Thoughtful post. What bothers me is that religious

• I just need to say this...(long post) - MT
  • Another side of the coin..... - sm
    • I definitely don't base it JUST on morals - OP
      • you will probably think I'm schizo.... - sm
        • Are you saying Obama was - twaddle
          • hahahahaha! - sm
          • we are having a mature discussion - OP
            • a "mature" discussion about - twaddle
              • you misunderstood........ - sm
              • If that is all you got out of this discussion, please, do bow out. - OP
        • I don't think your schizo - OP
          • I know exactly what you mean.... - sm
            • The only thing I can suggest - OP
              • I would like to suggest a book..... - sm
              • Thanks! - sm
                • Definitely - OP
  • Thank you for your honesty and join you in your prayer. nm - sam
  • Thanks for the post. - Kaydie
    • Can't you still write in your vote for someone else? - I hate to see someone not vote..sm
      • I wish we could - OP
        • I know a lot of people think that, about lesser - of 2 evils, but I can't vote that way. sm
          • 'A mind is a terrible thing to waste'. - Unfortunately, - RELIGIONOPATHY has struck again.
            • Religionopathy? Can you explain what you mean? - OP
              • 'Re-lig-ion-o-path-y': A pathological dependence - on a single belief, or the words
                • Riiggghhhttt.... - OP
          • lady, get OVER the - twaddle
    • Hi Kaydie - OP
  • Thank you for saying things that I have - another oldtimer
    • Thoughtful post. What bothers me is that religious - right is judged a lot as "fanatic".not fair.
      • Unfortunately, too many of them ARE. - It's not something anyone made up.
        • There are fanatics in any group - OP

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

One of the major battlegrounds for this issue concerns the use of language. In keeping with our Standards of Credibility, the verbiage used here is explanatory and precise. This means expressions such as 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are replaced by words that articulate specific positions. This makes certain sentences cumbersome and repetitive, but for the sake of accuracy, sacrifices in eloquence were made.

Perhaps the largest point of contention regarding terminology is the label applied to what or who is being aborted. Those who think abortion should be generally illegal often use the terms 'unborn child' and 'unborn baby'. According to Webster's College Dictionary and the International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, the word child can apply prior to birth, but both of these sources employ the word baby only from the point of birth onwards.[1] Those who think abortion should be generally legal often use the word 'fetus', a clinical term derived from a Latin word meaning 'offspring' or 'newly delivered'.[2] Many who use this term in the media and general public are misinformed as to what it means. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines a fetus as:

In other words, when referring to humans, the word fetus is only applicable from nine weeks after conception until birth. Yet, numerous major news organizations have misapplied it to both before and after this period. [4] [5] Furthermore, the press rarely uses clinical terminology when referring to a pregnant woman ('gravida') or a newborn child ('neonate'). [6] [7]

The term chosen by Just Facts to describe the object of an abortion is 'preborn human'. This phrase is medically accurate, distinguishes between humans and other mammals, and conveys reality in plain language. For those who might object to the use of the word 'human', a few medical references are in order. The medical textbook, Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:

Likewise, a clinical embryology textbook bears the title Human Life Before Birth, and phrases such as "human in utero" and "human females... in utero" appear in creditable medical textbooks. [9] Moreover, it would be scientifically inconsistent to assert that a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not.

* The average length of a full-term pregnancy is 266 days or 38 weeks. Obstetricians normally use a figure of 40 weeks, but this is actually the time between the first day of the last menstrual period and childbirth. On average, the first day of the last menstrual period occurs 2 weeks before fertilization.[10]  [11]

* Following are facts about human development. They are organized according to the number of weeks since fertilization. Weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) are shown in parentheses.

