraphrase (sorry to mangle your well-written piece, but it's to make a worthwhile point):

The statistics of this massive human tragedy are certainly nothing new to any of you. The numbers aren't clear because studies in this area are conspicuously lacking, but perhaps 1 million embryos or more per year in this country alone....  What is perhaps new is that, for the first time in the memory of this generation, we have seen with our own eyes the lamentable misery of mass human suffering here on our own shores - our consciences have been pricked to a new awareness of what it means to lose a significant portion of our population in a depressingly short period of time.

What isn't new is that this has been happening every day and every week of every year for over thirty years - mostly under the radar of our awareness or concern. Much political hay has been made over the past week over whether certain segments of our society have a lack of concern for poor minorities. This is a debatable point. What is not debatable is that large segments or our society have absolutely no concern for the human tragedy occuring daily in this country. What will we do about this problem? Who will appoint a congressional finger-pointing committee? Who will fund the commission that will research and get to the bottom of how this has happened for so long? Which Senator will bemoan our lack of preparedness and foresight, and berate the appropriate officals for "not having seen this on the horizon?"

We do not wish to minimize the fact that infertility forces a life-changing decision on a couple. The path of barrenness, as any parent can attest, is the path of unfulfilled, and unfulfillable, lifelong hopes and desires. It is the path of loneliness, it is the constant feeling of worthlessness amid what seems like seas of happy families. Parenthood is not an endeavor for the light of heart, and it changes each and every single aspect of your life from that moment on. No longer do you think and provide only for yourself - and there are many times in the life of most parents that they often feel that their lives become totally subsumed in the lives of their children. These are life alterations that not everyone would like to accept, but even for those who do accept them wholeheartedly, this does not automatically "buy them in" to the life they've imagined.

Indeed, the path of parenthood is a path of great reward. It is the path of pride in the nurturing and shaping of another. It is the path of knowing that when your child is sick, there is nowhere they would rather be than in your arms. It is the path of countless moments of accomplishment when your child successfully learns each new thing. It is the path of person who is truly elated to be present at high school and college graduations, of tearful joy at a wedding - it is the path of an irreplacable peace, knowing that whatever may come in your life, you have contributed to the bettering of the planet in some small way.  To get these lifelong benefits, the unconditional love, it is easy to understand how someone might turn their head to the daily tragedy unfolding in this country.

Accordingly, the reproductive assistance movement panders to pure motives but, in the end, represents all that is deplorable about our society. It is the glorification of selfishness, it is the deification of one's own personal agenda, it is the callous disregard for those in lower positions who will shell out their life savings to rich doctors for a chance at their dream, treading on the backs of the dead. The reproductive assistance movement encourages a path of great reward through great trial, never caring that the path is paved with the corpses of the defenseless and needy.  Thinking about those profit-hungry doctors conjures images in my mind of those who would loot during lawlessness created through tragedy, of those who callously and shamelessly profit from the misery of others - who seek to take advantage of a system that openly advertises these extraordinary measures as virtue rather than wrongdoing. It is everything that was wrong with Enron and the technology bubble of the late 90s, when personal greed run amok devastated the finances of millions.

Conversely, the pro-life movement seeks to encourage all that is good and noble about humanity. It encourages those facets of our human nature that make us proud when we witness them surface in our society. Love for others. Heroic self-sacrifice. Giving up one's own dreams to protect the defenseless and the weak. Every time parents make a choice to forgo IVF, it conjures images in my mind of devastated individuals refusing to loot the store next door, of families donating their hard-earned vacation fund to help complete strangers in times of crisis, of everything that is good about the existence of the Salvation Army and the Red Cross.

These kinds of choices are made every single day by the hundreds of thousands. Every single day, thousands of unheralded heroes are made through the cruel science of IVF, only to die a silent death. They will never be afforded any kind of burial at all, and no one will think to find their bodies. And yes, those who condemn them to death they will disproportionately be wealthy. Their deaths will be callously dismissed as a great victory for "family" and "choice."

All events of human tragedy have a tendency to create heroes and villains - and in the modern information age, plenty of both are inevitably paraded in front of the cameras for all to see. It is my simple hope that the American people will one day realize that there are heroes and villians created by the hundreds of thousands every day in an ongoing human tragedy that dwarfs the scale of any other - man-made or natural. May we have the moral courage to recognize them for what they are, and bring this critical issue into focus with clarity and determination.

There are some pro-life people who are opposed to any abortion ever for any reason. And some pro-choice people believe there needs to be abortion available at any time for any reason with no worry about cost.

I suspect the average person on the street doesn't at all equate a 12-year-old who got raped taking the morning-after pill with a 25-year-old in her 37th week getting her 12th govt-paid abortion.

NARAL and the like argue that outlawing the 2nd is starting down the "slippery slope" toward outlawing the 1st, so they demand no restrictions ever. Seems to me that Roe v Wade became a slippery slope in the other direction, so that suddenly all restrictions were outlawed forever.

There should be a happy medium somewhere that 80% of people would think is okay, but it's apparently never going to happen.

I crossed over when I saw the ultrasound of my twin girls. Right then, right there, I knew that abortion was as evil a thing as there was in the world.

I believe all women who are in line to get an abortion should have to sign off on the ultrasound first.

"Arguing on those grounds presupposes a lack of humanity on the part of the fetus, which is not a ground that any pro-lifer would agree to"

Exactly, but though I'm sure you'd disagree, the definition of humanity especially in regard to a fetus is not something everyone agrees on, and all sides pretty much disagree in good faith.  I'm not prepared to tell someone whose philosophical or religious views inform their view that someone becomes "alive" or "human" at birth (as some Jews do, IIRC) that they're 100% wrong as a matter of basic fact or basic moral truth. Whereas in the domestic policy arguments about personal freedom, taxation, and welfare programs, I think most of us can agree on basic definitional issues such as "what is money?" etc.

As for the second half of your post, I will say that I simply don't understand what appears to be a desire to punish individuals (and it almost always centers around teenagers) for their choosing to exercise their sexuality and perhaps for choosing unwise birth control methods, etc.

Now I'm sure you wouldn't see having a child as punishment (you made that clear by your post), but just the whole way the argument is made seems to make an implicit assumption that making a teenager or some other unwisely-sexually-active person go through 9 months of pregnancy and give birth is sort of a just punishment or a just desert for daring to try to have "sex without consequences."  It's a very narrow focus on the individuals involved and a certain perceived moral wrong that lacks a greater perspective, I think.  I'd like to think we can make decisions about whether we should have children on the basis of whether or not it would be good for everyone involved and good for the world, as others in the thread have noted (e.g. considering if it would be good for teenagers, their children, and the world if teenagers were to have babies, instead of focusing on how we can teach those slutty teens a lesson by forcing them to bear children they accidentally conceive).  I don't know if it's a puritan strain of thought or what, but I've certainly seen it expressed elsewhere, often by people who seem to have been pretty puritan in their own behavior as a youth.  I'm not imputing that psychological motive to you, I'm just trying to flesh out some of the background in the argument. Hell, I can even say that I was hardly a promiscuous teen and maybe was a bit jealous of the "fun" that other kids were having, but the argument that we should punish them for not being as "good" as us just seems to have something in mind other than what's best for everyone involved.

