According to this link, the following countries are among the many that do not allow abortion on mere demand, i.e. for no stated reason and in the absence of special circumstances such as rape, incest, protection of the life or health of the mother, birth defect, or economic inability to support a child: Israel, Ireland, Japan, Malta, and Switzerland. Others, such as Italy and Austria, allow abortion on mere demand in the first trimester only. These do not strike me as backward or terrorist countries. I was struck in reviewing this table that there is considerable variation among nations with only a few having a total prohibition on abortion, and nations having some restrictions on abortion more common than those having essentially none.

Thanks for the commentary, Ken.

You can go back to beating your wife now.

“So I wrote a response that not only cracked me up, but also makes an important point.”

You’ve got a pretty sordid sense of humor Cliff. I must admit though, the note from Bob S. made me chuckle.

Regardless of the coarseness of the language your point is spot on.

Cliff,

See that you are up to your usual low standards again. That last bit about me was uncalled for and a cheap shot.

Of course, I’ve come to expect that from you….guess that is your version of reasoned discourse.

Ok… Well, it doesn’t look like Cliff’s bite isn’t as ferocious as his bark about being able to boot people;

“I’m sure you would find me very tolerant if you really knew what an ass you are. Just consider for a second why you are here (because I don’t ban you), and not somewhere else?” – Cliff Lyons

It looks like I will have to take these in order…

Larry,

Cliff’s scenarios certainly do compel an individual to be compassionate towards women, even though they are stilled peppered with bigotry and stereotypes. Unfortunately, they only work if you are willing to deny that a baby in the womb deserves human rights and is a citizen. I am currently putting together the scientific and phylisophic definitions of human life for Don. At which point, you can decide which view you support and see if it still stands in line with cliffs views.

I always thought liberals were supposed to be more compassionate and les typifying than conservatives. Also, my objection to profane remarks has to do with the fact that they are almost always used as an exclamation to a weak argument and does nothing for civil discussion or discourse. This was one of this reasons why I had to urge the producer of KVNU For the People to allow Cliff on the air. It was also feared that he might not be able to withhold his hate and cause an FCC violation. Just in case the finger was on the button the entire time. If you want to convince a large audience than those that frequent this blog… Well you get the idea.

Don,

Sorry, this has taken so long, but I will try to go through your previous statements and questions one by one.

“Your views on abortion are driven by a religious belief that life begins at conception. You’ve justified, or bolstered if you wish, that belief by saying that “some” scientists argue that we don’t really know when life begins, therefore you personally wish to err on the side of caution (even though the “majority of the scientific community puts life at viability.”) Contrary to finding your argument “one of the strongest” I find it quite odd and actually a fairly weak rationalization. Your views about contraception are further evidence of this point. If you believe life begins at the point of conception then it is simply rationalizing on your behalf to say that “full fertilization” happens with implantation and therefore contraception such as the pill isn’t challenged by your beliefs. Why not pony up and live the conviction of your beliefs?” – Don

Your response seems to be calling for me to site a scientific source. As I have indicated by my previous statements, while I have long held a religious belief about the beginning of life, my past belief was greatly separate from my secular or scientific understanding about life. Unfortunately, this past belief was not based on “true” science but a scientific philosophy that had been regularly repeated to me by the pro-choice movement. Once I discovered that even our medical schools where teaching some of the contrary views I took up the challenge of discovering what those views were.

The current scientific and philosophical view about when life begins has several camps. While I was unable to locate my original text on the subject, I found a medical text book that does a great job of explaining each of these philosophies and the science that supports them. Developmental Biology by Scott F Gilbert is a medical text, “Written primarily for undergraduate biology majors, it also serves to introduce graduate students and medical students to developmental biology,” in accredited Universities around the country. This is what our doctors and future bio-medical scientists learn from when discussing the question of “When Does Human Life Begin.”