Fertilization (2 weeks after LMP)

Fertilization normally takes place within one day of intercourse. At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed. This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.[219] [220] [221]

Genetically speaking, with the exception of identical twins, once a woman conceives a preborn human, the odds against her conceiving the same one again are greater than 10⁶⁰⁰ to one. (10⁶⁰⁰ is ShortHand for the number 1 with 600 zeros after it. For comparison, there are roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the known universe.) [222] [223] [224] [225]

3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP)

The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.[12] [13]

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

4 Weeks after Fertilization (6 weeks after LMP)

The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.[14] [15]

7 Weeks after Fertilization (9 weeks after LMP)

Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.[16] The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.[17]

[18]

9 Weeks after Fertilization (11 weeks after LMP)

More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones.[19] [20]The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.[21]

10 Weeks after Fertilization (12 weeks after LMP)

All parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body.[22] The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.[23]

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

11 Weeks after Fertilization (13 weeks after LMP):

[24]

12 Weeks after Fertilization (14 weeks after LMP)

Electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed.[25]

13 Weeks after Fertilization (15 weeks after LMP):

Ultrasound Video [26]       Windows Media Player   Real Player

14 Weeks after Fertilization (16 weeks after LMP)

The preborn human makes coordinated movements of the arms and legs.[27]

16 Weeks after Fertilization (18 weeks after LMP)

[28]

18 Weeks after Fertilization (20 weeks after LMP)

Ultrasound Video [29]       Windows Media Player   Real Player

The portion of the brain responsible for functions such as reasoning and memory (the cerebral cortex) has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.[30] [31]

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

20 Weeks after Fertilization (22 weeks after LMP):

The preborn human sleeps, awakes and can hear sounds.[32]

Ultrasound Video (Heart) [33]   Windows Media Player   Real Player

24 Weeks after Fertilization (26 weeks after LMP)

Taste buds are functional. The preborn human will swallow more amniotic fluid if a sweetener is added to it.[34] The grip is strong enough to hold onto an object that is moving up and down.[35] If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 80%.[36]

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the "stigma of unwed motherhood." (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

28 Weeks after Fertilization (30 weeks after LMP)

If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 95%.[37]

Premature infants born at this time are more sensitive to pain than infants who are born at 38 weeks, and infants who are born at 38 weeks are more sensitive to pain than older infants (3 -12 months old.) [38] [39]

32 Weeks after Fertilization (34 weeks after LMP)

(Premature infant – 3 days after birth)

38 Weeks after Fertilization (40 weeks after LMP)

Average point in time when humans are born. At birth, the medical classification changes from a fetus to a neonate.[40] [41] At any point prior to birth, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the work of caring for a child. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

* In March of 1970, a pregnant woman by the name of Norma McCorvey sued the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[42] McCorvey wanted to keep her identity secret and assumed the fictitious name Jane Roe.[43] The name of the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law was Henry Wade. Thus, the case was entitled "Roe vs. Wade."

* Before the United States Supreme Court, the attorney for Roe argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional because it violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.[44] The Ninth Amendment reads:

The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relevant to the argument reads:

* In support of this view, the attorney for Roe stated that "liberty to these women would mean liberty from being forced to continue the unwanted pregnancy." [47]

* During oral arguments, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded:

After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe's attorney:

The attorney for Roe responded:

At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked:

The attorney for Roe stated:

* The attorney for the State of Texas argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment.[49] The portion relevant to the argument states:

* During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term "person" meant, and that it did not include preborn humans.[51] The relevant clause reads:

* After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said:

* The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word "person" was to go to "the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed." He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster's New Millennium Encyclopedia as a "British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S." In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a "right" that

* To further support his position, the attorney for the state of Texas appealed to the Declaration of Independence and started to quote the following sentence from it, but was cut off by one of justices: [56]

* On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court released its ruling. Seven of the judges ruled in favor of Roe and two of the judges opposed the ruling. The ruling overturned the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[58]

* The majority ruled these laws unconstitutional on the basis that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that it protects "the right to privacy," and that this includes "a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy." [59] The relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

* The Fourteenth Amendment does not contain the word "privacy" or any synonym for it.[61] [62] It was adopted in 1868 to address a number of issues relevant to the Civil War, such as ensuring constitutional rights for black people.[63]

* The majority wrote that they were "not in a position to speculate" as to "when life begins" and criticized the State of Texas for "adopting one theory of life," namely, that life begins at conception.[64]