What to do with their lives. By definition, most conservatives agree with me. But we also believe, and more importantly so, that the government's job is to protect each person's individual rights. The first and most fundamental right is the right to live. This right trumps the right of choice (for this argument I will assume this right exists). Furthermore, by banning abortions, we are not banning the right to choose. There are many forms of birth control out there with very low failure rates that work without killing anyone. This means we continue to take a million lives per year unnecessarily to retain the right to choose for a couple of thousand (the failure rate). That couple thousand can be reduced even further if the couple uses condoms. It can be reduced to zero if they don't have intercourse. given that all these options exist but aren't being used, abortion remains plan A for many women rather than plan D. Banning abortion would not only move plan A to plan D, but it would be replaced entirely with the adoption option. Plan A would then be abstinence, B & C would be contraseptives etc. leaving women with the right to choose. The 1,000,000 unwanted pregnacies would never become pregnacies in the first place. If abortion is banned no one is telling the woman what to do, mearly rearanging her options, but this time, the child's rights would also not be trampled

is that pro-choice and pro-life cannot and will not agree on the fundamental question whether a fetus is a person.  This is a yes-no, up or down question.  Even when you throw in complications like viability or the circumstances of the pregnancy (ie rape), in the end you're really working around the margins of the central, disagreeable question.  I'm not asking for you or others to trot out science about fetal pain or fetal brain waves or other facts which support your contention, because in the end they cannot prove the central point, only provide inconclusive support.  Leon, we have wrestled on this before, and I know you seek analagous situations where that clearly involve defenseless persons, but there really is nothing else quite like pregnancy.

I dislike abortion.  Actually, I loathe abortion.  But I'm not willing to force women to carry pregnancies to term.  That's the only alternative you offer, and I cannot subscribe to that.  Damn me to hell for it, but regardless of my feelings about the act that is where my line is drawn.  Give me the ability to remove a fetus from a woman and allow it to be carried to term elsewhere and I will support banning abortion.  That's as far as I can go.

The notion that life begins at conception was widely accepted, EVEN BY THE HEAD OF PP. The reason for the change of heart was propaganda by pro-choicers. Remember, pro-choice groups lied during the SC case Roe v. Wade to convice the court of their plight (stats such as the number of 'coathanger abortions' per year). It is propaganda and pseudo-science invented AFTER Roe v. Wade that caused people to believe life instead began at birth. Thankfully though, society is returning to it's old way of thinking.

By that logic, there is no society which cannot be improved by reducing its population. Therefore, by induction, the optimum society has zero people in it.

Well, beermeister was speaking about this country.  It's pretty gutsy to assert that every society is like the United States, which is what you're saying when you say your premise applies to all of them.

He said, in essense, "An additional one million births is a burden on the society of the United States."

You said, in essense, "No society cannot be improved by reducing its population."

This premise is entirely your own.  His does not mention or even imply population reduction.

My point is: your absurd conclusion is the fault of your premise, not beermeister's.

... Has always been the (implicit or express) equation of a fertilized egg, a ten-week old fetus, and a two year old by some in the pro-life movement -- as if each were more equivalents because each has a human DNA sequence.  Human DNA, however, is not humanity, just as an architect's plan for a skyscraper is not a skyscraper.  Nor has DNA ever been been the sole means by which we define humanity.  Arguments that presuppose that we must accord a fertilized egg the same moral status as a fourteen-year girl -- such as the argument that there are 1 million-plus "murders" in this country -- just don't make sense to me, on either a moral or rational level.  Put another way:  if course of action (a) had a 50% of destroying a fertilized egg and a 10% chance of killing a fourteen year and course of action (b) had the percentages reversed, it's not at all hard for me to say that course (a) is the right thing to do and course (b) is an evil thing to do.  The logic of Leon's post, however, suggests that either course of action is equally acceptable (beach each is equally bad) to him.

I do support further restrictions on abortion, up to and beyond those currently permissible under Roe -- which is to say, I not only find Roe wrongly decided but also view it as an impediment to the public good.  But I think it's a mistake of morality to view abortion as an absolute charge.

Democrats who claim they want to minimize abortions refuse to require looking at sonograms before abortions. So much for their committment to the life of an unborn child. Those mothers with see sonograms eventually and regret their uninformed decision (which is itself a lack of choice).

As an individual who spent lots and lots of time discussing/praying before doing IVF (we're currently 20 weeks pregnant with IVF twins), I'm going to ask you to explain your comments concerning Assisted Reproductive Technology in general and IVF in particular.

I knew that abortion was as evil a thing as there was in the world

But before that did you think it was a good thing?  I doubt it.

Everyone thinks it's an evil thing.

When I saw pictures of the dead soldiers in Iraq, I knew right then and there killing men was as evil a thing as there was in the world.

"a 25-year-old in her 37th week getting her 12th govt-paid abortion"

...that government doesn't have to pay for abortions anyway, at least according to the Supreme Court decisions I recall (correct me if I'm wrong).

While government quite often does end up paying for the education, health care, etc. of your mythical "welfare queen" mom who just keeps pumping out the kids.  And then of course n a substantial chunk of the "pro-life" contingency seems to come out of the woodwork and reveal itself as more "pro-birth" in its disdain for making such payments, but that's another rant for another day, at another site.

von, why do you support any restrictions on abortion? If an embryo is not a person, why restrict abortion procedures? Personhood is not a category subject to gradation: you either are or are not a person (whatever the laws of the land prior to the Civil War). With regard to the embryo, then, if it is not a person, then there is no moral issue with its "removal", anymore than with an appendectomy.

I'm sure you disagree, though, but could you offer an analogous case to help me understand why we should restrict access to abortion if a two-day old fertilized egg is not metaphysically and morally equivalent to a thirty-year old fertilized egg?

As to your first point, none of the substantial arguments in favor of the human "beingness" of the embryo assert that being a human is merely based on the presence of human DNA. The embryo is a human being because it is a self-directed, integrated organism of the human species, unlike (for example) a human skin cell, which also has human DNA. The key word is "being": a skin cell is not an individual member of its species; it is a part of such a member. Such, though, is not the case with the embyro: it is a self-directed, integrated entity which belongs to our species. As such, it is a human being and hence is a possessor of the same rights held by other human beings.

Why do you loathe abortion, Gengisdon? (Cf. my response to von below.)

Exactly, but though I'm sure you'd disagree, the definition of humanity especially in regard to a fetus is not something everyone agrees on, and all sides pretty much disagree in good faith.  I'm not prepared to tell someone whose philosophical or religious views inform their view that someone becomes "alive" or "human" at birth (as some Jews do, IIRC) that they're 100% wrong as a matter of basic fact or basic moral truth. Whereas in the domestic policy arguments about personal freedom, taxation, and welfare programs, I think most of us can agree on basic definitional issues such as "what is money?" etc.

Let's assume we can't know if a fetus is "human" or not - it's an intractable divide.

Then the state should morally and legally error on the side of life. If there's a non-zero chance that a fetus is human, then the obligation of the state must be to protect that life and ensure that it cannot be arbitrarily ended. The first obligation of the government is protecting the lives of its citizens - regardless of age or status.

