Roe vs Wade - getting overturned?

[Aruntraveller]

The ruling of the supreme court in the USA should be a wake up call for us all to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

If only they took an equal interest in the child after birth in the US. There is a strong correlation (I know it isn't always causation but c'mon this is Republicans we're dealing with here) between the states that want to ban abortion with high rates of child poverty.

As George Carlin points out here, there is no interest in the child from birth to conscription:

https://youtu.be/K98TQJ5ldW0

As he also says "Anti woman, simple as it gets"

[Gordon]

The ruling of the supreme court in the USA should be a wake up call for us all to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

I'd rather respect the agency of each pregnant women to come to her own view regarding whether or not to continue with her pregnancy in her own specific circumstances.

[Anchorman]

A refreshing alternative )and far more balanced) evangelical Christian writes this....and she's American to boot...
https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-se
e-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah

[Harrowby Hall]

https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-se
e-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah

Does not work

This does:

https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-see-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah

[Anchorman]

https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-se e-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah Does not work This does: https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-see-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah

Cheers, H.H.

[Outrider]

Did my life suddenly come into existence after I was born?

Nobody is talking about things happening after children are born.

I have no doubt that my life began at the moment of conception. My life inside the womb was just as much a part of my life's journey as that outside the womb.

Bully for you. That you have no doubts, however, doesn't make it a reality that a person exists from conception. Don't get me wrong, I have a profound sense of disquiet at the idea of an abortion free-for-all - there's a point, somewhere in gestation, where what you're looking at stops being just a collection of cells and becomes a life in its own right: I don't know where that point is, I'm not sure anyone does, but I can't look at a fertilised egg and have any qualms about stopping that developing.

If my life was terminated inside the womb it would have the same consequence as a termination outside the womb.

No, it wouldn't, because birth itself, if nothing else, is a profound moment.

When a woman has problems during pregnancy, she needs help and support which does not involve killing the child in her womb.

Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial problems a pregnant woman might face, I don't think arbitrarily limiting the nature of the help and support that's on offer is necessary the best move.

Abortion should only be used as a last resort to save the life of the mother.

After a certain - and I admit, difficult to define - point, yes. Prior to that... I don't see why not.

Too often abortion is offered as if it is the only feasible solution.

I'm not sure of that, my wife and I were in the position many, many years ago (it my be different now, but I suspect not) and whilst it was an option that we were considering no-one was pushing it on us. I do have a concern that the rather free access and the somewhat detached way in which it's discussed can give the impression that it's an 'easy' option, and sometimes just seen as another form of contraception.

The ruling of the supreme court in the USA should be a wake up call for us all to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

Unfortunately, for those of us who don't seen conception and life as quite so intrinsically linked, and coupled with the attitude of the Christian right and the theocratically minded make-up of the Supreme Court, it appears to be a wake-up call instead for people who have taken the progress of human rights for granted; the right to abortion is under immediate threat, and the recidivists appear to be lining up gay rights and possible even contraception.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Nobody is talking about things happening after children are born.

Bully for you. That you have no doubts, however, doesn't make it a reality that a person exists from conception. Don't get me wrong, I have a profound sense of disquiet at the idea of an abortion free-for-all - there's a point, somewhere in gestation, where what you're looking at stops being just a collection of cells and becomes a life in its own right: I don't know where that point is, I'm not sure anyone does, but I can't look at a fertilised egg and have any qualms about stopping that developing.

No, it wouldn't, because birth itself, if nothing else, is a profound moment.

Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial problems a pregnant woman might face, I don't think arbitrarily limiting the nature of the help and support that's on offer is necessary the best move.

After a certain - and I admit, difficult to define - point, yes. Prior to that... I don't see why not.

I'm not sure of that, my wife and I were in the position many, many years ago (it my be different now, but I suspect not) and whilst it was an option that we were considering no-one was pushing it on us. I do have a concern that the rather free access and the somewhat detached way in which it's discussed can give the impression that it's an 'easy' option, and sometimes just seen as another form of contraception.