* They also:

- Used the term "potentiality of human life" in reference to preborn humans who are capable of living outside the mother's womb.[65]

- Ruled that preborn humans have no Constitutional rights.[66]

* The majority created rules regarding the types of abortion legislation that states could enact based upon the three trimesters of a typical pregnancy:

1) First trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can require that abortions be done by licensed physicians, but other than this, they cannot regulate the manner in which they are performed.[67]

2) Second trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can regulate the manner in which they are performed for the purpose of protecting the mother's health. The ruling cites examples of the types of regulations that are permissible. These include establishing "qualifications [for] the person who is to perform the abortion" and setting rules regarding "the facility in which the procedure is to be performed." [68]

3) Third trimester: States can prohibit abortions after "viability" (meaning the point where a preborn human is capable of living outside their mother's womb), but cannot prohibit abortions "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." [69] The ruling cites specific examples of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health. They include the "stigma of unwed motherhood," the work of caring for a child, and the "distress" "associated with [an] unwanted child." [70] [71]

After listing these examples and others, the majority wrote that this portion of their ruling does not permit abortions "at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason" a woman chooses.[72] They repeated this assertion four times using varying words, but listed no example of a circumstance where abortion could be prohibited.[73]

* On the same day that the Supreme Court released Roe vs. Wade, it issued another ruling in a case entitled "Doe vs. Bolton." The same seven judges who ruled in favor of Roe also ruled in favor of Doe, and the same two judges opposed the ruling. [75] The majority wrote that this ruling and Roe v Wade "are to be read together." [76]

* In this case, the State of Georgia had a law prohibiting abortions unless the pregnancy would "seriously and permanently" injure the health of the mother.[77] A lower court struck down this law and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling stated that abortion laws with exceptions for the health of the mother must allow for factors such as emotional health, psychological health, familial concerns, and the woman's age.[78]

* The Georgia law also required that the doctor who would perform the abortion, two other doctors, and a committee of the medical staff at the hospital where the abortion was to be done needed to agree that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother.[79] The lower court upheld this law and the Supreme Court struck it down.[80] The majority ruled that only the doctor who would perform the abortion needs to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The abortion provider could make this decision based solely on their "best clinical judgment." [81]

* In 1992, the Supreme Court decided a case entitled "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey." In this case, the majority reaffirmed the central element of Roe vs. Wade, but did away with the "rigid trimester framework." [82]

* As in Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states cannot prohibit abortions prior to viability, and laws that prohibit abortion after viability must include an exception for the "health of the mother." [83]

* Contrary to Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states could enact laws that regulated abortion throughout pregnancy; as long as they did not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion. An example of what would be acceptable is a law requiring that doctors provide women with certain information before they perform abortions.[84]

* The Democratic Party is in favor of abortion being generally legal. It supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade. It supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions.[85]

* The Republican Party is in favor of abortion being generally illegal. It supports a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee preborn humans the right to life. Since 1995, Republicans have proposed at least 12 amendments of this nature, all of them containing an exception to save the life of the mother.[86] [87]

* The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. On their website, the ACLU poses the following rhetorical question:

And answers:

* The ACLU opposes school vouchers. One of the reasons they give for this stance is:

I have been a Democrat for as long as I canb remember, and at the age of 51 years I find myself no longer wanting to be a Democrat, and I certainly do not want to be Republican. There are many valid points in your post; they make a lot of sense. I see this country going straight to the highest bidder; we are quickly becoming a Third World country and it's heartbreaking.  Many of us here come from a background of hardworking, honest families, our parents raising us with what they had, and honestly, most of them did not have much.  I too am extremely fristrated at the fact that some people on assistance fare better than the most of us who get up, rain or shine, to do what's expected - WORK.  I know people on assistance who have said 'why work when I don't have to?..wtf!!?!?!?!!? 