As for the second half of your post, I will say that I simply don't understand what appears to be a desire to punish individuals (and it almost always centers around teenagers) for their choosing to exercise their sexuality and perhaps for choosing unwise birth control methods, etc.

Because no one is being punished. A punishment requires volition. Pregnancy is a natural side effect of having sex. It's a risk.

For instance, if I drive my car at 120mph down the interstate and end up splattered on a guardrail, I'm not being punished, I'm ending up with a consequence of a risky choice. The same thing with the person who decides to sleep around and not use proper protection. Choices don't exist within a vacuum, and risky choices can have severe consequences.

The rhetoric of abortion on the pro-abortion side is all about "choice" - hence the euphemism "pro-choice." The problem is that doctrine is incomplete. There are no such things as choices without consequences, but the pro-choice ideology wants to gloss over those consequences.

don't know if it's a puritan strain of thought or what, but I've certainly seen it expressed elsewhere, often by people who seem to have been pretty puritan in their own behavior as a youth.  I'm not imputing that psychological motive to you, I'm just trying to flesh out some of the background in the argument. Hell, I can even say that I was hardly a promiscuous teen and maybe was a bit jealous of the "fun" that other kids were having, but the argument that we should punish them for not being as "good" as us just seems to have something in mind other than what's best for everyone involved.

The problem with that line of argumentation is that sex is more than a form of recreation - it's a choice that has potentially lasting consequences. A system of ethics that tries to ignore or gloss over those consequences both marginalizes sex and erodes the fabric of society itself.

The "Sexual Revolution" brought us AIDS, teenage pregnancy, and skyrocketing divorce rates, all of which have profound effects on our society. People today tend to have less rewarding relationships than our grandfathers and grandmothers did. It's not a matter of "punishment" it's a matter of understanding consequences - and sadly, teens are not exactly known for that.

She had two abortions before I met her (15 years ago), and she still bears emotional scars from them. She is now thoroughly oppsed to abortion, especially after having borne our two children.

Ya got me there, pal. You have won a Great Victory. Put that one on your mantle.

Would be my observation.

as to how opposition to abortion can be reconciled with support for IVF -- no direct condemnation of IVF or those who pursue it are intended.  My heart goes out to you; as a father and as a friend to two couples who saw through the hopes and risks of IVF, I wish you luck and may your prayers be answered.

von, why do you support any restrictions on abortion? If an embryo is not a person, why restrict abortion procedures? Personhood is not a category subject to gradation: you either are or are not a person (whatever the laws of the land prior to the Civil War). With regard to the embryo, then, if it is not a person, then there is no moral issue with its "removal", anymore than with an appendectomy.

There are two conceptual mistakes, here.  The first, and more esoteric, is the claim that one is or isn't a "person."  It's not so clear to me that the choice is binary; or that, even if it is, there is not an inbetween state in which we do not know when an embryo is or is not a person.  (Obviously, we treat something that might/might not be a person differently than we treat something that is a person.)

More fundamental, however, is the mistake that "personhood" is synonymous with "value."  It's not.  The fact that I don't think that a fertilized egg is a "person" does not mean that I think a fertilized egg has no moral value; nor does the fact that I differentiate between "embryos" and "persons" mean that I think embryos have no moral value.

I'm sure you disagree, though, but could you offer an analogous case to help me understand why we should restrict access to abortion if a two-day old fertilized egg is not metaphysically and morally equivalent to a thirty-year old fertilized egg?

Yes.  As a fertilized egg progresses to an embryo, and an embryo to a fetus, several things change:  It's likelihood of becoming a person increases (indeed, a significant number of embryos self-abort) and it acquires more and more of the attributes of what defines a person (not only appearances, but also the ability to sense and perhaps to reason and feel emotion.  In other words, it becomes more and more like a person until it is a person.  

Such, though, is not the case with the embyro: it is a self-directed, integrated entity which belongs to our species.

Query, then:  Is an unimplanted embryo a human being?

Thanks for your substantial reply, von. A couple thoughts...

I don't see how your first two issues indicate mistakes on my part. Re: personhood, it seems to me that that category is similiar to, for example, a shape being a triangle: something is either exactly 3-sided (and hence a triangle) or is not. I don't see how you've demonstrated that personhood is not a similar category.

Re: personhood and value, your comment is well-taken, although I don't think it indicates a mistake in my previous comment. If I read you correctly, you hold that all persons have value, but not everything that has value is a person. You proceed to argue that the embryo is in the latter category: it has value, but is not a person. Would that be correct?

Your comment about what changes as an embryo grows gets to the decisive question: what is a person? My definition of a human person is identical to my definition of a human being, but if I were asked what distinguishes beings in general from persons, I'd say that persons have the latent capacity to reason & freely will, and since all human beings have that latent capacity, all human beings are persons, including those which have not implanted in a uterus (natural or artificial).

Thoughts?

  This thread can run on forever, spinning out through argument and counter-argument only to wind up back at the initial tautology of the pro-life movement: Life begins at the moment of conception. A person either accepts that or starts on the long contradictory slog that will sooner or later end up in infanticide. I happen to believe that life does begin at the moment of conception and as a man the best I can do in the current environment is to not convince, coerce or in any way manipulate a woman to have an abortion. It's the nature of the challenge to the pro-abortion side that concerns me here.

  The great victory of postmodernism was to subvert the institutions that once resolved contradictions and replace them with deconstructive word-play. Thus the argument is a woman's right to her own body, which has always seemed a property issue to me, although I'm not a lawyer. Why not approach this on the terms that we've been given? If a man has no say in a woman's right to an abortion, why is a man responsible for child support if the woman decides to have the child?  

  I'm not being facetious. Every right is a bit of a Pharmakon, like unprotected sex, marriage and riding a motorcycle without a helmet; abortion should be no different. If the objective is to reduce the number of abortions, perhaps a non-linear approach is called for, which should include the notion that if a man has no right in deciding the fate of his child, he has no responsibility for its potential upkeep.  

"Everyone thinks it's an evil thing"

Oh really? Hogwash. I won't even get into that one.

"When I saw pictures of the dead soldiers in Iraq, I knew right then and there killing men was as evil a thing as there was in the world. "

Oh really? Killing terrorists who would gladly behead your wife and child is evil? Sacrificing your life for something greater than yourself is evil? I would gladly die with my hands around the terrorists throats if I could, knowing, as the families of the American fallen SHOULD know, that I was making my family safer.

To equate the two is pitiful.

Are we doing them any favors if they're left to be raised without a family?

I think there's a lot of potential for common ground on the abortion issue.  Both sides of the debate tend to treat the subject in terms of absolutes, which makes it an almost intractable issue.  We ought to look for areas where the majority of people on both sides (not the fringes of either) can agree on a reasonable approach as a way to move forward.

I think it is a tragedy that there are a million abortions a year.  It's obviously terrible that so many potential lives will never be.  Abortion extracts a heavy toll on women as well.  I think most reasonable people, pro-choice or pro-life, would agree that we should strive for a world in which there are no abortions.  Let's agree on a common goal of reducing the number of abortions to as close to zero as we can.  This would be a tremendous victory for our society.