This medical text book, breaks the question of when human life begins into several competing camps. As you read, you will discover that I have “The Embryological View,” which rather than being considered “extreme” in the scientific community, is actually one of the most popular views. I ask that for discussion sake, we each decide which view or hybrid of views we each fall under. This will allow us each to understand the specific view point of each person. Rather, than just a discussion of my beliefs, it would be far more beneficial if we each stood up behind our particular beliefs and answer questions in defense of them. You may also find it useful to consult the complete section on this topic from the original text at: http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Crap… I feel like I am back in college writing a paper… this will be long… Don’t any of you do your own research?

Before listing the basic camps, I would like to quote the final statement in this Medical Text Book.

“…understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question.(emphasis added.) One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a “soul,” then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science.” – Developmental Biology by Scott F Gilbert

The six major views on when human life begins:

The Metabolic View – “The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.” – Developmental Biology by Scott F Gilbert

The Genetic View – “The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.” – Developmental Biology by Scott F Gilbert

The Embryological View – “In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the “morning after” pill and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.” – Developmental Biology by Scott F Gilbert

The Neurological View – “Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.” – Developmental Biology by Scott F Gilbert

The Ecological / Technological View - Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates the point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother’s womb). – Developmental Biology by Scott F Gilbert

Self-Consciosness: Contemporary Philosophical Stands on When Human Life Begins - There are philosophers, although not very many, who would dare to make the stance that a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. This of course means that neither a zygote nor an embryo is a person either. Michael Tooley is one of these philosophers who describes his perspective in the article “Abortion and Infanticide.” Essentially he argues that abortion and infanticide are really no different, if you support one, then you must support the other. His argument is that in order to claim that an adult has the right to live and an embryo or a fetus does not, one must be able to identify some moment where the moral status of the organism in question changes. There is nothing inherent about birth that it should automatically be hailed as this defining moment. A more justified moment, Tooley argues, is the moment at which the human child gains consciousness. At this moment, not at birth, should the child be considered a full fledged person, entitled to all the rights, particularly the right to life, that human adults are entitled to (Tooley 1999). – Developmental Biology by Scott F Gilbert

While Cliff did admit that he believed a baby in the womb at 8.5 months was deserving of human rights, I suspect by his later recant, that he still supports Obama and the current “legal” view which is expressed by the “Self Consciousness” stance. If I am wrong, Cliff, please feel free to propose an argument against it.

As you can see, the scientific community IS NOT in agreement about when human life begins. Because of this we each must bring our own personal philosophies to the table when deciding. My philosophy requires me to protect human life whenever possible, that means during abortion, capitol punishment and even war. Because there is a credible scientific belief that a fetus may be human, I must be cautious to not unjustly end that life by my political convictions. It is certain that some can argue that such a stance would require that I adopt one of the earlier points of development. I have chosen this stance because I feel it is a good point to separate my religious and secular beliefs.

Now it is everyone else’s turn. Where do you all stand? If you can’t pick one, make one up. If we are going to discuss such a difficult subject, it is important that we ALL stand behind our beliefs. Also, if you would like to present a contradictory text that is also used by the scientific community in our Universities, I will be more than willing to give it a read.

Don, I’ll try to get to the rest of your statement later. Sorry…

You are correct, religion and politics = terrorism.

Makes me think of Ted Kyzinski, the Unabomber, his religion was anti-modernism and technological society.

Check out fascisms that were totally committed but denied the existence of God. Stalinist communism e.g.. Politics don’t need God based religion to yield terrorism.

Peoples religions do not have to have a deity.

Larry,

I agree with you about the FCC. While I understand that the air waves are “public,” in my mind that only means that even those that are foul mouthed own them also. Of course I do live near Logan were it is against the city municipal code to “offend” someone. Can you imagine proving that one in court. I always find it interesting, what city councils often feel are prudent laws. Imagine what they would try to do with this site if they got a hold of it.