A good friend of mine who is a Social Worker has related to me time and time again that it makes her so upset and angry to have people come into her place of work getting assistance who are driving new cars, living in better housing than she is, etc.  I too could go on and on but in my many years of living and paying taxes - SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE INDEED A FORM OF SLAVERY and have hindered more than helped.  I was a young mother and I was on assistance for only three years, and in that three years I did go to school, get training to become a MT and with the grace of the one above - WORKED.  I also have MS; have had it since 1990 and if I did not have the health plan I have, my Avonex would cost $1,200/month.  My MS is progressing but I am working but in Jan 2009 with the advent of voice recognition, my job will be no more.  I was even told by my neurologist that I am not 'sick' enough to be placed on Social Security Disability; so I wonder what will happen when I no longer have a job, cannot afford my meds?  It's frightening to say the least but I just think its criminal that someone who does not want to work can go to the nearest county assistance office and get help when I know I would be given the 3rd degree if I needed help. There is a LOT wrong with THAT

the enormous numbers that need to be performed.  In an age where birth control is so readily available and so reliably effective, that there are still SO MANY women seeking abortions, tells me one thing.....

People are careless, that is all.  What other conclusion could you draw?  If you only had true accidental pregnancies resulting from the small percentage failure rate of most contraceptives, the incest, the rapes, and the abortions to save a woman's life, it still wouldn't add up to a tiny fraction of the abortions we have now. 

Every time I hear someone say that that it's a woman's right to choose, or to control her own body, I can't help but hear a little voice saying... THEN CHOOSE NOT TO GET PREGNANT, BE RESPONSIBLE, DON'T HOOK UP WITH SOME LOSER IN A BACK SEAT WHILE YOU'RE LOADED UP ON BOOZE, AND CONTROL YOUR BODY. 

Why does choicie and control of one's body only begin after conception takes place?

...why doesn't anyone know her at the church she says she attends? 

I'm referring to posts on the conservative political board under the post about Michelle Malkin. 

Someone who believes that a fetus is a human being?   Your label "religious wacko" is very disrespectful and unkind.   I am pro-life and I am not mentally unstable. 

Like it or not, the fight to protect the unborn will NEVER EVER stop. 

Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.

What exactly do they want a president to do about it?

By Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; A08

When hundreds of religious activists try to get arrested today to protest cutting programs for the poor, prominent conservatives such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will not be among them.

That is a great relief to Republican leaders, who have dismissed the burgeoning protests as the work of liberals. But it raises the question: Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?

Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.

It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important, said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.

Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees, he said. They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical.

At issue is a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor.

At the same time, House and Senate negotiators are hashing out their differences on a tax-cutting measure that is likely to include an extension of cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains.

To mainline Protestant groups and some evangelical activists, the twin measures are an affront, especially during the Christmas season. Leaders of five denominations -- the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ -- issued a joint statement last week calling on Congress to go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that brings good news to the poor.

Around 300 religious activists have vowed to kneel in prayer this morning at the Cannon House Office Building and remain there until they are arrested. Wallis said that as they are led off, they will chant a phrase from Isaiah: Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.

To GOP leaders and their supporters in the Christian community, it is not that simple. Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the activists' position is not intellectually right.

The right tax policy, such as keeping tax rates low on business investment, grows the economy, increases federal revenue -- and increased federal revenue makes it easier for us to pursue policies that we all can agree have social benefit, he said.

Dobson also has praised what he calls pro-family tax cuts. And Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives know that the government is not really capable of love.

You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy. I think Hurricane Katrina is a good example of that. FEMA just failed, and the church and the Salvation Army and corporations stepped in and met the need, she said.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts.

There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact, he said. But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility.

The Family Research Council is involved in efforts to stop the bloodshed in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as sex trafficking and slavery abroad. But Perkins said those issues are far different from the budget cuts now under protest. The difference there is enforcing laws to keep people from being enslaved, to be sold as sex slaves, he said. We're talking here about massive welfare programs.

The Rev. Richard Cizik, a vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, returned yesterday from the Montreal conference on global climate change, another issue of interest to evangelicals. Frankly, I don't hear a lot of conversation among evangelicals about budget cuts in anti-poverty programs, he said. What I hear our people asking is, why are we spending $231 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and can't find $50 million for African Union forces to stop genocide in Darfur?