The only question is how we get there.  Let's leave aside the question of criminalizing abortion for a moment (I'll address that approach below), and look at some other things we can do.  Here are some thoughts:

1. Let's lower the number of unwanted pregnancies.  There are a few elements of this.  For teens, it means we need more effective sex education.  Let's not get caught up on abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex education.  Instead, let's look at what works best and make sure our kids aren't getting pregnant.  For adults, we need to make sure they can get access to contraception when they need it.  This is an area where red states need to do better--the top 5 teen pregnancy rates are all found in red states, and the bottom five are all in blue states.  But blue states have a lot of work to do too, especially in big cities.  D.C. has a higher teen pregnancy rate than any state; the blue states with big urban populations have high teen pregnancy rates as well.
   
2. Let's look at ways to more effectively promote alternatives to abortion.  We can educate people about the rewards of being a parent.  In circumstances where becoming a parent doesn't seem realistic to the mother, let's improve the adoption infrastructure.  Let's figure out ways to reduce the social stigma that surrounds being pregnant, and instead celebrate women who choose to be mothers or give their children up for adoption.  This includes single mothers.  We can't give them the message that it's horrible to be a single mother on the one hand, but that they shouldn't have an abortion on the other hand.
   
3. Let's consider reasonable ways of encouraging women to be thoughtful about abortion.  This doesn't include impediments for the sake of impediments, but a reasonable amount of education about other options and discussion about the impact of the decision is probably worthwhile, in a similar context to the way doctors advise patients about many of the important medical decisions they may make.

In addition to all of this, of course, some may argue that we should legally ban abortion.  Here is where I disagree, at least in many cases.  This disagreement stems from a different belief about the beginning of "life", as well as an interest in balancing privacy and autonomy against the potential for future life.  There is probably room for discussion about the landscape between "abortions allowed for anyone whenever they want it" and "not any ever", but this will require discussion on a much less ideological basis than usually takes place.  I'll throw what I think is a reasonable position out:  abortions should be limited to before it is reasonably likely that the fetus is viable, except in cases of rape or when the health of the mother is at significant risk.  I suspect that my version of "reasonable" however, may be Leon's version of "just another version of state sanctioned baby killing" so I'm not sure how much reasonable discussion and progress there is to be made on this front.

That it might be better to be dead than raised outside of one's natural family, wouldn't one?

Tell it to Dred Scott and his heirs that it's moot to argue for personhood for the powerless.

Oh really? Hogwash. I won't even get into that one.

It's a horrible procedure!  There's risk of death, there's pain, there's psychological trauma!  So all you have to do to prove me wrong is find someone who thinks that stuff is good.

Killing terrorists who would gladly behead your wife and child is evil?

I'd say any killing is evil.  Ending someone's life, harming their friends and loved ones, I ask you: how is this Good?

I don't see how your first two issues indicate mistakes on my part. Re: personhood, it seems to me that that category is similiar to, for example, a shape being a triangle: something is either exactly 3-sided (and hence a triangle) or is not. I don't see how you've demonstrated that personhood is not a similar category.

I think this example is inapposite:  a triangle has a well-established definition; as is apparent from our discussion, "personhood" does not.  

My definition of a human person is identical to my definition of a human being, but if I were asked what distinguishes beings in general from persons, I'd say that persons have the latent capacity to reason & freely will, and since all human beings have that latent capacity, all human beings are persons, including those which have not implanted in a uterus (natural or artificial).

But that's not correct:  A embryo doesn't have a "latent" capacity to reason and freely will, and it's not merely semantics.  Latent means "[n]ot visible, obvious or active, but present and capable of becoming activated."  An embryo does not have a "present" ability to reason that can be "activated."  Among other things, an embryo does not have brain.  Rather, an embryo has a capacity to grow into something -- a baby (or even an older fetus) -- which does have a latent capacity to reason and freely will.  The difference between the two is not minor.

Not to disrupt our conversation, but let's not lose sight of some fundamental agreements between us.  For instance, I'd support a ban on all abortions after the first trimester, except in cases of the (physical*) health of the mother.  I'd even support a ban on most abortions within the first trimester, although (a) I do not support (and would oppose) bans on birth control pills, the morning after pill, "plan B," etc. and (b) I continue to favor continued embryonic stem cell research, using unimplanted embryos that would otherwise be discarded.  

It's my religous upbringing.  My dad was very religous (he's a minister), and we were always told Mathew 7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  I try to live by those words from the bible.

Let us further explore the implications of your idea that the choice is not binary.  If the ten-week old fetus and the two year old are not morally equivalent, what about the two-week old infant and the 14-year old?  Once we begin to view human life as something that has relative value, we are on a slippery slope.  Should you be obliged to give up a kidney to save the life of another individual deemed to be of greater value?

Human beings are not equivalent.  Yet equality before the law is recognized by most as a necessary principle.

The slippery slope argument is the way we get locked into extreme ideological positions on this issue.  Pro-life people claim the slippery slope leads to poor people getting killed because rich people are more worthy; pro-choice people claim that the slippery slope means that any minor restriction on abortion means that we end up with women unable to terminate pregnancies due to rape that will inevitably lead to their deaths.

There are a lot of important differences between a just fertalized embryo and a six year old child.  Only one has an ability to reason, can breathe, can eat food, etc.  There are also a lot of things the same, and the embryo definitely has the potential to turn into a child with those same capabilities, but they're not the same thing and it may be reasonable to treat them differently.  Similarly, we may allow an old person with an incurable disease to refuse treatment or food/water, but we don't want twenty year olds killing themselves.  People (humans?) can be equal before the law, while the law still recognizes differences in circumstances.

By calling "slippery slope," you are labeling the argument rather than responding to it.

Let me point out that you refer to allowing a terminally ill person to refuse treatment and sustenance.  Equality before the law means that we also allow a terminally ill twenty-year old the same right to make such a choice.  It is an entirely different matter, however, to allow someone else to make that choice for another human being.  And that is what we are talking about here.

"Should you be obliged to give up a kidney to save the life of another individual deemed to be of greater value?"

Under Kelo, perhaps so.

births each year either.

It is likely that some people would be more careful in regards to getting pregnant.

The ease and availability of abortion make taking the risk more worthwhile.

of the dumber memes of the pro choice position.

...you weren't around before the Revolutionary War.

questionaire. How is your health? Would you like us to grow you a new kidney from stemcells or do you know some one who is less worthy than you that has a kidney we can harvest?

Nathan, I wish you all the best with the twins.  Should you wish to parent additional children, however, I hope you will consider adoption.

To my mind, assisted reproduction that involves the creation of human life that will subsequently be destroyed raises the same moral issue as early-stage abortion.

I am further concerned that the combined impact of assisted reproduction and stem cell research will be a shift towards perceiving the human embryo/fetus as a special form of property and further undermine the sanctity of human life.  I know this is not the intent of those who turn to assisted reproduction as a remedy for infertility.  However, we must try to understand the real consequences of our actions when faced with new kinds of choices.

and it's a huge mistake to spin it that way. Abortion is about human life.