Unfortunately, for those of us who don't seen conception and life as quite so intrinsically linked, and coupled with the attitude of the Christian right and the theocratically minded make-up of the Supreme Court, it appears to be a wake-up call instead for people who have taken the progress of human rights for granted; the right to abortion is under immediate threat, and the recidivists appear to be lining up gay rights and possible even contraception.

O.

Agree with all of that. 👍

[Alan Burns]

Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial problems a pregnant woman might face, I don't think arbitrarily limiting the nature of the help and support that's on offer is necessary the best move.

After a certain - and I admit, difficult to define - point, yes. Prior to that... I don't see why not.

There is nothing arbitrary about saving a human life.
What is arbitrary is an attempt to define a point at which human rights kick in after life begins at conception.

All our lives began at the moment of conception.
We all once comprised of a few cells within our mother's womb.
Had those cells been removed from our mother's womb we would not exist.
Our lives were just as precious then as they are now.

Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial support which could be given to a pregnant woman - why offer to kill her unborn child?
There are two lives involved - and both lives matter.

[Gordon]

Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial support which could be given to a pregnant woman - why offer to kill her unborn child?

Because, presumably, for reasons specific to her, and in spite of the factors you mention, she still doesn't wish to proceed with the pregnancy.

[Aruntraveller]

Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial support which could be given to a pregnant woman - why offer to kill her unborn child?

The operative word in that sentence is "could". The problem is that the support you speak of is so often not given to women in difficult situations. It is not my right as a man to force my opinion of what should happen to a woman who is in a position I cannot by my very nature fully comprehend.

If a country like the US, and indeed the UK can get all those factors right you might have a point, even then there are situations where abortion must be allowed. This is something I saw elsewhere and expresses the issues much more clearly than I am doing:

I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I'm pro-life.

Their lives.

Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

Overturning Roe does not stop abortions, it stops SAFE abortions!
Abortion is healthcare.

[Outrider]

There is nothing arbitrary about saving a human life.

But we're not talking about saving a human life, we're talking about whether or not to let a potential human life develop.

What is arbitrary is an attempt to define a point at which human rights kick in after life begins at conception.

How do you figure life begins at conception? And even if you take that definition, in what way is it considered a human at that point?

All our lives began at the moment of conception.

What are you basing that determination on?

We all once comprised of a few cells within our mother's womb. Had those cells been removed from our mother's womb we would not exist. Our lives were just as precious then as they are now.

And before that we were two independent cells in two different people, and both of those cells were 'alive', and if anything had happened to them we would not exist. Neither of those individual cells was a person, though, and that fertilised ovum floating about in a body wanting to implant in a uterine wall isn't a person either.

As I've said, I'm not clear on exactly how we determine when it does become a person, and if the difficulties of that mean that we collectively move back to determine that the last 'safe' point we can define is conception then so be it, but I'm comfortable with a point significantly later than that, and so are the majority of this country, the US which has prompted the most recent bout of the discussion, and the majority of the developed world.

Which does not mean, and I want to stress this, that I think you are in any way motivated by misogyny - I've seen that accusation bandied about. I accept quite easily that, for you and others like you, your motivation is that someone is being killed and you want to stop it. I agree that we shouldn't be killing people, I just don't think that we are talking about people until an ill-defined point some weeks or months after conception has happened.

O.

Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial support which could be given to a pregnant woman - why offer to kill her unborn child?
There are two lives involved - and both lives matter.
[/quote]

[Spud]

And before that we were two independent cells in two different people, and both of those cells were 'alive', and if anything had happened to them we would not exist. Neither of those individual cells was a person, though, and that fertilised ovum floating about in a body wanting to implant in a uterine wall isn't a person either.

A sperm and an ovum are part of the father and mother respectively.
When they fuse, the resulting zygote is an individual separate from both parents.