The problem with becoming profane in a civil discussion is it almost completely severes the ability of the communicants to agree on anything. Most often it is used as a from of verbal assault where the heat of the discussion raises to the point that someone pops their top and begins engaging in profane verbal attacks rather than serious debate. At this point, the topic usually doesn’t matter anymore, only that the person who is being assaulted gets beat down. It would be similar to standing with someone, having a conversation and out of nowhere cold cocking the person in the face simply for disagreeing with them. Such an action will not further debate and will most certainly end it.

I personally wonder some times, if government got completely out of the way and we were left with true natural selection through survival of the fittest, if we might end up a more civil place. Without the protection from physical assault by the government, I wonder if everyone would be more inclined to keep a civil tongue during debate.

Still, I must say that I agree with you Larry, verbal profanity does have its place.

Also, you really should try to pick one of the scientific points of human life above so that we can challenge each other on the issue… Hopefully in a civil manner…

Here are some quotes from an essay by Reverend Dr. Forrest Church of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

“[…] While church and state are separate under the Constitution, religion and politics mix freely in our national life.
Religion will always have a place in our politics. Religious values are, or should be, moral values. They instruct both our activism and our votes. Yet, religion has thrived in America in large measure because the Government was prevented from corrupting its franchise. In England, for instance, where the Anglican Church fed at the government’s trough for centuries, next to nobody attends worship. The United States of America is the most religious western industrialized nation precisely because our religious institutions have maintained their moral independence and therefore their moral authority.
If church and state operate independently under U.S. charter, American democracy is nonetheless founded on a moral pediment. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence holds us (as it did him) under moral judgment: to guarantee liberty and justice for all.
So defined, there may be too little religion in today’s politics, not too much. Too little of the religion prescribed by the prophet Micah: “to do justice and love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” Too little of the religion taught by Rabbi Jesus, who summed up all the law and the prophets in two great commandments: “to love God with all your heart and mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself.” Too little of the religion as defined by Thomas Jefferson, who said, “It is in our lives and not in our words that our religion must be read.” – The Reverend Dr. Forrest Church, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, The Role of Religion in American Democracy

So you are merely visiting these churches to study them and gather information? That makes much more sense to me. You didn’t stick me as the type to have spiritual convictions.

I’m sorry if I confused you as a congregant at the First Unitarian Church. Their beliefs certainly seemed more in step with mine than yours.

Also… You can leave the post. Your response denying their teachings is enough for me.

Sometimes you can tell more about a person by what they don’t believe than by what they claim to believe.

Richard O.:

Any while you are at it, tell us what you think about the speech given by Jim Leach, former (R) congressman of Iowa.

If life begins at conception, abortion is simple murder. Even if the conception is not lawful, the conceived are innocent of that particular.

To use the precedence of the lifeboat analogy. If a pregnant persons life is in jeopardy, and life begins at conception, they will have to bear the risk, along with the baby. Can’t throw anyone out of the lifeboat just because you think it may sink. All life saving measures must be utilized no matter how slim the chances. Like the overloaded lifeboat at sea, but no one can be thrown off.

In the case of rape the right of the conceived person would prevail over any desires of the mother to abort. People have a right to life no matter how lowly or disapproved their origins are. I think the world cleared that up at Nuremburg.

These may not be my personal beliefs, but if life begins at conception, this where the current legal precedents will take us.

So in short, if you belief in life beginning at conception, under current legal standards, abortion implies ample premeditation, and that means all abortion whatever the circumstance, would be considered 1 degree murder in a hospital setting, 2nd degree if it was self inflicted with a coat hanger. Hmm, that could be a stretch, any sign the woman thought about for more than an hour would imply 1st degree murder.

A woman might argue temporary insanity, or self defense as the reason for her abortion, but last time I checked, a baby doesn’t qualify(yet) as a murder weapon.

Sure would make people hopefully think a bit more about having unprotected sex one would think

Richard O.:

My liberal friend, what did you think of Hillary’s speech tonight?

Huh??