Proudly proclaiming "I had an abortion." Only now after 2004 are Dem politicians saying they think it's evil. Before they related it to a tumor removal.

Once we begin to view human life as something that has relative value, we are on a slippery slope.

That's what you wrote, not me.  I don't think it's much of a stretch for me to say that's a "slippery slope" argument.

You'll also notice that I wrote two paragraphs:  the first one described why I thought a particular class of argument wasn't very helpful to the discussion because it necessarily forces polarized and ideological discussion; my second paragraph addresses the substance of your argument, which you tacitly acknowledge by responding to it.

I'll admit my analogy is imprecise, but the point is that we treat different situations differently.    In some cases, society doesn't permit people to kill themselves, even if they want to.  In others is okay.  You're correct that this is not an exact analogy to abortion, but the point is that there are a lot of circumstances where we treat issues of great substance differently based on the situation.

Did your religious upbringing (which is mine too) say anything about standing idly by while millions of helpless children are slaughtered?

a small amount of good news.

I got an e-mail from Matt Blunt, the MO Gov. the other day with this included in it (I would post a link to the whole e-mail if I knew how.  Sorry I don't.)

The Governor Acts to Prevent Abortions, Save Lives

The first pro-life Governor since John Ashcroft, Matt Blunt is stepping forward to protect the innocent lives of unborn children. Blunt believes that life begins at conception and has a 100% pro-life record on abortion. He believes that we have a clear moral duty to protect unborn babies and is pledged to defend the sanctity of life.

To reduce the number of abortions, Governor Blunt has made pro-life legislation a central part of the new special legislative session that opened on Tuesday, Sept. 6. Blunt's pro-life agenda for legislators is threefold:

Prohibit helping a minor obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent or legal guardian. This is designed to stop the transporting of minors to Illinois, which has no parental consent law. Missouri has a parental consent law, which Blunt strongly supports. His plan would stop abortion providers from evading the law by performing abortions in Illinois on the minor daughters of Missouri families.

Stop abortion organizations from becoming a minor's legal "next friend" for a court proceeding to bypass parental consent.

Require an abortionist to have clinical privileges at a hospital with Ob/Gyn care that is within 30 miles of the abortion "clinic." Governor Blunt sees the Missouri abortion rate as a human and social tragedy. As awareness of the risks of sexually transmitted diseases has risen, along with other factors like abstinence education, gains have been made, with abortions tallied at 11,871 in Missouri in 2004. Blunt, a Southern Baptist, believes that Missourians support the value of human life across denominational lines and church attendance.

as too the spiritual nature,(righteousness) of the person. It is not about how they dress, act, speak, etc. If it were, there could be no laws or moral code. However, this passage is used often by the morally bankrupt to self-justify their failings of character. I see it is in your arsenal at the ready. It just doesn't work for those who recognize its misuse.

1) "It's a horrible procedure!  There's risk of death, there's pain, there's psychological trauma!"

2)"Good vs. Evil. Fight!"

I DISagree on two things:

1)"So all you have to do to prove me wrong is find someone who thinks that stuff is good."

If everyone thought it was bad, it would be illegal.

2) "I'd say any killing is evil.  Ending someone's life, harming their friends and loved ones, I ask you: how is this Good?"

If they were planning on harming ME, MY friends, and MY loved ones, it would be good. Killing a child who has never even had a chance to be born is evil, every time. Killing a terrorist who's only goal is to behead and blow up the innocent is good, every time.

collaboration, which many of your points advocate, is a good idea. However, the pro-choice movement never wants to collaborate. They vigorously oppose every collaborative move to reduce abortions, even when that reduction is by choice. As for your main points:

1. As a college student, I have never met a fellow student in HS or college who didn't have enough sex education. It is just that no one cares enough to go get contraceptives because they know they can always fall back on abortion. No amount of education can change this. (btw, I'm curious where are you getting your stats?)
   
2. I have never met a pro-lifer who wouldn't encourage a girl to give her child up for adoption if she was thinking about abortion. Pro-lifers are usually quite chivalrous about single mothers, but many pro-choicers see them as idiots for not getting an abortion or using contraceptives in the first place.
   
3. Again here, education is impeded by pro-choice politicians, and even if it was implemented would only have limited impact. The impact it does have is the reason we have seen a decline in abortions since the early 90's, as redstates implemented these educational policies over Dem objections.

As for your conclusion that there is room for discussion between "abortions allowed for anyone whenever they want it" and "not any ever", human life is human life. Comprimises don't work with regards to the legal killing of a human being. That's like comprimising on slavery. Slavery is and always will be immoral. The only 'progress' can result from fewer abortions, not more comprimises.

If most pro-choicers strive for a world without abortions, then how are there still 1 million a year when contraceptives combined with condoms can make it virtually impossible to get pregnant? The truth is, they care about their agenda far more.

If everyone thought it was bad, it would be illegal.

There's all sorts of things that everyone (or virtually everyone) thinks are bad, but that are still legal.

Example:  The KKK is bad.  Virtually everyone agrees it is bad.  I think it's bad.  I also don't think it should be illegal to be a member of the KKK, because people should be allowed to have whatever stupid opinions they want.

Sometimes, if you're forced into a binary choice (abortions vs. banning abortions), you think both the alternatives are bad and you choose the one you think is less bad.

So I'm going to have to take a fuller stab at this tomorrow, but a few quick observations:

1. I don't think the college crowd is the group with the highest rate of unintended pregnancy (by a long ways), so your peer group may not be a great sample.   I'm willing to concede sex education may not be enough to lower unintended pregnancy rates.  We should figure out what else we need to do.  The best way to stop abortions is to make sure people don't get pregnant when they don't want to.
   
2. Your assertion that people don't use contraception because they know they can just get an abortion is borderline absurd.  I've never met anyone that holds this opinion.  If your position were true, teen pregnancy would be lowest in states where it is hardest to get an abortion.  That does not correlate to reality at all.  I need to look at the numbers more closely, but from the initial glance I did earlier today, it seems that teen pregnancy rates tend to be HIGHER in places where abortion rates are LOWER.  (I'll hunt down my sources tomorrow and link them here.)
   
3. If you accepted the position I advocated in terms of the legality of abortions, there would be fewer abortions because my suggestion is more restrictive than the status quo.  So, that would be "progress" according to your definition.
   

Note - I said if "EVERYONE" thought it was bad, it would be illegal. Not "virtually" everyone.

BTW, which choice do you think is "less bad"?

Sorry, but the post above by bubbagump29 is not discussion in any sense of the word.

Back on topic, I agree with jb's comments.

I think the problem of finding common ground is two-fold. First, pro-lifers are very stubborn in their position that life begins at conception. But that's the way is has to be. There is no middle ground due to the moral underpinnings of their position and I'm fine with that. Secondly, I believe that many of us pro-choicers let the fringe segment get too much air-time, publicity, and political clout.

So where's the compromise begin? Well I think it really has to begin with pro-choice people. We need to move to eliminate all 3rd and 2nd trimester abortions (except for extreme circumstances requiring multiple doctor's opinions, etc..). Women should not need that much time to think about it since they should already be aware of the consequences of their sexual activity before they participate in it. Secondly, we should not block any legislation that requires a woman to be "educated" on the associated risks of abortion and the various alternatives.