[ProfessorDavey]

A sperm and an ovum are part of the father and mother respectively.
When they fuse, the resulting zygote is an individual separate from both parents.

No - it is a single cell which has genomic makeup that is distinct from either the mother or the father. Beyond genomic distinctiveness why is this single cell somehow an 'individual'?

And what do you mean by an 'individual' anyhow - seems to be a rather loaded term.

[ProfessorDavey]

How do you figure life begins at conception? And even if you take that definition, in what way is it considered a human at that point?

Easy to say that life begins at conception - really, really hard to justify it.

Just to start with, conception (or rather fertilisation) is a process - so if you subscribe to the single point notion of when 'life' begins etc you need to recognise it is a process and define which point within that process is key.

And then we can get on to the notion of twins and embryo fusion - watch people who claim a new person or new individual suddenly appears at conception (or fertilisation - see above) tie themselves up in knots trying to explain how identical twins are somehow two people and a person that is the product of embryo fusion is ... err ... one person.

[Alan Burns]

Easy to say that life begins at conception - really, really hard to justify it.

Just to start with, conception (or rather fertilisation) is a process - so if you subscribe to the single point notion of when 'life' begins etc you need to recognise it is a process and define which point within that process is key.

And then we can get on to the notion of twins and embryo fusion - watch people who claim a new person or new individual suddenly appears at conception (or fertilisation - see above) tie themselves up in knots trying to explain how identical twins are somehow two people and a person that is the product of embryo fusion is ... err ... one person.

Had the resulting cells been removed from a mother's womb, a human life would have been exterminated.  It matters not whether the cells would produce twins or triplets - it is still an extermination of human life. 
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.  Any interruption of the process which starts at conception would result in your own life being curtailed. 

[Aruntraveller]

Had the resulting cells been removed from a mother's womb, a human life would have been exterminated.  It matters not whether the cells would produce twins or triplets - it is still an extermination of human life. 
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.  Any interruption of the process which starts at conception would result in your own life being curtailed.

And yet, by your reasoning God is quite happy to be an abortionist:

https://www.tommys.org/baby-loss-support/pregnancy-loss-statistics?

Why is God exterminating all these poor little babies?

[SteveH]

Had the resulting cells been removed from a mother's womb, a human life would have been exterminated.  It matters not whether the cells would produce twins or triplets - it is still an extermination of human life. 
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.  Any interruption of the process which starts at conception would result in your own life being curtailed.

That a new life begins ar conception is undeniable but irrelevant. The important ethical question is when a distinctively human life begins, and it is ridiculous to regard a microscopic or near-microscopic bundle of a few dozen or hundred undifferentiated cells as human in the fulest sense (pre-human, yes). Any creature, human or animal, which is capable of suffering deserves to be protected from unnecessary suffering as much as possible, but an embryo or early foetus clearly isn't. Later in pregnancy, it may be, and late pregnancies should only be allowed (and indeed are ony allowed) under exceptional circumstances (and I would like to see the time limit for all but such rare and exceptional abortions reduced to 20 weeks), but in the early stages, it should be allowed more or less on demand, and the morning-after pill made freely available.

[ProfessorDavey]

You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.

I can and I do.

Sure conception was an essential step towards my existence - one that had it not happened I wouldn't exist. But that isn't the same as saying that my life started at that point (and I'll come to that in a separate reply). There are also many other essential steps that were they not to have happened I wouldn't exist. These include (moving forward) the development of a single primitive streak, implantation into the uterine wall and (moving backward) the generation of the precise spermatocyte and oocyte that contain the genetic makeup that ultimately resulted in me. 

Any interruption of the process which starts at conception would result in your own life being curtailed.

As would plenty of processes that happened prior to fertilisation (see above) including the generation of those precise gametes, the release of a particular oocyte, indeed the birth and maturity of my own parents. Why is this single point therefore the one and only step in that chain that is somehow key. I don't think it is - fertilisation is a necessary step for my existence, but it isn't sufficient for me to exist.