The compromise that I ask most of the pro-life people is that on sex education and access to birth control. Abstinence only education does not get the job done. Furthermore, restricting access to contraceptives is only going to increase unwanted pregnancies. College students are not going to deny their hormones - it's biology.

I think (at least in the spur of the moment) these would be good first steps.

kevin romp.

von, I agree that we have many things in common. Thanks for reminding me, and for this convo.

As to your previous comment...

My point re: the triangle was that (my definition of) personhood is binary, as is the definition of "triangleness". You either are or are not a triangle; you either are or are not a person. It appears that you disagree with my definition of personhood... I'm wondering what your definition is,  and how it is not binary.

Re: embryos and latent capacities, it seems more correct to say that an embryo does have the relevant latent capacities. There are other instances in which we would acknowledge that an entity has a latent capacity, even though its ability to act on that capacity is either far off or perhaps even off for good. For instance, those with severe mental disabilities are unable (and will remain unable) to do things which others can do, but it would be granted that they have the capacity to do those things. Those in reversible comas are unable to do certain things at present, but their latent capacity to do them is recognized. And the same is true with a neonate.

It's certainly the case that an embryo doesn't yet have a brain, but I would still hold that we can speak of the embryo's latent capacity to reason, even though its ability to do so is far off. I think that in light of the examples given above, such a position is the most reasonable.

What think ye?

and the understanding of the text reflected in your comments is the understanding he imparted to you, then he simply did not know his stuff.  The text does not refer to moral judgment, but to judgment concerning how or whether God is working in someone's life, whether such a working is possible, whether certain people could ever see the light of divine grace, etc.  More than half of the scriptures become utterly unintelligible when the possibility of moral judgment is foreclosed; say what you will about the Biblical writers, but they were not daft enough to do such a thing.

You either are or are not a triangle; you either are or are not a person. It appears that you disagree with my definition of personhood... I'm wondering what your definition is,  and how it is not binary.

I think, at bottom, I don't have an good definition of "personhood."  I can say that certain things are attributes of a person:  human DNA; the capacity (latent or active) for free will; etc.  But I lack the knowledge necessary to divine the difference between a person and a nonperson in the great, gray middle.  

For instance, those with severe mental disabilities are unable (and will remain unable) to do things which others can do, but it would be granted that they have the capacity to do those things. Those in reversible comas are unable to do certain things at present, but their latent capacity to do them is recognized.

I think you're continuing to misapply and misuse the word "latent."  Latent" means that all the tools to do something are present, but may be unused.  A person in a reversible had a latent capacity to reason while in a coma; it was present in the person, but not activated.  A person who is missing a brain (say, as a result of brain death) does not have a latent capacity to reason, just as a person who is missing his legs does not have a "latent" capacity to walk (leaving aside prosthetics, etc.)  

So if we change the original statement to "virtually everyone thinks its an evil thing" does it somehow change the rest of the discussion?

Beyond that, I think it will be hard to find any topic that EVERYONE agrees is evil.  Virtually everyone thinks murder is bad, but Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader maybe think it's good or fun.  Are we no longer allowed to say "everyone thinks murder is evil", either?

With regards to what is "less bad", I'll suggest that it can be less bad to perform an abortion than to:

(1) force a woman that did not consent to have a fetus/baby put in her (I'm talking specifically about rape here) to carry it to term,

(2) force a woman to suffer grave health consequences, including the likely possibility of death, by carrying a pregnancy to term, or

(3) deprive a woman of fundamental autonomy over her body.

I'll admit that last one is the tricky one.  In addition to issues of autonomy there are issues of responsibility, and at some point another human life becomes involved as well.  I think there is reasonable disagreement about where the human life becomes involved, and generally not nearly enough discussion of how to balance the three issues.

You're missing the point, Goldwater Campaigner.  I'm not arguing that different "persons" are not morally equivalent; I'm arguing that certain cellular combinations are not "persons."  Again, think through the implications if it were otherwise; in particular, consider the implications of equating a fertilized egg with a ten-year old.

As for whether "equality before the law is recognized by most as a necessary principle" for "persons":  you overstate the point significantly.  The law does not presume equality among persons.  We do not say that a ten year old and a fifty year old have equal rights under the law, or will be treated the same.  

Perhaps "fundamental capacity" would be clearer for what I'm trying to say. But an example you provided gets to the point: Do you think there is any sense in which one might say that someone without legs has a capacity to walk?

First, here's the source I'm using for teen pregnancy and abortion rates.  It doesn't seem to be pushing any sort of agenda and the methodology seems sound, but I'm open to looking at other sources if other people think there are better ones.

Setting aside the issue of legality, I do believe there's a lot we can do to reduce the number of abortions, but it will require continuing good faith efforts from both sides of the debate.  Sometimes it will be frustrating.  Sometimes we will disagree.  But I think great strides can be made, and it would be a much better use of our time than trying to pack courts with judges that we think are going to happen to agree with our particular philosophy.  (Beyond this, appealing Roe might not have the dramatic effect on abortion rates that you might think--some states would keep abortion legal, including many of the states where abortion is most common today, and there were a large number of illegal abortions before Roe, as well.)

I want to address a few specific claims from bubbagump's message:

As a college student, I have never met a fellow student in HS or college who didn't have enough sex education.

While this claim may be true for your circle of acquaintances, I don't think it represents a good view of the national state of sex education.  There are a lot of abstinence-only programs that don't talk about contraception at all.  These programs may be good at reducing the number of kids that have sex, but I've seen no evidence that they're remotely effective at decreasing teen pregnancy rates.  A lot of kids end up having sex anyway, and end up sorely lacking in understanding how to avoid getting pregnant as a result.  Having said that, I think a serious effort at reducing teen pregnancy should take a serious look at both abstinency-based approaches and comprehensive approaches.  Let's figure out what works best and implement it.  If we're serious about reducing the number of abortions, we need to be serious about reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Pro-lifers are usually quite chivalrous about single mothers, but many pro-choicers see them as idiots for not getting an abortion or using contraceptives in the first place.

I'm going to accept, for a moment, the proposition that many pro-lifers are quite chivalrous to individual single mothers.  (I disagree strongly that pro-choicers see them as idiots.)  There is, however, a lot of rhetoric from social conservatives (a group that overlaps pretty well with the pro-life group) that demonizes single parenting in general.  (To use the famous example, there's Dan Quayle's comments on Murphy Brown.)  I think there is a point to be made about the importance of providing a nurturing and stable environment for children, which can be difficult for single monthers, but it's important to also be supportive of those that make the choice to be single mothers if we want single women with unexpected pregnancies to go through with it.

Again here, education is impeded by pro-choice politicians, and even if it was implemented would only have limited impact. The impact it does have is the reason we have seen a decline in abortions since the early 90's, as redstates implemented these educational policies over Dem objections.

First, note that abortion rates have been declining across the country, not only in red states.  If you look back to the statistics I posted at the top of this comment, you'll see the only states where abortions have held steady or gone up between 1988 and 2000 are Mississippi and Wyoming, both red states.

I'm not familiar enough with the specific laws that have been discussed to have a good opinion, but I do think that this is an area in which some pro-choice groups have been unreasonable in objecting to counselling and education prior to going through with an abortion.  (The flip side of this is that some "education" requirements are impediments that exist mostly to make it hard to have an abortion, not to allow people to make more educated decisions.)  I think there is a lot of work to be done on the left in terms of addressing the issue, which is exactly why I'm proposing that we try to work together to address the abortion problem instead of trying to address the abortion law problem.

If they were planning on harming ME, MY friends, and MY loved ones, it would be good.

Why is that?  Because if you didn't kill them they would harm you or your family, so therefore the killing is justified?

Killing a child who has never even had a chance to be born is evil, every time.

What if the mother would be harmed carrying the child to term?  Why does a terrorist harming your family make the homocide justifiable but an unborn child who will harm your wife does not?  Why is it not good to kill the baby in that case?

One honest person who will express a consistent belief about IVF and abortion.  GC, one cannot help but respect your consistent and honest reply to a difficult, real-world question.

While there are certainly some areas of Assisted Reproductive Technology to be avoided, IVF can be done in a life-affirming way and that is the way my wife and I proceeded.

Here is how...

First some standards:

-A human egg by itself is not human life

-A male sperm by itself is not human life

-A fertilized egg--en embryo--is earliest form of human life.

When my wife and I did IVF here is how we did it to ensure that no life was created and destroyed:  We allowed the doctor to retrieve as many eggs from my wife as he could.  We requested that the embryologist eyeball the eggs and do the best he could to pick three good ones.  He fertilized all three, and we required that all resulting embryos be transferred into my wife's uterus.  None were frozen, and none were discarded.

Now I fully admit that most couples--even conservative Evangelical Christian couples--don't fully think through what IVF involves and therefore do not specify specific guidance for the clinic to follow in order to avoid morally cocerning procedures.  I also admit that that it is very easy to have "slipping standards" during a cycle--you start with a standard that says, "no freezing, no destruction, we're only going to fertilize 2-3 eggs and we'll transfer them all" and by the day of retrieval you've changed your standards because the risk is so high that no pregnancy will occur with so few embryos. So then you find yourself calculating odds--"if we inseminate 6, and the clinic has a 70% fertilization rate, and 90% survivability to day three, that would probably give us 3-4 embryos... etc."  If you don't decide your standards beforehand, then with a little pressure from the clinic, you are likely to make poor decisions--and many people do.  When you add the pressure that the $12,000-$16,000 cost per cycle (which a majority of people in the U.S. must pay out of pocket) adds, compromise is all the more likely.  Especially, when you consider that most people don't have $100s of thousands of dollars sitting around to fund multiple attempts.

We were fortunate in that my insurance paid 100% of the procedure (up to 3 attempts) and therefore some of this pressure was not a factor in our decision.  However, the pressure was still there.  We sought the guidance of a lot of friends, family, colleagues, pastors, etc.

I also want to point out that while outright destruction is clearly to be avoided, I was never able to conclude likewise about embryo cryopreservation (freezing).  We elected to take the most conservative approach we could and therefore avoided it.  However, I never got to a point where I decided it was 100% clearly wrong.  Dr. Donald Cline, at Reproductive Endocrinology Associates, however does believe cryopreservation should be avoided and his clinic has had some success in freezing eggs instead.

Adoption is a wonderful option, and should be encouraged, however, private adoption is not covered by insurance and usually costs around $20,000 per adoption.  Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with wanting your own children.  The desire for biological offspring is God-given.

I want to point you to my response above as it explains how an individual can proceed with IVF in life-affirming way that is consistent with a strict pro-life view (which both me and my wife hold.)

I think, at bottom, I don't have an good definition of "personhood."  I can say that certain things are attributes of a person:  human DNA; the capacity (latent or active) for free will; etc.  But I lack the knowledge necessary to divine the difference between a person and a nonperson in the great, gray middle.

Von, have you considered that your knowledge of the "attributes of personhood" (as well as every other concept you have ever entertained) is inextricably linked to the degree of trust you place in the authority of the source of that knowledge? Whether a source of information is subjective or objective, experimental or propositional, we invariably process it based on our judgment of the trustworthiness of the authority of the source. IOW, there are no "mere facts"--all "knowledge" is inescapably rooted in presuppositionally-driven judgments concerning authority.

I am going to challenge your statement that you "lack the knowledge necessary to divine the difference between a person and a nonperson". Please test yourself in this, whether the definition of personhood you now hold is not so much the result of a lack of knowledge as of clear knowledge rejected due to disagreement with its source; I am speaking in particular of the biblical propositional record about personhood as being uniquely created in the image of God, beginning at conception.

If you find, as many do, that your presuppositional grid has forced you to reject or modify those propositions, I would also ask that you consider what more highly authoritative sources of knowledge you will accept?

Please give it some thought.

Thanks.

takes a baby from a mother, it can tell her what to do with it.

The rationale for abortion (generally speaking--obviously not universally) is that once the mother's body has been naturally vacated, the state's interest is compelling enough to protect that citizen's life.

Surely none of you would advocate prematurely  removing a fetus from its mother's womb in order to satisfy the state's interest?

I submit that should not be a crime to NOT give birth.  

I submit that this issue cannot be conclusively resolved with the involvement of persons who do not possess uteri.  This is not an issue for gentlemen.  Only ladies.  Let them democratically decide, for I will not presume to lecture on topics about which I am biologically barred from knowing anything.

"Because if you didn't kill them they would harm you or your family, so therefore the killing is justified?"

No. I think I'll just let them rape and murder my family while I watch, then send them next door to see if anyone is home, and encourage everyone there to lie still while they are gutted like a trout. Of course the killing is jusified.

"Why does a terrorist harming your family make the homocide justifiable but an unborn child who will harm your wife does not?  Why is it not good to kill the baby in that case?"

If I am in a burning building, and the choice is between saving myself and saving my child, my child wins.

Having been through a miscarriage during our first pregnancy, I learned that anywhere from 30%-40% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.  The risk of miscarriage for teenage mothers is even higher.

So that would mitigage the "1M unwanted babies" somewhat, as well as the cumulative carnage since Roe v. Wade.  Although that cumulative carnage will still at up to at least 24,000,000 lives never lived, and all that those lives would meant to the world, for good or ill.

As if being "unwanted" merits the Death Penalty -- Jesus wept, but we give more consideration to the Charles Mansons by trying, feeding, and housing them at taxpayer expense than we do to the tiniest, most defenseless among us.

PJ O'Rourke said it best for me:

"...but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers.  A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment.  A devout Christian would sanction neither.  But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal point of view."

--Give War a Chance

...a callous pragmatist.

...may be callous, but at least they're not ones paving the Road to Hell with Good Intentions.

...that the pro-choice side has to have some arbitrary goalpost behind which to hide so as to keep at bay the uncomfortable fact that every abortion claims an innocent human life.  

I wish Nan Aron or Kate Michelman or one of the other High Coven at NARAL would just come clean...admit that, by whatever moral calculus that they choose the rights of the mother over the obligation to the baby.  And then defend that calculus.