[ProfessorDavey]

You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.

Note my emphasis.

What do you mean by moment, given that conception - better termed fertilisation, is a process involving a whole series of steps. So if you are going to advocate for a single, precise point at which life begins, you need to be more, well precise. Which stage in that process is the key. Is it, for example:

Penetration of the corona radiata
Penetration of the zona pellucida
Fusion of membranes
Fusion of nuclei

People who talk about the moment of conception are either biologically illiterate or being deeply disingenuous as there is no such thing as the moment of conception, unless you are prepared to be precise as to the precise point in the process of fertilisation this refers to.

[ProfessorDavey]

That a new life begins ar conception is undeniable but irrelevant.

I disagree that it is undeniable (see my earlier posts), but agree that it isn't determinative in any moral manner. All you can say is that the zygote is a potential person, it most certainly is not an actual person and surely our moral obligations are to people not entities that may, or may not become people.

The important ethical question is when a distinctively human life begins, and it is ridiculous to regard a microscopic or near-microscopic bundle of a few dozen or hundred undifferentiated cells as human in the fulest sense (pre-human, yes). Any creature, human or animal, which is capable of suffering deserves to be protected from unnecessary suffering as much as possible, but an embryo or early foetus clearly isn't. Later in pregnancy, it may be, and late pregnancies should only be allowed (and indeed are ony allowed) under exceptional circumstances (and I would like to see the time limit for all but such rare and exceptional abortions reduced to 20 weeks), but in the early stages, it should be allowed more or less on demand, and the morning-after pill made freely available.

Agree with this.

I think we can learn a lot about the beginning of life in a moral sense from how we consider the end of life. In most cases death is the result of a rapid cessation of pretty well all life functions, but not in all cases. There are plenty of situations where some life functions cease, but other remain active. And where the life function that has irreversible and completely cease is brain function, we are content to describe that person as having died, regardless of whether other life functions (e.g. circulation, breathing) may remain either naturally or via artificial support. At the end of life we consider higher neurological activity to be key, so perhaps we should consider this too at the start of life. In other words that the earliest point that we might consider that a 'life' has started in the sense of a person would be when distinct neurological identity is established.

[ProfessorDavey]

It matters not whether the cells would produce twins or triplets - it is still an extermination of human life. 
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.

Let's put those two comments together and look at what non-sense you get to.

So let's start with:

... your own life began at the moment of conception

So presumably you mean that the single cell, the zygote, isn't just something that will become me, but actually is me. That is certainly the absolutist (and extremist) view of the RCC.

So let's call this Bob, shall we - the zygote is Bob, rather than at some point in the future will become Bob.

So let's factor in twinning and let's be clear twins are two separate, distinct people, even identical twins - they are two people not one person.

So this zygote is Bob. But what if later on two primitive streaks form and we get identical twins - let's call them Bob and Jim. So when did Jim's life begin - surely the zygote cannot be both Bob and Jim as that is based on something that may or may not happen in the future - i.e. twinning. Otherwise we'd have to ascribe all the identical twinning/triplet etc possibilities to the zygote. So the zygote would have to be Jim, Bob, Stan, Max, Will etc - but if only one embryo develops which is this (and why) and what happened to all the others.

So if Jim's life didn't start at conception, perhaps Jim's life starts when a second primitive streak forms. But why Jim and not Bob. Did both Bob and Jim's lives start at the point of twinning, in which case who was the zygote - was it Eric, and what happened to Eric - did he die to allow Jim and Bob to arise.

And things don't get easier when we consider the rarer phenomenon of embryo fusion in which a single embryo develops from more than one fertilised egg. In this case we have one person derived from more than one zygote. So now we have two zygotes - call them Sarah and Jill - but they fuse and only one person develops - is this Sara, is this Jill and if the former what happened to Jill (did she die) and vice versa. Perhaps the embryo that forms is neither Sara nor Jill, but Erica - in which case what happed to Sara and Jill.