I suspect they feel they cannot, and that to attempt to do so would turn public sentiment against them and toward, say, Republican judicial nominees who consider Roe v. Wade poor jurisprudence.

...in and of itself.  A hard thing when done of medical necessity, an evil thing when done to avoid having to move to Staten Island and shop at Costo.

No. I think I'll just let them rape and murder my family while I watch, then send them next door to see if anyone is home, and encourage everyone there to lie still while they are gutted like a trout. Of course the killing is jusified.

No need to get snippy.  I was just making sure I knew where you stood.

I think the killing can be totally justified, but I still think it's an evil deed.  There's a reason the expression "the lesser of two evils" exists, after all.

(An example: it's pretty clear that US bombs have killed innocent civilians, even children, in Iraq.  You can't drop that much ordinance and not have something go wrong.  Probably even some pregnant mothers have been killed by our bombs.  Justified?  If your goal is victory in Iraq, then it is definitely justified.  But "good"?  Not a chance.)

But, back to the example I quoted you reacting to, I get the feeling that you think it's morally correct to kill the terrorist, which probably provides you with a level of comfort in doing so.  Like you said, it was a good thing to do.  I personally take no such comfort from knowing I did the "good" thing.  I'd do it, but with the knowledge I was doing something evil.

I'm the guy who takes no pleasure in pulling the lever that hangs the condemned, and you're the guy who does it and then goes home knowing that you did a good thing that day.

Not that that's anything wrong with either of those positions.  It takes all kinds to make a world.

Do you think I'm accurately assessing the situation here?

If I am in a burning building, and the choice is between saving myself and saving my child, my child wins.

Actually the choice wasn't between you and your child--I was asking you to choose between your wife and your child.  Let's leave the selfless sacrifice component out of it, because that just muddies the moral dilemma.  So, which would you choose?  Does the child still win?

You are absolutely right that my experience is no match for national measurements, so I'll switch my argument to statistics, but first, let me clarify why I'm debating your argument in the first place. It seemed to me that you disagree with Leon's article, and with the concept of overturning Roe:

  "I suspect that my version of "reasonable" however, may be Leon's version of "just another version of state sanctioned baby killing" so I'm not sure how much reasonable discussion and progress there is to be made on this front."

  "I think great strides can be made, and it would be a much better use of our time than trying to pack courts with judges that we think are going to happen to agree with our particular philosophy."

Other than these two arguments, I think your beliefs are pretty pro-life. I just want to clarify that I'm not arguing against your position on the legality of abortion (I'm not sure where I stand on the specifics), but to convince you and those reading this that your position can only come to pass through the Republican pro-life movement.

Now, I wasn't able to open the link (I got a blank page using your link and the one at the website) so I couldn't look at teenage pregnancy, but I was able to look at everything else. The institute itself is extremely biased based on its expert bios and mission statement - to protect the reproductive rights of women. However, I'll use their stats since it seems you trust them. Looking at the abortion rates, red states' rates averaged half those of blue states, with the more extreme conservative states having the lowest (My method of differentiating between red and blue isn't perfect but the averages are about 13 and 25 per 1000 women respectively). The fact that (I'm taking your word for it) teen pregnancy is higher in red states while the abortion rate is so much lower backs up my claim (though there are other factors to consider) that social conservatives are more supportive of teenage mothers who carry their children to birth and hopefully even beyond than the pro-choice movement. The anti-single mother rhetoric that you are talking about is exaggerated by MSM, but you're right that in the past, social conservatives (Dan Quayle) were often jerks when they should have been helping. That has changed since then, which I believe is one reason for the decline in abortions. The decline in abortions has corresponded with the growth of conservative ideology. (Four states' rates increased between 1988-2000: KS, FL, MD, and NJ - two red and two blue. Not sure where you're getting the WY and MS increases, where rates dropped to about 2 and 6 per 1000 women respectively. Maybe you're thinking of teen pregnancy rates?). This movement towards conservatism took place nationally, explaining the decline in abortions in both blue and red states because of increased restrictions such parental notification and partial birth abortion limits.

As for the next step, in order to realize the goals you set forth which many Americans agree with, Republican and Democrat alike, the courts have to be packed with right-wing judges and justices, particularly originalists like Scalia and Thomas. The reasons for this are two-fold. First, the SC needs to overturn Roe so that states can make laws and restrictions based on the democratic desires of the people. Your idea of banning abortions in the 2nd and/or 3rd trimesters can never happen even at the state level without the overturning of Roe. In fact, without overturning Roe, I don't think much else can be done by the pro-life movement to reduce abortions other than expand our influence into blue states to change their mentality regarding abortion. As it is, even the current Justices say Roe was wrongly decided and is bad for our country, but some don't want to overturn it out of fear that the SC would lose respect. Part of the reason it was wrongly decided in the first place was the SC was packed with judges by FDR. Pro-choicers continue to use the courts to advance their agenda rather than the democratic process. Second, the lower courts also need originalists who will interpret the law rather than remake the law as they see fit. Bear in mind that I'm using the phrase "packing the courts" loosely. By "packing" the courts, including the SC, with originalists, we are really just "unpacking" them. While the packed court of FDR is gone, the decisions they made remain. What originalists will do is return the SC and lower courts to their original purpose - to interpret the law as it relates to the Constitution and therefore protect our rights from overreaching legislatures and Presidencies. The fact that they are portrayed as conservative (which I'm guilty of throughout this comment) is the natural result of politics which I'm not going to get into here, but suffice it to say that the originalists that we advocate are there to protect our rights rather than advance Republican agenda.

I will briefly conclude by repeating myself. Your goals, and the goals of most Americans who similarly believe there is a middle ground, are brought about through the pro-life movement, no matter what Dem politicians are now saying. So join us as we support originalists for the courts who will give us a chance to reduce abortion numbers (then the debate about how much regulation is best can open up for discussion, and evidence for all sides can pile up as states are free to try various methods). Also, support us as continue to make America redder (so to speak) which, as history shows us, reduces the number of abortions.

I guess I was speaking of Romp's comment when I refered to bans in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. either way, the only way to keep the discussion open is to overturn Roe. Not much (meaningful) discussion can take place without that happening.

a refreshingly honest and helpful post.  Thank you!!

...then it's necessarily so that the abortion doesn't claim a life, any more than contraception or even abstinence (if we're talking about "the potential for life" does).  This is fundamental, not arbitrary.

People can disagree about when life begins, but trying to say "even if there's no life, if you abort it, you've taken a life" doesn't make any sense.

Those million children are wanted.

There are places around the world, most notably the Sisters of Charity, that want those children.  There are people waiting in line to adopt.  There are couples so desperate that they're taking out ads in college newspapers.

Every one of those children that would have been aborted is wanted.  They may not be wanted by their natural parents, but they are wanted.

with that, socially, economically, and ethically.

especially for those couples who have insurance that will pay for 3 tries.

I appreciate your honesty about the financial pressures faced by couples who have to pay $12,000- $16,000 per cycle out of pocket.

As someone who has dealth with infertility - and in my case, as I am now finding out, its related cousin - early onset osteoporosis; it is a mystery to me why infertility isn't considered a medical condition, entitled to insurance coverage and treatment.