See how your the zygote is Bob, not just becomes Bob assertion ties you up in knots.

However everything becomes very straightforward when you consider that the zygote is just that, a zygote - it isn't Bob or Jim or Eric nor is it Sara or Jill or Erica. It has the potential to become one, or more of the above or two zygotes have the potential to become one of the above, but the zygote itself isn't any of them yet.

[jeremyp]

Did my life suddenly come into existence after I was born?
I have no doubt that my life began at the moment of conception.

Whether you are alive or not is not the issue. Lots of things are alive that we have no moral problem with killing. The question is whether the foetus is a person with the same rights as human that has successfully been born. I would submit that the line is not at conception but at some point between conception and birth. In my opinion, British law sets the line in about the right place.

There's a further complication though. We are not talking about one life but two. Pregnancy holds very real risks to the mother. You can't just erase them.

[SteveH]

Whether you are alive or not is not the issue. Lots of things are alive that we have no moral problem with killing. The question is whether the foetus is a person with the same rights as human that has successfully been born. I would submit that the line is not at conception but at some point between conception and birth. In my opinion, British law sets the line in about the right place.

There's a further complication though. We are not talking about one life but two. Pregnancy holds very real risks to the mother. You can't just erase them.

Agree with this, but the last sentence cuts both ways: I am not impressed with the common slogan "my body, my choice", because, as you say, "we are not talking about one life but two".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's put those two comments together and look at what non-sense you get to.

So let's start with:

... your own life began at the moment of conception

So presumably you mean that the single cell, the zygote, isn't just something that will become me, but actually is me. That is certainly the absolutist (and extremist) view of the RCC.

So let's call this Bob, shall we - the zygote is Bob, rather than at some point in the future will become Bob.

So let's factor in twinning and let's be clear twins are two separate, distinct people, even identical twins - they are two people not one person.

So this zygote is Bob. But what if later on two primitive streaks form and we get identical twins - let's call them Bob and Jim. So when did Jim's life begin - surely the zygote cannot be both Bob and Jim as that is based on something that may or may not happen in the future - i.e. twinning. Otherwise we'd have to ascribe all the identical twinning/triplet etc possibilities to the zygote. So the zygote would have to be Jim, Bob, Stan, Max, Will etc - but if only one embryo develops which is this (and why) and what happened to all the others.

So if Jim's life didn't start at conception, perhaps Jim's life starts when a second primitive streak forms. But why Jim and not Bob. Did both Bob and Jim's lives start at the point of twinning, in which case who was the zygote - was it Eric, and what happened to Eric - did he die to allow Jim and Bob to arise.

And things don't get easier when we consider the rarer phenomenon of embryo fusion in which a single embryo develops from more than one fertilised egg. In this case we have one person derived from more than one zygote. So now we have two zygotes - call them Sarah and Jill - but they fuse and only one person develops - is this Sara, is this Jill and if the former what happened to Jill (did she die) and vice versa. Perhaps the embryo that forms is neither Sara nor Jill, but Erica - in which case what happed to Sara and Jill.

See how your the zygote is Bob, not just becomes Bob assertion ties you up in knots.

However everything becomes very straightforward when you consider that the zygote is just that, a zygote - it isn't Bob or Jim or Eric nor is it Sara or Jill or Erica. It has the potential to become one, or more of the above or two zygotes have the potential to become one of the above, but the zygote itself isn't any of them yet.

I think it's the potential to be a person that pro lifers are arguing should be preserved.

How a medical ethicist thinks this is all ''straightforward'' is a tad frightening.

[BeRational]

Agree with this, but the last sentence cuts both ways: I am not impressed with the common slogan "my body, my choice", because, as you say, "we are not talking about one life but two".

But it's still my body my choice.
If someone needs a kidney can we hook them up to you to share your kidney function?